Retrieval failure

• Retrieval failure due to absence of cues

  Forgetting occurs when information is available in the LTM but isn't accessible. Accessibility depends in large part on retrieval cues.

  
  

  When information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time.

  
  

  If these cues are not avalaible at the time of recall, it may appear that you have forgotten the information, but this is, in fact, due to retrieval failure - not being able to access memories that are there.
• Encoding specificity principle

  Tulving reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern to the findings. He summarised this pattern in which he called the encoding specificity principle.

  
  

  This states that a cue (if i is going to be helpful) has to be both

  1) present at encoding

  2) present at retrieval

  So, it follows that if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different, or if cues are entirely absent at retrieval, there will be some forgetting.
• Non-meaningful cues

  These are cues which are encoded at the time of learning, but not in a meaningful way - indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.

  
  

  There are 2 examples of non-meaningful cues:

  1) Context-dependent forgetting - recall depends on external cue (eg: weather or place)

  2) State-dependent forgetting - recall depends on internal cue (eg: emotional state)
• Context-dependent forgetting


  External cues in the environment

  
  

  Evidence indicates that retrieval is more likely when the context ad encoding matches the context at retrieval.
• State-dependent forgetting


  Recall will be best when a person's physical or psychological state is similar at encoding and retrieval.

  
  

  For example, bodily cues may be - physical, emotional mood, drunk etc...
• Organization


  Recall is improved if the organisation gives a structure that provides triggers - eg: categories.

  
  

  This was demonstrated by Tulving and Pstoka.
• Godden and Baddeley (1975) - procedure


  They studied 18 pp's who were part of a university diving club.

  
  

  There were 4 conditions:

  
  

  1) learn on land - recall on land

  2) learn on land - recall underwater

  3) learn underwater - recall on land

  4) learn underwater - recall underwater

  
  

  The experiment was a repeated measures design with each pp taking part in all 4 conditions, over 4 separate days.

  
  

  In all 4 conditions, pp's were presented with 38 words, which they heard twice. They were then instructed to recall as many as they could.
• Godden and Baddeley (1975) - findings


  In 2 of these conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in the other 2 they didn't.

  
  

  Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.

  
  

  They concluded that external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall and that this led to retrieval failure: demonstrating context-dependent forgetting.
• Godden and Baddeley (1975) - conclusions


  From this, it's reasonable to conclude that the environmental cues (context) improved recall.
• Limitations with the diver study:

  Godden and Baddeley didn't control many other variables. The divers took part in the study at different times of the day and at different diving locations.

  
  

  Therefore, each diver would've experienced different contextual cues, which may have affected their memory.

  
  

  So, we're unable to conclude that the results are due to the on land/underwater conditions, or are due to another contextual cue provided by the different time of day or diving location.

  
  

  Also, the context examined in their study is extreme, and so arguably can't provide judicious insight into context-dependent forgetting in real life scenarios.
• Carter and Cassaday


  State dependent forgetting. Given anti histamine drugs. Lists of words. Given drug or not.

  
  

  Antihistamine drugs - sedating effect, can make the individual feel drowsy, not as alert as usual - providing a comparison to everyday non drug-induced behaviour.

  
  

  Pp's had to learn a list of words and parts of a text, and then recall the info at a later point.

  
  

  4 conditions

  1) learn words/text after taking antihistamine, recall after taking antihistamine

  2) learn words/text after taking antihistamine, recall without antihistamine

  3) learn words/text without antihistamine, recall without antihistamine

  4) learn words/text without antihistamine, recall after taking antihistamine
• Carter and Cassaday - findings

  In conditions where the learning and recalling physiological state of pp's matched, memory was improved.

  
  

  This demonstrates the power of 'state' on recalling information - when the physiological/emotional cues that are present at the time of encoding are missing at the time of retrieval, state-dependent forgetting is likely to occur.
• A03 - Real-world application (P)


  This theory is supported by real-world application in the cognitive interview.
• A03 - real world application (E)

  The cognitive interview includes the component 'mentally reinstate context' - which has been shown to aid recall and increase accuracy of EWT.
• A03 - Real-world application (E)

  It must be recognised that this theory has still been helpful to forensic and police work as it helps facilitate recall from eye witnesses.

  
  

  Smith says that simply imagining the context learning took place in can be enough to cue recall.
• A03 - Real-world application (L)


  This means the theory has had real world practical application - reminding us of strategies we can use in the real world to improve recall.
• A03 - Research vs recognition (P)


  One limitation is that context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested.
• A03 - Research vs recognition (E)

  Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall - participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.
• A03 - Research vs recognition (E)

  When recognition was tested, there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all 4 conditions.
• A03 - Research vs recognition (L)

  This suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it may only explain forgetting for some types of memory, tested in specific ways, under certain conditions.

  
  

  This further suggests that the findings from studies of retrieval failure have poor generalisability.
• A03 - Tulving and Pstoka (P)


  Support for the retrieval failure explanation of forgetting is presented by Tulving and Pstoka - who showed how the presence of cues can overcome the effects of interference.
• A03 - Tulving and Pstoka (E)


  Pp's in their study were given 5 lists of 24 words to learn.

  
  

  Each word could be placed in one of 6 categories - which weren't explicitly states but were assumed to be obvious.
• A03 - Tulving and Pstoka (E)


  Recall was about 70% for the first word list, but this fell as pp's were given an additional list to learn.

  
  

  However, at the end, they were given a cued recall test. They were told the names of the categories. Recall rose again to about 70%.
• A03 - Tulving and Pstoka (L)


  This suggests that information is available - and so hasn't suffered from interference - but it isn't accessible (without a cue)