forgetting: retrieval failure

• define retrieval failure.


  a form of forgetting. 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.
• define Cue


  A "trigger" of information that allows us to access a memory. Such cue may be meaningful or linked by being indirectly encoded by being learned at the same time. Indirect cues can be internal (mood or degree of drunkenness) or external (environmental context)
• define context-dependent cues.


  recall depends on external cues. e.g. weather or place
• define state-dependant forgetting.


  recall depends on internal cues. e.g. being drunk or the mood
• describe encoding specificity principle. {ESP}


  states that a cue (if its helpful) has to be 1( present at encoding, and 2) present at retrieval. It follows from this that if cues available at encoding and retrieval are different, there will be some forgetting.
• describe how can cues be encoded at same time of learning in a meaningful way.


  e.g. the cue "STM" may lead you to recall all sorts of information about short term memory. Such cuea are used in MNEUMONIC techniques.
• Who researched context-dependent forgetting and when?


  Godden and Baddeley 1975
• what was Godden's and Baddeley's procedure in research on context-dependent forgetting?


  studied deep-sea divers that work under water to see if training on land helped or hindered their work underwater. divers learnt a list of words either underwater or on land and then asked to recall the worse either on land/underwater. this created for groups: L+U, L+L, U+U, U+L.
• describe the findings of Godden and Baddeley's study.


  In 2 of the groups the environmental context of learning and retrieval was matched, in 2 it was unmatched. Accurate recall was 40% lower in unmatched groups than in matched groups. They concluded the external cues available at learning were different from ones available at recall, leading to retrieval failure..
• who researched state-dependent forgetting and when?


  1998, Carter +Cassaday
• How did Carter and Cassaday research state-dependent forgetting?


  Gave anti-histamine drugs to participants, which have a mild sedative effect, making the participant slightly drowsy. This creates an internal physiological state different to "normal" state of being awake and alert. Participants then learnt a list of words and recall it again in 4 conditions: Learn on D-recall D, Learn on D- recall no D, Learn no D- recall D, Learn no D- Recall no D.
• What were the findings of Cassaday and Carter's research on State-dependent forgetting?


  In conditions where internal state of learning and recall was mismatched, performance was significantly worse. So when cues were absent, e.g. learning the word list without the drug and then recalling on the antihistamine drug, there was more forgetting.
• describe a strength of retrieval cues. Real-life application


  they can help overcome forgetting in everyday situations. E.G. being in your room and thinking you need to get such and such thing, only to forget what you left your room to come get, and when you go back to your room again you remember. Baddeley therefore says when we have trouble remembering something it's worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learnt it.

  • suggests research can remind us of strategies to use in real-life to improve our recall
• describe a strength of retrieval failure explaining forgetting.


  range of research supports retrieval failure as a explanation to forgetting. E.G the studies by Godden + Baddeley, and Carter + Cassaday show a alack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context-dependent and state-dependant forgetting in everyday life. Memory researchers like Eysenck + Keane 2010 argue retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting from LTM.

  • evidence shows retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as well as highly controlled conditions of the lab.
• What is a counterpoint to the research support strengthening this explanation?


  Baddeley 1997 argues context effects aren't actually very strong, especially in everyday life. Different contexts would have to be very different before effects could be seen. E.G. it's hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater -Godden+Baddeley. In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting as environments generally aren't different enough.
• describe a limitation of retrieval failure explaining forgetting.


  context cues substantially depend on type of memory being tested. Godden + Baddeley 1980 replicated their underwater study but instead of recalling the words, they had the words read out to them and they had to recognise them. when recognition was tested there was no context-dependent effect, all 4 conditions performed the same.- suggests retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting as it applies only to recall, not recognition of information.
• What did jess Baker et al 2004 investigate?


  can chewing gum enhance memory?
• How did jess Baker et al 2004 investigate whether gum enhanced memory?


  students in 4 groups:

  • gum-gum (learnt word list and recall on gum)
  • gum-no gum(gum learning, no gum recalling)
  • no gum-no gum (learnt and recalled list without gum) CONTROL
  • no gum-gum(learnt no gum, recalled with gum)

  they learnt 15 word list in 2 mins; immediate recall had little differnce, but after 24 hrs recall avg no words recalled for g-g was 11, ng-g was 8.5.