Explanation for Forgetting: Retrieval Failure Flashcards
What does the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) state?
A cue is helpful for retrieval only if it is present at both encoding (learning) and retrieval (recall). If cues differ or are absent, forgetting is more likely.
Who proposed the Encoding Specificity Principle and when?
Tulving in 1983.
What happens if encoding and retrieval cues do not match?
Retrieval failure occurs, leading to forgetting.
What are meaningful cues?
Cues that are encoded in a meaningful way during learning, such as using acronyms or keywords (e.g., “STM” triggering recall of short-term memory concepts).
What is context-dependent forgetting?
Forgetting that occurs when the external environment during recall differs from the environment during learning (e.g., weather or location).
What is state-dependent forgetting?
Forgetting that occurs when internal states (e.g., mood, drug influence) differ between learning and recall.
What was the aim of Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) diving experiment?
To test whether learning and recalling in the same or different environments (land vs. underwater) affected memory recall.
What were the four conditions in Godden and Baddeley’s study?
- Learn on land - recall on land
- Learn underwater - recall on land
- Learn on land - recall underwater
- Learn underwater - recall underwater
What did Godden and Baddeley (1975) find?
Recall was 40% lower in mismatched conditions, showing context-dependent forgetting due to retrieval failure.
What was the procedure in Carter and Cassaday’s (1998) study?
Participants took antihistamines (causing drowsiness), learned and recalled material under four conditions with or without the drug.
What were the four conditions in Carter and Cassaday’s study?
- Learn on drug - recall on drug
- Learn not on drug - recall on drug
- Learn on drug - recall not on drug
- Learn not on drug - recall not on drug
What did Carter and Cassaday (1998) find?
Recall was worse when internal states at learning and recall did not match, supporting state-dependent forgetting.
strength (1) of RETRIEVAL FAILURE
One strength is that retrieval cues can help to overcome some forgetting in everyday situations.
Although cues may not have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley suggests they are still worth paying attention to. For instance, we have probably all had the experience of being in one room and thinking I must go and get such-and-such item from another room. You go to the other room only to forget what it was you wanted. But the moment you go back to the first room, you remember again. When we have trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it first.
This shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall.
strength (2) of RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Another strength is the impressive range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation.
The studies by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday (facing page) are just two examples because they show that a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context-dependent and state-dependent forgetting in everyday life. Memory researchers Michael Eysenck and Mark Keane (2010) argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM.
This evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the lab.
limitation of RETRIEVAL FAILURE
One limitation is that context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested.
Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall - participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from a 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 suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall information rather than recognise it.
