explanation for forgetting: retrieval failure evaluation

Question 1

what does it mean when we say that the retrieval theory has supporting evidence/ research support

Answer 1

retrieval failure has an impressive range of research support as an explanation for forgetting
e.g. Carter and Cassaday
Godden and Baddeley

This is a strength because evidence increases the validity of an explanation. This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real - lie situations as well in the highly controlled conditions of the lab

Question 2

why is questioning context effects a limitation for the retrieval failure theory

Answer 2

Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong especially in real - life

This is because different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen
Furthermore, 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

Question 3

what is a counter- argument for “questioning context effect”

Answer 3

Even though context - related cues appear not to have a very effect on forgetting, Baddeley still suggests they are worth paying attention for instance:

• you might think to yourself “ I must go downstairs to get x item” you go downstairs and forget what item you were looking for but when you go back upstairs you remember again
• or when we are trying to remember something, it is often useful to remember the environment in which you learned it first. This means we can apply this explanation of forgetting in real - life

Question 4

why is real life application a strength

Answer 4

being able to apply an explanation of forgetting in real life is a strength because it gives us the opportunity to help people to remember things more accurately

e.g. help people perform better in exams, avoid age related memory loses, help police catch criminals

Question 5

what are the problems with the encoding specificity principle

Answer 5

ESP is not testable and leads to a form of circular reasoning

e.g. in experiments where a cue produces the successful recall of a word, we assume that the cue must have been encoded at the time of learning
If a cue does not result in successful recall of a word, then we assume that the cue was not encoded at the time if learning

These are just assumptions though

This is a limitation because there is a danger ESP does not actually explain anything as it is impossible to test assumptions

It is also a weakness of the ESP as circular arguments are not scientific