Retrieval failure eval Flashcards
Problems with the ESP
On the one hand we have seen there is much research evidence confirming that forgetting occurs when there is a mismatch (or absence) of cues. For example this was shown in Godden and Baddeley’s study where recall was poorest when words were learnt underwater and recalled on land (and vice versa). The encoding specificity principle (ESP) makes it clear that the presence and absence of cues at encoding and retrieval determines how much forgetting takes place. So the research supports the ESP.
However, the validity of this evidence depends on whether we can determine if a cue has really been encoded or not. There is no independent way of establishing this. What happens instead is this. In experiments where a cue produces successful recall, we assume that the cue must have been encoded at the time of learning. If a cue does not produce successful recall, then we assume that the cue was not encoded at learning. But these are just assumptions and the reasoning is circular – the cue was not encoded because it did not produce recall; the cue did not produce recall because it was not encoded.
This means that the ESP is not scientifically testable. When we cannot independently measure the presence or absence of cues, we cannot conclude that forgetting is due to retrieval failure. This undermines the validity of the explanation.
Real-world application
One strength is that retrieval cues can help to overcome some forgetting in everyday situations.
Although cues may not have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley suggests they are still worth paying attention to. For instance, we have probably all had the experience of being in one room and thinking ‘I must go and get such-and-such item from another room. You go to the other room only to forget what it was you wanted. But the moment you go back to the first room, you remember again. When we have trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it first.
This shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall.
Research support
Another strength is the impressive range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation.
The studies b Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday (facing page) are just two exarles because they show that a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context-dependent and state-dependent forgetting in everyday life. Memory researchers Michael Eysenck and Mark Keane (2010) argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM.
This evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the lab.
Counterpoint Baddeley
Counterpoint Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in everyday life. Different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen. For example, it would be hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater (Godden and Baddeley). In contrast, 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.
This means that retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting.
Recall versus recognition
One limitation is that context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested.
Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall - participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves. When recognition was tested there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all four conditions.
This suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall information rather than recognise it
