Retrieval Failure

Question 1

what’s the main idea then?

Answer 1

• we can’t remember info in LTM because it’s inaccessible
• it’s still stored there, but the cues needed to retrieve it are unavailable/insufficient
• for a memory to be accessed again, a cue is needed!

Question 2

WHAT THE HELL IS THE ENCODING SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE??!!?!

Answer 2

TULVIG & THOMSON (1973)
memory recall is most effective if the cues present at encoding (learning) are also present at retrieval (recall)

Question 3

and what does this magical encoding specificity principle suggest, may i ask????

Answer 3

that the cue doesn’t need to be exactly the same, but the closer the cue to the original item when initially encoded, the more likely you’ll remember info

Question 4

TULVIG & PEARLSTONE

Answer 4

1966
- 48 words from 12 categories - recall improved 40-60% when a category was given (eg fruit is apple)

Question 5

types of cues

Answer 5

context (setting) & state (mood/feeling)

Question 6

context research examples

Answer 6

ABERNETHY (1940)
students perform better in the same room with the same instructor
GODDEN & BADDELEY (1975)
scuba divers perform better when back in the same recall environment

Question 7

state research examples

Answer 7

GOODWIN (1969)
- males asked to recall words either drunk or sober
- gender bias = applicable to women?
EICH ET AL (1975)
- heavy marijuana users able to recall more words when learning under the same psychological condition
GOODWIN ET AL (1969)
- when drunk people hid money they were unlikely to find it sober
- when drunk again, they often found it

Question 8

EVALUATION = positives

Answer 8

+ Lots of research support
+ Application = revising for exams, helps to revise where you’ll be sitting them (imagining the room could work SMITH 1979)
+ The Cognitive interview
+ TULVIG & PSOTKA (1971)
- revisited his earlier category work - found evidence of interference BUT when given cues, recall was 70% regardless of how many lists given so retrieval could be better than interference

Question 9

EVALUATION = negatives

Answer 9

– retrieval cues don’t always work = SMITH & VELA (2001) effect doesn’t exist for meaningful memories with complex associations - can’t explain everything
– danger of circularity = can’t be proven & relationship between encoding cues & later retrieval are correlational not causal