Explanations for Forgetting: Retrieval Failure

Question 1

Outline the encoding specificity principle

Answer 1

• Tulving and Thomson (1973) proposed memory is most effective if info present at encoding is also available at time of retrieval.
• The principle says that a cue doesn’t have to be exactly right but the closer the cue is to the original item, the more useful it will be

Question 2

Describe Tulving and Pearlstone’s study

Answer 2

• They showed the value of retrieval cues. Participants learnt 48 word in 12 categories. Each word was presented as category + word e.g. fruit-apple. They had to either recall as many as they could (free recall) or given cues in the form of category names (cued recall) (two conditions).
• In the free recall condition, 40% of words were recalled compared to 60% in the cued recall. This is evidence that cues are explicitly or implicitly encoded at the time of learning.
• There’s another type of cue not related to the learning material. We may remember the environmental context or the emotional state at the time. Being reminded of a place or mood may act as a cue to help access a memory

Question 3

Describe two studies on context-dependent forgetting

Answer 3

• Abernathy (1940) arranged tests for students each week. Some tested in their teaching room by their usual instructor, while others were tested by a different instructor. Others in a different room by either their usual instructor or by a different one (4 conditions). Those tested by the same instructor in the same room as familiar things acted as memory cues. Abernathy found that superior students were less affected by the changes and inferior students the most.
• Godden and Baddeley (1975) investigated the effect of contextual cues. They got scuba divers to learn a set of words on land or underwater. Then, were tested on land or underwater (4 conditions). Highest recall was when the initial context matched the recall environment

Question 4

Describe a study on state-dependent forgetting (emotional/mental state)

Answer 4

• Goodwin et al (1969) asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were drunk (given 3x the drink driving limit) or sober. They were asked to recall the lists after 24 hours when some were sober but others had to get drunk again.
• They found recall was higher for those in the state they were in when encoding matched the recall state

Question 5

Define context-dependent forgetting

Answer 5

A type of forgetting that occurs when the environment isn’t the same at the time of recall than it was at the time of encoding

Question 6

Define state-dependent forgetting

Answer 6

A type of forgetting that occurs when the state an individual is in is different at the time of recall than the state at the time of encoding

Question 7

Give evaluation for retrieval failure (evidence)

Answer 7

• Support for retrieval failure comes from a range of evidence. Carter and Cassaday gave participants antihistamine drug which them slightly drowsy, creating a difference in state. They had to learn a list of words then recall the info (4 conditions). In the conditions where there was a mismatch in states, recall was worse. So when cues are absent (being drowsy when learning) then forgetting is more likely
• Eysenck argued retrieval failure is powerful explanation. This evidence provides a strong argument for retrieval failure. Research was also conducted in a real life setting , which suggests it has high ecological validity.

Question 8

Give evaluation for retrieval failure (real-life application + counter)

Answer 8

• It has been used to improve recall for real-world situations. Abernathy’s research suggests that you should revise in the room where you will be taking the exam, which may be unrealistic. Smith (1979) showed that thinking of the room where you did the original encoding (mental reinstatement), was as effective as being in the same room at the time of retrieval. Another application of retrieval cues is in cognitive interview, using mental reinstatement. This shows how research into retrieval failure can suggest strategies to improve exams or giving eyewitness testimony
• However, Baddeley argues context effects aren’t strong, especially in real life. Different contexts have to be very different before the effect is seen. e.g. it would be hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater. In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling in another is unlikely to cause much forgetting as these environments aren’t different enough. This means real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.

Question 9

Give evaluation for retrieval failure (interference effects)

Answer 9

There is evidence that supports retrieval failure over interference as an explanation for forgetting. Tulving and Psotka (1971) demonstrated that interreference effects may be due to the absence of cues. Participants were given 6 word lists, each with 24 words and 6 categories. They were asked to list the words with no cue (free recall) it after being given the category names as cues (cued recall). The more lists they had to learn, the worse their performance became (retroactive interference). However in the cued recall condition, effects of interference disappeared, they remembered about 70% of words regardless of how many lists were given. This shows information is available but can’t be retrieved, making retrieval failure a powerful explanation.