X evidence to contradict context dep from baddeley 1997?
argues that context effects are not actually that strong especially in reallife
differentcontexts have to be very different before specific effect is seen
the difference is only valid in extreme circumstances meaning its difficult to generalise findings of research to reallife explanations of forgetting
X evidence to contradict context dep from baddeley 1980?
replicated his underwater experiment but used recognitiontest instead of recall
p had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from list
when tested performance was same in all 4 conditions
? internal
it suggests that the presence/absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in certain way thus cannot be applied to retrievalfailure in all situations
X evidence to suggest retrieval cues do not work?
could be suggested that info that you are learning is related alot more to "recall" than just cues
smith & vela2001 believe that context effects are largely eliminated when learningmeaningful material compared to material with nomeaning
suggests that if material we learn has "meaning" we do not require cues to allow us to recallsuccessfully
X evidence to contradict from nairne?
nairne2002 criticised what he calls "myth of the encoding retrieval match"
claims relationship between encoding cues & laterretrieval is correlation not causation
cannot establish cause & effect relationship between presence of cues & our ability to retrieve info
so absence of cues cannot be viewed as only reason for forgetting info
* practical applications?
research has suggested that can be used to improverecall when needed
abernethy1940 suggests you ought to revise in room where you will be taking exam
may be unrealistic but smith1979 showed that just "thinking of the room" where you did originallearning was just as effective as actually being in sameroom at time of retrieval
shows how with presence of context dep cues means you are lesslikely to forget