explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

• forgetting in LTM is mainly due to retrieval failure (lack of accessibility rather than availability), this is the failure to find an item of information because you have insufficient clues or cues
• the encoding specificity principle: Endel Tulving + Donald Thomson (1973) proposed that memory is most effective if information that was present at encoding is also available at the time of retrieval
• the encoding specificity principle: the encoding specificity principle further states that a cue doesn't have to be exactly right but the closer the cue is to the original item, the more useful it will be
• the encoding specificity principle: Tulving + Pearlstone (1966) demonstrated the value of retrieval cues in a study where participants had to learn 48 words belonging to 12 categories
• the encoding specificity principle: each word was presented as category + word e.g. fruit-apple, fruit-orange
• the encoding specificity principle: there were 2 different recall conditions
• the encoding specificity principle: participants either had to recall as many words as they could (free recall) or they were given cues in the form of the category names (cued recall)
• the encoding specificity principle: in the free recall condition 40% of words were recalled on average, whereas in the cued-recall condition participants recalled 60% of words
• the encoding specificity principle: this is evidence of cues that have been explicitly or implicitly encoded at the time of learning and have a meaningful link to the learning material
• the encoding specificity principle: there is another type of cue which is not related to the learning material in any meaningful way
• the encoding specificity principle: whenever any information is learned we also often remember where we were (environmental context) or how we felt (the emotional state at the time)
• the encoding specificity principle: this information is encoded to varying degrees along w/ the material learned, it is sometimes the case that being reminded of a particular place or mood can act as a trigger (or cue) to help access a memory
• context-dependent forgetting: one e.g. of context-dependent forgetting is a study of Ethel Abernethy (1940), she arranged for a group of students to be tested before a certain course began
• context-dependent forgetting: they were then tested each week, some students were tested in their teaching room by their usual instructor whereas others were tested by a different instructor
• context-dependent forgetting: others were tested in a different room either by their usual instructor or by a different one
• context-dependent forgetting: therefore there were 4 experimental conditions in this study
• context-dependent forgetting: those tested by the same instructor in the same room performed best
• context-dependent forgetting: presumably familiar things (room, instructor) acted as memory cues
• context-dependent forgetting: Abernethy also found that superior students were least affected by the changes + inferior students the most
• context-dependent forgetting: a study of Godden + Baddeley (1975) investigated the effect of contextual cues
• context-dependent forgetting: the researchers recruited scuba drivers as participants + arranged for them to learn a set of words either on land or underwater
• context-dependent forgetting: they were tested either on land or underwater so that there were again 4 experimental conditions
• context-dependent forgetting: the results again showed that highest recall occurred when the initial context matched the recall environment e.g. learning on land + recalling on land
• state-dependent forgetting: the mental state you are in at the time of learning can also act as a cue - state-dependent forgetting
• context-dependent forgetting: Goodwin et al (1969) asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were either drunk or sober (those in the drunk condition imbibed about 3 times the UK drink driving limit)
• context-dependent forgetting: the participants were asked to recall the lists after 24 hours when some were sober but others had to get drunk again (for experimental purposes)
• context-dependent forgetting: the recall scores suggest that information learned when drunk is more available when in the same state later
• evaluation S: due to alot of the evidence having relevance to everyday memory experiences the evidence has high ecological validity
• evaluation L: having said you could use cues to improve your exam performance, the reality is that this is not very effective, suggesting that while the use of retrieval cues can explain instances of everyday forgetting, they don't explain everything
• evaluation S: a strength of the retrieval failure explanation is its ability to explain interference effects
• evaluation S: an obvious application of this research is to use it to improve recall when you need to e.g. when your taking an exam, so this shows how research into retrieval failure can suggest strategies for improving recall in real-world situations e.g. taking an exam, giving an eyewitness testimony