EFF: Retrieval Failure

• Why might we forget information?

  Insufficient cues - when information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time. If these cues are not avaliable at the time of recall, it may lead to retrieval failure (not being able to access memories that are there) and appears as if we have forgotton the information
• What kind of retrieval failures are there?

  Encoding specificity principle (ESP)

  Context - dependent forgetting

  State - dependent forgetting
• Who came up with ESP?

  Tulving (1983)
• What does ESP mean?

  Recall is better when the cues that were present when we learnt something are also present when we recall it, if the cues are absent or different there will be some forgetting. Some cues are linked to the material to be remembered in a meaningful way e.g. 'STM' makes you remember stuff about STM. Others are internal or external (neither meaningful)
• What is context - dependent forgetting?

  Recall takes place in a different environment from where the learning took place
• Who tested context - dependent forgetting?

  Godden & Baddeley (1975)
• What was the procedure of Baddeley and Godden's study?

  Divers learnt a list of words either underwater for on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land, creating 4 conditions
• What did Godden and Baddeley find?

  Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions (e.g land then water or vice versa). The external cues available at learning were different from the ones at recall and this lead to retrieval failure.
• What does state-dependent forgetting mean?

  Physical or psychological state different from when learning took place (internal cues)
• Who tested state-dependent forgetting?

  Carter and Cassaday (1998)
• What was the procedure of Carter and Cassaday's study?

  Participants were given anti-histamines which causes people to feel drowsy, creating an internal physiological state different from normal 'awake' or 'alert' state. They learnt a list of words either on the drugs or not then recalled the words either on drugs or not (4 conditions)
• What did Cassaday and Carter find?

  That when the internal states at learning and recall were different, performance on memory test was significantly worse. So when cues are absent (e.g drowsy when recalling info but were alert when learning it) there is more forgetting.
• Prospective memory refers to remembering to do something at some point in the future.
• The encoding specificity principle states that the retrieval cue must match the original context to retrieve information.
• State-dependent forgetting occurs when we cannot retrieve information due to changes in physiological state between encoding and retrieval.
• Context-dependent forgetting occurs when we cannot retrieve information due to differences between the context at encoding and the context at retrieval.
• Retrieval failure theory suggests that we fail to retrieve memories if our current state does not match the conditions during encoding.
• Retrieval failure is a form of forgetting. It 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.
• A cue is a 'trigger' of information that allows us to access a memory. Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the same time as learning. Indirect cues may be external (the environment) or internal (mood or degree of drunkenness).
• The reason people forget information may be due to a lack of sufficient cues. When information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time. If these cues are not available during recall, it may appear that you have forgotten the information but, in fact, this is due to retrieval failure - not being able to access memories that are there (available).
• 𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙊𝘿𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙎𝙋𝙀𝘾𝙄𝙁𝙄𝘾𝙄𝙏𝙔 𝙋𝙍𝙄𝙉𝘾𝙄𝙋𝙇𝙀:

  Tulving (1983)

  The ESP states that for a cue to be helpful it has to be both:

  • present at encoding
  • present at retrieval

  If the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different (or absent at retrieval) there will be some forgetting.

  Some cues are encoded at the time of learning in a meaningful way, e.g. the abbreviation STM may lead you to recall information about short-term memory.

  Other cues are not encoded in a meaningful way, such as context- and state-dependent cues.
• 𝙉𝙊𝙉-𝙈𝙀𝘼𝙉𝙄𝙉𝙂𝙁𝙐𝙇 𝘾𝙐𝙀𝙎:

  • Context-Dependent Forgetting: recall depends on external cues (e.g. weather or place)
  • State-Dependent Forgetting: recall depends on internal cues (mood or degree of drunkenness).
• 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝘼𝙍𝘾𝙃 𝙊𝙉 𝘾-𝘿 𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙂𝙀𝙏𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂:

  𝘗𝘙𝘖𝘊𝘌𝘋𝘜𝘙𝘌: Godden and Baddeley (1975) studied deep-sea divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped or hindered their underwater work. The divers learned and recalled lists of words in different contexts.

  1. learn on land - recall on land
  2. learn on land - recall underwater
  3. learn underwater - recall on land
  4. learn underwater - recall underwater

  𝘍𝘐𝘕𝘋𝘐𝘕𝘎𝘚: Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching context conditions. Because the external cues did not match at encoding and retrieval, forgetting occurred.
• 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝘼𝙍𝘾𝙃 𝙊𝙉 𝙎-𝘿 𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙂𝙀𝙏𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂:

  𝘗𝘙𝘖𝘊𝘌𝘋𝘜𝘙𝘌: Carter and Cassaday (1998) gave antihistamine drugs to participants, which had a mild sedative effect (drowsy = change in physiological state). They had to learn and recall lists of words.

  1. learn on drug - recall on drug
  2. learn on drug - recall no drug
  3. learn no drug - recall on drug
  4. learn no drug - recall no drug

  𝘍𝘐𝘕𝘋𝘐𝘕𝘎𝘚: A mismatch of internal state at learning and recall produced significantly worse performance. When the cue is absent (e.g. drowsy at encoding, alert at recall) forgetting occurs.
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎:

  1. real-world application (Baddeley)
  2. research support (G+B, C+C)
  3. counterpoint to research support (Baddeley)
  4. recall vs recognition (Godden and Baddeley)
  5. problems with the esp
• 𝟭. 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, leaving a room to retrieve something from another room, and forgetting what it is you wanted until you return to the first room. Recalling the environment present at encoding therefore aids recall.

  This shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall.
• 𝟮. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  Another strength is the impressive range of research supporting the retrieval failure explanation.

  The studies by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday are examples because they show that a lack of sufficient cues at recall causes state- and context-dependent forgetting in everyday life. Memory researchers Eysenck and Keane (2010) argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason that forgetting occurs in the LTM.

  This evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as the highly controlled conditions of the lab.
• 𝟯. 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are not actually very strong, especially in real life. Different contexts have to be very much so to have an effect.

  It would be hard to find a context as different from land as underwater (G+B). In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environment is generally not different enough.

  This means that retrieval failure due to a lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting.
• 𝟰. 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗩𝗦 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 recognise a word from a list instead of retrieving it themselves. Here there was no context-dependent forgetting; performance was the same in all four conditions.

  This suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies to instances of recall rather than recognition.
• 𝟱. 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗦 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗦𝗣:

  There is evidence that forgetting occurs when there is a mismatch of cues at encoding and retrieval (Tulving's ESP).

  However, is it possible to establish whether a cue has been encoded or not? The reasoning is circular and based on assumptions; if a cue did not produce recall we assume it cannot have been encoded, and vice versa.

  This means that the ESP is not scientifically testable. When we can't measure the presence/absence of cues, we can't conclude that forgetting is due to retrieval failure. This undermines the validity of the explanation.
• 𝙎𝙈𝙀𝙇𝙇 𝘼𝙎 𝘼 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙓𝙏𝙐𝘼𝙇 𝘾𝙐𝙀:

  Aggleton and Waskett (1999) conducted their study at the Jorvik Museum in the city of York. In Viking times (1000 years ago), York was called Jorvik and the ruins still exist under today's city. At the museum, the town has been reconstructed so you can travel back in time and experience what Jorvik was like - including the smells.

  The researchers found that recreating these smells helped people to recall details of their visit to the museum more accurately, even after several years.
• Describe retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting.

  Memories don't disappear; they are still in our mind but we have trouble accessing them due to lacking the right cue to trigger the recall of the memory.
• Describe Endel Tulving's encoding specificity principle:

  Cues available at recall need to be the same specific cues that were present at learning when the memory was first encoded.