AO3

• Support – range of lab, field and natural experiments to support retrieval failure = these have relevance to everyday memory experiences and thus has high ecological validity
• Real world application - To improve recall you should be in the same environment. Smith (1979) found just thinking of the room where you did the original learning was as effective as being in the same room. Used to improve eyewitness testimony
• Retrieval cues are not always effective - everyday learning is far more complex, e.g. learning about the MSM requires complex associations that are not easily triggered by a single cue = retrieval cues are unable to explain all types of learning
• Weakness - Problems with testing the encoding specificity principle (ESP) – Baddeley argues there is no way to independently establish whether or not the cue has really been encoded.
• Can explain interference effects – Tulving and Psotka (71) found participants remembered 70% of words when cued. This shows information is there (available) but cannot be retrieved due to interference, as retrieval cues improve subsequent recall = thus shows retrieval failure is a more important explanation