Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure

Created by

Olivia P

Cards (11)

Lack of cues can cause retrieval failure
when information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time.
if these cues are not available at the time of recall, you might not be able to access memories that are actually there.
encoding specificity principle
tulving suggested that cues help retrieval if the same cues are present at encoding (i.e. 'coding', when we learn the material) and at retrieval (when we are recalling it).
the closer the retrieval cue to the original cue, the better the cue works.
some cues have meaning linked to the memory
some cues are linked to the material-to-be-remembered in a meaningful way. for example, the cue 'STM' may lead you to recall all sorts of information about short-term memory.
some cues have no meaningful link
other cues are encoded at the time of learning but not in a meaningful way:
context-dependent forgetting: when memory retrieval is dependent on an external/environmental cue (e.g. the weather or a place)
state-dependent forgetting: when memory retrieval is dependent on an internal cue, state of mind (e.g. feeling upset, being drunk)
procedure of godden and baddeley: context-dependent forgetting
cues were the context where learning and recall took place- on land or underwater
deep-sea divers learned word lists and were later asked to recall them
what were the four conditions in godden and baddeley's deep-sea diver study?
learn on land- recall on land
learn on land- recall underwater
learn underwater- recall on land
learn underwater- recall underwater
findings & conclusions of godden and baddeley: context-dependent forgetting
when the environmental contexts of learning and recall did not match, accurate recall was 40% lower than when they did match
when the external cues available at learning were different from the ones at recall, this led to retrieval failure due to lack of cues
this study demonstrates context-dependent forgetting because information was not accessible when context at recall did not match context at learning.
limitation of retrieval failure theory: context effects not actually very strong in real life
baddeley argued that different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen (e.g. on land versus underwater). learning something in one room and recalling in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environments are not different enough. so the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don't actually explain much forgetting.
limitation of retrieval failure theory: ESP cannot be tested and leads to circular reasoning
when a cue produces successful recall of a word, we assume the cue must have been present at the time of learning. if a cue doesn't result in successful recall, then we assume that the cue was not encoded at the time of learning. but there is no way to independently establish whether or not the cue has really been encoded.
strength of context-related cues
people often report experiences where they go to a different room to get something, forget what they wanted when they arrive to that new room, but when they return to the original room they remember again. the application is that when we have trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to revisit the environment in which you first experienced it. this is a basic principle of the cognitive interview, a method of getting eyewitnesses to recall more information about crimes by using a technique called 'context reinstatement'
strength: evidential support
an impressive range of evidence supports this explanation of forgetting. for example, godden and baddeley's research with deep sea divers. in fact, eysenck goes so far as to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting in LTM. supporting evidence increases the validity of an explanation, especially when conducted in real-life situations as well as the highly controlled conditions of the lab