2.4: Retrieval failure theory (cue-dependent forgetting) Flashcards
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks)
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory’
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
Example
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness)
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
Example
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
Who is this further supported by?
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
Why is this a strength of the retrieval failure explanation for forgetting?
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
Why is this especially true?
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact,
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
Example
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
Why is this a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting?
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
Why is this?
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Although context-related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests that they are worth paying attention to and focusing on
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Although context-related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests that they are worth paying attention to and focusing on.
Example
For example, many people have experienced the tip of the tongue phenomenon, whereby you think to do something such as collecting an item from a room, but when you go into that room, you forget why you came into that room
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Although context-related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests that they are worth paying attention to and focusing on.
For example, many people have experienced the tip of the tongue phenomenon, whereby you think to do something such as collecting an item from a room, but when you go into that room, you forget why you came into that room.
What does this show?
This shows that when we are struggling to remember something, it is worth making the effort to try and recall the environment in which you learned it first
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Although context-related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests that they are worth paying attention to and focusing on.
For example, many people have experienced the tip of the tongue phenomenon, whereby you think to do something such as collecting an item from a room, but when you go into that room, you forget why you came into that room.
This shows that when we are struggling to remember something, it is worth making the effort to try and recall the environment in which you learned it first.
This is in fact a basic principle of the cognitive interview, a method of getting eyewitnesses to crimes to recall more information
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
Retrieval failure is when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that an impressive range of research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
For example, Godden and Baddeley carried out a study of deep sea divers working underwater. Divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (creating four conditions).
In two of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two conditions, they did not.
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
This is further supported by Carter and Cassaday (1998), who gave antihistamines to their participants which had a mild sedative effect, making them slightly drowsy.
This created an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
The participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, creating four conditions again.
In the conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state at learning and at recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse, so when the cues are absent (you are drowsy when recalling information, but were alert while learning it for example), there is more forgetting.
This is a strength of retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, because it suggests that it is a well-founded explanation for forgetting.
This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations, as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the laboratory.
In fact, one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010), goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM, highlighting its validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life.
Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be difficult to find an environment as different from land as underwater.
In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting, because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that The context effect may be related to the kind of memory of tested.
This is because Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of recall, meaning that participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from the list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions.
This is a further limitation of context effects and thus retrieval failure, because it means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Although context-related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests that they are worth paying attention to and focusing on.
For example, many people have experienced the tip of the tongue phenomenon, whereby you think to do something such as collecting an item from a room, but when you go into that room, you forget why you came into that room.
This shows that when we are struggling to remember something, it is worth making the effort to try and recall the environment in which you learned it first.
This is in fact a basic principle of the cognitive interview, a method of getting eyewitnesses to crimes to recall more information.
What does this do?
This highlights how retrieval failure has useful real world application
