Explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

• Two types of cues:

  • Cues which are linked meaningfully to the information to be remembered
  • Cues which are not linked meaningfully to the information to be remembered
• Context


  External cues encoded when learning information
• Mental state


  Internal cues encoded when learning information
• Encoding Specificity Principle

  The greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory
• Context-dependent forgetting

  Forgetting that occurs when the environment during recall is different from the environment you were in when you were learning
• State-dependent forgetting

  Forgetting that occurs when your mood or physiological state during recall is different from the mood you were in when you were learning
• The Cue-dependent forgetting theory explains forgetting in the LTM as a retrieval failure: the information is stored in the LTM but cannot be accessed. Forgetting according to this theory is due to lack of cues.  
• The Cue-dependent forgetting theory proposes that when we learn the information we also encode the context (external cues) in which we learn the information and the mental state we are in (internal cues). These can act as cues to recall.
• There are two types of cue dependent forgetting: Context-dependent and State-dependent forgetting.
• Godden and Baddeley 

  • Aim: investigated the effect of environment on recall.  
  • Procedure: 18 divers were asked to learn word lists

  4 conditions:

  Learn on beach- recall on beach

  Learn on beach- recall under water

  Learn under water- recall on beach

  Learn under water- recall under water 

  • Results: Recall was better when the participants learnt and recall in the same environment (beach: 13.5 and water: 11.4)
  • Conclusion: the results support context-dependent forgetting, as recall was worse when participants learnt and recalled in different environments
• Carter and Cassaday

  • Aim: investigated the effect of mental state on recall using anti-histamine drugs.
  • Procedure: The drugs had a mild sedative effect making the participants drowsy. The participants had to learn a list of words and a passage of prose and then recall the information.
  • There were 4 conditions: Learn on drug - recall when on it, Learn not on drug - recall when on it, Learn on it - recall when not on it, Learn not on it - recall when not on it
  • Findings: where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance was worse.
• A strength of retrieval failure as a theory for forgetting is its supporting evidence. There are a lot of research studies providing evidence for retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting. This is a strength because more supporting evidence increases the validity of an explanation - evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs both in real life situations (Godden and Baddeley) and in controlled conditions (Carter and Cassaday) e.g a lab.
• A strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is it’s real-life application. Its ideas are used as a strategy to improve recall in eye-witness testimonies. For example, eyewitnesses are asked to describe context of incident and/or their mental state in cognitive interviews to get them to recall more information. This strengthens this theory as it has proven useful in real life.
• A weakness of retrieval failure as explanation for forgetting is that context effects have been questioned. Baddeley (1997) argued that context effects aren’t very strong in real life. In order to see an actual effect in retrieval failure the contexts have to be very different and that it is very hard to do. This is a limitation as it questions the validity of context-dependent forgetting.
• A weakness of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is the “Recall vs Recognition” debate. Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater study with a recognition test instead of a recall test. There was no context-dependent effect and performance was the same in all four conditions. The test didn’t require any recall. This is a limitation of context effects as it suggests that the presence/absence of cue only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.