theories of forgetting-retrieval failure Flashcards
introduction
The reason people forget information may be because of insufficient cues. 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 appear as if you have forgotten the information but, in fact, this is due to retrieval failure
- not being able to access memories that are there (i.e. available).
encoding specificity principle
Endel Tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern to the findings. He summarised this pattern in what he called the encoding specificity principle (ESP). This states that a cue if it is going to be helpful) has to be both (1) present at encoding (when we learn the material) and (2) present at retrieval (when we are recalling it). It follows from this that if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different (or if cues are entirely absent at retrieval) there will be some forgetting.
Some cues are encoded at the time of learning in a meaningful way. For example, the cue ‘STM’ may lead you to recall all sorts of information about short-term memory. Such cues are used in many mnemonic techniques (see page 223).
Other cues are also encoded at the time of learning but not in a meaningful way. We will consider two examples of non-meaningful cues:
• Context-dependent forgetting - recall depends on external cue (e.g. weather or a place).
• State-dependent forgetting - recall depends on internal cue (eg. feeling upset, being drunk).
context dependent forgetting
recall depends on external cues such as the weather, location, sights, sounds etc.
state dependent forgetting
recall depends on internal cues such as the how you are feeling at the time, or experiencing a change in internal state such as being drunk.
Godden and Baddeley
Procedure Duncan Godden and Alan Baddeley (1975) studied deep-sea divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped or hindered their work underwater. The divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land.
This created four conditions:
• Learn on land - recall on land.
• Learn on land - recall underwater.
• Learn underwater - recall on land
• Learn underwater - recall underwater.
Findings and conclusions In two of these conditions the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other two they did not. Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions. They concluded that the external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall and this led to retrieval failure.
Carter and Cassaday
Procedure Sara Carter and Helen Cassaday (1998) gave antihistamine drugs (for treating hay fever) to their participants. The antihistamines 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. The participants had to learn lists of words and passages of prose and then recall the information, again creating four conditions:
• Learn on drug - recall when on drug.
• Learn on drug - recall when not on drug.
• Learn not on drug - recall when not on drug.
• Learn not on drug - recall when on drug.
Findings In the conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse. So when the cues are absent (for example, you are drowsy when recalling information but had been alert learning it) then there is more forgetting.
strength-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.
strength-research support
Another strength is the impressive range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation.
The studies by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday (tacing page) are just two examples 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 to research support
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.
limitation-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.
