Explanation of Forgetting - Retrieval failure due to absence of cues Flashcards
What is retrieval failure due to absence of cues
This theory argues that the information is often stored in the LTM but cannot be retrieved due to lack of cues. When information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time. These cues are often then needed to trigger the memory Forgetting in LTM is usually down to retrieval failure (lack of accessibility, rather than availability)
What is encoding specificity principle
The encoding specificity principle (Tulving, 1983) suggests that cues will help retrieval if the same cues are present at coding (when we learn the material) and retrieval (when we recall it). The closer the retrieval cue to the original cue, the more effective the cue in triggering the memory. There are two types of cues which support the ESP these are:
- Cues which are linked meaningfully to the information to be remembered .e.g. the cue ‘STM’ may help you remember lots of information relevant to STM.
- Cues which are not linked meaningfully to the information to be remembered but nevertheless may relate to the context in which the learning occurs .e.g. weather (external cues – also known as context- dependent) in which we learn the information and the mental state we are in (internal cues – also known as state-dependent). These cues are not meaningfully linked to the memory but still act as cues to recall.
Explain research supporting the role of the encoding specificity principle in improving recall
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) got participants to recall 48 words that belonged to one of 12 categories. As each word was presented it was preceded by its category (cue): Gem: sapphire, Gem: diamond, Gem: ruby.
Results: If the cue was then present at recall (gem) then overall recall for the 48 words was 60%. If the cue was not present then recall fell to 40%.
Conclusion: Retrieval of information stored in LTM is far better when there are cues to trigger the memory – supporting the idea of the encoding specificity principle
What is context dependent forgetting
Context-dependent forgetting can occur when the environment during recall is different from the environment you were in when you were learning.
Context dependent forgetting in terms of retrieval failure is argues that we forget the information because the context (environment) that we learned the information in, was different to the context (environment) when you had to remember the information. Therefore the absence of the correct cue (the environment ) lead you to not remember or recall the information. A study to support context dependent forgetting was carried out by Abernerthy
Explain Abernathy study
Arranged for a group of students to be tested prior to a certain course beginning. They were then tested weekly but arranged in four different groups.
- These students tested in their same teaching room with the same instructor
- Students tested in their same teaching room but with different instructors.
- Students were tested in different rooms but with the same instructor.
- Students were tested in different rooms with different instructors.
Abernathy study results
Those tested by the same instructor in the same room (group 1)performed best presumably because the familiar things (instructor and room) acted as memory cues. In other words, the context (the room and the instructor) were the same for learning and recall. However, Abernethy also found that ‘able’ students were least affected by the changes and the less ‘able’ students were the most affected
Context dependent forgetting study - godden and baddeley
Procedure:
18 divers from a diving club were asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words of two or three syllables and then recall them.
Each diver had to participate in 4 conditions:
a. Learn on beach recall on beach
b. Learn on beach recall under water
c. Learn under water recall on beach
d. Learn under water recall under water
Godden and baddeley results
Table to show mean recall scores of the unrelated words in the different conditions
Recall/learn in beach - 13.5
Recall/learn underwater - 11.4
Recall on beach and learn underwater - 8.5
Recall underwater and learn beach - 8.6
Recall was better when the environment in which they learnt and recalled the information matched and poorer when they did not match. For example, the mean recall score is highest when the divers learned and recalled on the beach followed by when the divers learned and recalled underwater – this shows that the cues such as the context (environment) played a strong part in their recall. However, those divers who were asked to learn on the beach but recall underwater did not perform well because the context for learning and recalling was different.
Conclusion
When external cues available at the time of learning were different to the ones at recall this led to retrieval failure due to lack of cues. This shows context-dependent forgetting because information was forgotten when context at recall did not match context at learning.
Godden and baddeley evaluation
1) Baddeley- argues such context effects may not be very strong in real life. He argued contexts generally must be very different before context effect is seen (.e.g. underwater/on land) and this rarely happens in real life (normally the differences in contexts are only small .e.g. two different classrooms) This suggests lack of contextual cues may not commonly explain forgetting in real life.
2) However, Abernerthy’s study did prove that normal real life contexts (e.g. classrooms) did prove that the context was an important cue in remembering information.
3) Context dependent forgetting may also depend on type of memory being tested. When Godden and Baddeley repeated their underwater experiment was repeated but instead of free recall of words participants were just asked if they recognized words read to them. When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all four conditions. This suggests that retrieval failure due to absence of (context) cues only applies when a person has to recall information rather than recognize it.
What is state dependent forgetting
State-dependent forgetting occurs when your mood or physiological state during recall is different from the mood you were in when you were learning.
State dependent forgetting argues that retrieval failure is due to the absence of the same state of mind at learning and recalling. In other words, your state of mind was different when you were learning the information and different when you were recalling the information and this is the reason why you failed to remember. For example, you may have been drunk when you had to learn the information but sober when you recalled the information – this means that the cue (feeling drunk) was not there when you recalled the information thus retrieval failure happened.
Evidence for state dependent forgetting
Evidence for state-dependent forgetting comes from Carter and Cassaday (1998)
Method: They gave participants anti-histamines – drugs for controlling their hay fever (making them feel slightly drowsy).
Participants had to learn lists of words and passages of information and then recall.
There were 4 groups: in 2 group’s internal state when remembering and recalling matched (both situations- taken drug or not taken drug) in other 2, internal state mismatched (only taken drug in one situation).
Group 1 – had to learn when on the drug and recall when on the drug (thus the cue of being drowsy - the psychological state was the same on learning and recall)
Group 2 – had to learn when not on the drug but recall when on the drug (thus the cue of being drowsy on learning was not the same on recall)
Group 3 – had to learn and recall when not on the drug
Group 4 – had to learn when not on the drug but recall when on the drug
Carter and cassaday results and conclusion
Results: Participants recalled best when their internal state matched learning and recall (e.g. when being drowsy or not drowsy) - in other words, group 1 (learning and recall on the drug) and group 3 (learning and recall when not on the drug) performed best. However, when there was a mismatch on the internal state (under the influence of drug in one condition but not the other) - performance on memory test was worse.
Conclusion: When internal cues are absent (in this case- internal state of drowsiness or alertness) forgetting is more likely.
Strengths of retrieval failure explanation of forgetting
• There is a range of research (both controlled lab studies and real-life situations) that shows retrieval failure due to absence of cues (both state and context) is a major explanation for forgetting. For example, Godden and Baddeley’s study shows that the context is an important cue when remembering information – the divers who had learned and recalled underwater remembered more than the divers who learned on land but recalled under water.
Furthermore, another study to support state dependent forgetting was by Goodwin et al. (1969) who asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were either drunk (this was three times above the UK drink driving limit) or sober. The pps were asked to recall the lists after 24 hours when some were sober and others had to get drunk again (for experimental purposes). The findings showed that those pps who had learned the words whilst under the influence were more likely to remember the words in that same state. This study provides further support for state dependent forgetting. Therefore such a wide range of supporting evidence suggests that retrieval failure due to absence of cues is valid explanation of forgetting.
• The concept of context-dependent cues and state dependent cues has real-life applications. It suggests remembering the context or your internal state in which you encoded the memory may improve memory recall as was shown in Carter and Cassaday’s study and Godden and Baddeley’s study. Both these principles (context and state) are used in the Cognitive Interview- witnesses ask to recall context of scene (‘context reinstatement’) to help memory recall. This suggests that research into forgetting is successful in real life application.
Weakness of retrieval failure explanation of forgetting
• Retrieval cues do not always work since our learning is related to a lot more than just cues – also many of the research studies carried out, tend to focus on word lists or passages – this lacks ecological validity since we are not just learners at school but we are learning throughout our lifetime thus most studies lack realism and do not give an overall picture of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
• Furthermore, it is actually very difficult to test the encoding specificity principle since we don’t know what cues are meaningful to individuals and how they are encoded during learning – e.g. you can’t prove exactly what cues enhanced learning since you are not able to analyze people’s minds at the time of learning
