Explanations for Forgetting: Retrieval Failure

Question 1

Retrieval Failure:

Answer 1

A form of forgetting. It occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues to access memory. The memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided.

Question 2

Cue:

Answer 2

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. Cues may be external or internal (mood or degree of drunkenness).

Question 3

How do cues work?

Answer 3

When information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time. If these cues are not available at the time of recall, it may make it appear as if you have forgotten the information

Question 4

Encoding Specificity Principle: (ESP)

Answer 4

1. Endel Tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern.
2. He called this ESP.
3. If a cue is to help us to recall information it has to be present at encoding and retrieval are different, there will be some forgetting.
4. There are 2 types of forgetting.

Question 5

Context-Depending Forgetting: Procedure

Answer 5

1. Duncan Godden and Alan Baddeley (1975) carried out a study on deep-sea divers working underwater.
2. Divers had to remember instructions given before diving about their work underwater.
3. Divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land and were then asked to recall the words in the other conditions.

Question 6

Godden and Alan Baddeley (1975): Findings

Answer 6

1. In 2 of these conditions the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other 2 they did not.
2. Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
3. The external cues available at learning were different from the ones and this led to retrieval failure.

Question 7

State-Dependent Forgetting: Procedure

Answer 7

1. Carter and Cassaday (1998) gave anti-histamine drugs to their participants.
2. This had a mild sedative effect making the participants slightly drowsy. This creates an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert.
3. The participants had to learn lists of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, again creating 4 conditions.

Question 8

Carter and Cassaday (1998): Findings

Answer 8

1. A mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse.
2. So when the cues are absent there is more forgetting.

Question 9

E: Supporting Evidence

Answer 9

1. An impressive range of research supports the retrieval failure explanation for forgetting, studies by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday are just 2 examples of this research.
2. One prominent memory resracher, Eysenck (2010) goes as far to argue that retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting from LTM.
3. Increases validity, especially when research shows that retrieval failure happens in real life as well as in highly controlled lab conditions .

Question 10

E: Questioning Context Effects

Answer 10

1. Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are not very strong especially in real life. Different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen.
2. Learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because these environments are not different enough.
3. Real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual clues do not explain much.

Question 11

E: Recall vs Recognition

Answer 11

1. The context effect may be related to the kind of memory being tested.
2. Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their experiment but used recognition of the word instead of recall.
3. When recognition was tested there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all 4 conditions.
4. Presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.

Question 12

E: Problem with the ESP

Answer 12

1. It cannot be tested and leads to a form of circular reasoning.
2. In experiments where a cue, does result in the successful recall of a word, we assume it must have been encoded at the time of learning.
3. When the cue does not result in the successful recall of a word, then we assume that the cue was not encoded at the time of learning.
4. These are assumptions there is no way to independently establish whether or not the cue has been coded.