retrieval failure

• Tulving and Thomson proposed that memory is most effective if information that was present at encoding is also available at time of retrieval. The cue doesn’t have to be exactly right, but the closer to the original one, the better the recall. Tulving and Pearlstone demonstrated this in a study where pt had to learn 48 words in 12 categories. Each category was presented as category+ word eg fruit-apple. Pt either had free recall or cued recall and tried to recall as many words as possible. Free recall produced 40% words recalled on average compared to 60% from the cued recall.
• This suggests that the memories have been encoded to a cue at the time of learning. When info is learned, we often remember where we were (environmental) and how we felt (emotional) involved to the information learnt. A place can be used as a cue for memories. A test for context-dependent forgetting was by Abernethy. Students were tested each week. Some did the test in the same room by usual instructor, whereas others tested in a different room with same or different instructor (so there were 4 variations tested). Those tested by the same instructor in the same room performed best overall.
• . There is also state-dependent forgetting which was studied by Goodwin. They asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were either drunk or sober. They then had to either recall the words when they were drunk or sober, either the same condition as before or different so again, there were 4 variations. 24 after they learnt the lists, the recalled the lists. The conditions with the highest recall was when it was learnt in the same state as recalled (sober and sober or drunk and drunk).
• A strength of this research is that it can be used in real life application.

  For example, it gives information about how to recall memories, such as when you’re in an exam. For example, researchers say you ought to revise the material in the room you will sit your exam. This may be unrealistic, however imagining the room you revised in may help recall. It also applies to the cognitive interview which helps to improve eye witness testimony.

  This shows that the research into retrieval failure is useful for many reasons so it can be applied to real life situations.
• However, the reality is that this isn’t completely effective.

  This issue is that sometimes the information is much more than just the cues. For example, complex research on Milgrims study of obedience is a lot less likely to be triggered by a single cue. Smith and Vela says that context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material.

  This suggests that while the use of retrieval cues can explain instances of everyday forgetting, they don’t explain everything.
• A limitation of this research that it is said to be a correlation rather than a cause.

  Baddeley said that the encoding specificity principle is impossible to test due to it being circular. If a stimulus leads to the retrieval of a memory then it must have been encoded in memory. If it doesn’t lead to the retrieval of a memory, then it hasn’t been encoded in memory. It is impossible to test of it has been encoded in memory so can never be proved.

  This suggests therefore that cues don’t cause retrieval but are just associated with retrieval.
• A strength of retrieval failure is that it explains interference effects.

  Pt were given 6 different word lists to learn, each with 24 words in 6 categories. Cued and free recall were tested. When more lists were learnt (retroactive interference then plays a part) the recall reduces, however if there are cues, this effect seems to disappear and remembered about 70% no matter how many lists were given.

  This shows that information is available to the brain, it just wasn’t able to be retrieved and therefore retrieval failure is more important than interference.