retrieval failure evaluation

Question 1

name an evaluation point

Answer 1

Retrieval failure explains interference effects:
Tulving and Pstoka in 1971 found that retrieval failure explains interference
They conducted a study on participants of which they learnt 6 words which consisted of 24 words broken down into 6 categories
Participants were asked to perform free recall or be given cues in the form of categories
As the participants learnt more words, retrieval became worse which was evidence of retroactive interference
However, when given cues, the improved and remembered 70% of words
This shows that retrieval failure is linked to cues as well as interference.

Question 2

Name a second evaluation point

Answer 2

Retrieval cues do not always work:
The outshining hypothesis states that the effectiveness of cue is reduced when a better cue is present
Sam and velva in 2001 argued that the value of cues is eliminated when learning meaning materia
When learning take place, contrary to the various experiments and studies that showcase participants only learning word lists, we are learning meaningful and complex associations therefore cues may not be that useful in helping us to remember
This shows that the theory of retrieval failure which is dependent on cues may not be that useful as an explanation for forgetting.

Question 3

name a third evaluation point

Answer 3

Real world application:
Albernthy’s findings suggest that when it comes to exams, it is better to learn in the same place in which you will be taking the exams. However, this may not be always be useful
Though Smith in 1974/75 1979 argues that if you imagine the place in which you are taking the exam, this practice should still work
This shows that retrieval failure has high ecological validity as we can apply findings to real life situations

Question 4

name a 4th evaluation point

Answer 4

One limitation is that context may be related to the kind of memory being tested. Godsend and Baddely replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall (participants had to say whether they recognised a word to them from a word list instead of retrieving it themselves). When recognition was tested there was no context dependent effect the performance was the same in all conditions this suggests the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way