Retrieval Failure

• what is one reason why people may forget info?

  • due to insufficient cues.
  • when info is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time.
• what is forgetting in the LTM usually due to?

  retrieval failure = lack of accessibility rather than availability.

  failure to find an item of info because you have insufficient cues.
• encoding specificity principle (ESP)

  tulving (1983):

  • research into retrieval failure, found a consistent pattern to findings, summarising pattern in what he called the ESP.
  • this states that if a cue is to help us recall info then it has to be present at encoding (learning of info) and retrieval (recalling it).
  • if cues available at encoding and retrieval are different/cues are absent, there will be some forgetting.
  • some cues are linked to material (to be remembered) in a meaningful way.
  • other cues are encoded at time of learning, but NOT in a meaningful way.
• what are the 2 types of cues?

  • external cues- context dependent learning.
  • internal cues- state-dependent learning.
• what is context-dependent learning/forgetting?

  • if there is a diff environment (external cue) at learning (encoding) than there is at recall (retrieval), then there will be forgetting as there is an absence of external cues.
  • (essentially this is classical conditioning).
  • external cues are things like time of day, weather, room.
• what did abernethy (1940) do? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • arranged for a group of students to be tested prior to a certain course beginning. tested weekly.

  conditions:

  • some students tested in teaching room w/ same instructor.
  • some in same room but diff instructor.
  • some in diff room w/ same instructor.
  • some in diff room w/ diff instructor.
• what were the results of abernethy (1940)? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • those tested by same instructor in the same room performed the best.
  • having a diff room and instructor at learning and retrieving led to an absence of external cues and therefore forgetting.
• what did godden and baddely (1975) do? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • carried out a study of deep-sea divers underwater.
  • divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then asked to recall words either underwater or on land.

  conditions:

  • group 1- learn on land, recall on water
  • group 2- learn on land, recall underwater
  • group 3- learn underwater, recall on water
  • group 4- learn underwater, recall underwater
• what are some weaknesses of godden and baddeley (1975)? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • not a lab exp, can't control internal cues, e.g. mood
  • learning underwater has a time limit (oxygen) so diff to learning on land.
  • lacks some ecological validity.
• what is state-dependent forgetting/learning?


  • learning something when our level of intoxication, emotional & physiological state is different at encoding than at retrieval.
  • this is because there is an absence of internal cues.
  • (essentially classical conditioning)
• what did carter and cassaday (1998) find? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • looked at the effect of anti-histimines. gave them to p's. had a mild sedative effect, making p's slightly drowsy, creating a diff internal physiological state from being awake and alert.
  • p's then had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall info.

  conditions:

  • group 1- learn on the drug, recall when on it
  • group 2- learn on the drug, recall when not on it
  • group 3- learn not on the drug, recall when on it
  • group 4- learn not on the drug, recall when not on it
• what were the findings of carter and cassaday (1998) and how is it evidence for retrieval failure?

  • conditions that were mismatched between internal state at learning and recall performed sig. worse on memory test.
  • therefore when info is learnt (encoded) at diff internal cue (level of intoxication/physiological state) to recall (retrieval) then we are more likely to forget.
• what were the findings of godden and baddely (1975), and how does it provide evidence for retrieval failure and esp?

  accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions. these findings support context-dependent forgetting:

  • recall was less accurate in non-matching conditions (diff external cues at encoding/retrieval) therefore supporting context-dependent forgetting.
  • can also be used to support idea of ESP as in the non-matching conditions the cues available at encoding & retrieval were diff therefore forgetting is higher.
• what did overton (1972) find and how does it provide evidence for retrieval failure?

  • asked p's to learn material either drunk or sober.
  • found that p's recall was worse when recalling in a diff state then when they originally learnt the material.
  • provides evidence as it suggests that if we have diff states (level of intoxication) when encoding info/retrieving it then forgetting will be higher.
• what did miles and hardman (1998) find and how does it provide evidence for retrieval failure?

  • found that people who learned a list of words while exercising on an exercise bike, remembered them better when exercising, rather than at rest.
  • diff physiological states at learning (encoding) vs at retrieval (recalling) will mean higher levels of forgetting.
• what is a weakness of carter and cassady (1998)? (evidence for retrieval failure)

  • p's may have built up immunity to drug = a participant variable.
• why is retrieval failure a better explanation of forgetting than interference?

  • it's shown that interference does cause forgetting, but only when the stimulus is paired w/ two diff responses.
  • the conditions are rare in everyday life, therefore interference only explains a limited range of forgetting.
  • not the most important explanation for forgetting.
• what did tulving and psota (1971) do? (weakness of interference theory)

  • p's given 6 diff word lists to remember; consisting of 24 words divided into 6 categories.
  • after each list was presented, p's asked to write down as many words as they could remember (free recall).
  • after lists were presented, there was final total free recall (of all the lists they had learned).
  • then the p's were given the category names and again asked to recall all the words from all the lists (cued recall).
  • some p's only learned one list, some two, etc.
• what were the findings of tulving and psota (1971) and how do they show the weakness of interference theory?

  • found evidence of interference theory- the more lists p's had to learn, the worse performance became.
  • HOWEVER, when p's were given cued recall, the effects of interference disappeared.
  • p's remembered about 70% of the words they were given, regardless of how many lists given.
  • this suggests that interference individually, can only explain a limited range of forgetting.
• what are some strengths of retrieval failure? (evaluation)

  • real world applications- e.g. empirical evidence, revision techniques, etc.
  • use of lab exps- control over extraneous variables, can establish cause & effect. replicable = high reliability.
• what are some weaknesses of retrieval failure? (evaluation)

  • alt explanations- e.g. trace decay: if you don't rehearse a memory over time, it will fade away from STM. if not accessed it can also fade from LTM.
  • artificial- use of lab exps lack ecological validity, can't be generalised to real-life situations.
  • recall vs recognition- context effect may be related to kind of memory tested. godden and baddeley (1975): replicated their research but used recognition test instead of recall. when recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all conditions.