explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

• retrieval failure due to the absence of cues

  • lack of cues can cause retrieval failure - when information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time. if the cues are not available at the time of recall, you might not be able to access memories that are actually there
  • encoding specificity principle (EPS) - Tuvling (1983) suggested cues help retrieval if the same cues are present at encoding (when we learn the material) + retrieval (when we recall it). the closer the retrieval cue to the original cue, the better the cue works
• retrieval failure due to the absence of cues

  • some cues have meaning linked to the memory - for example the cue 'stm' may lead you to recall all sorts of info about short-term memory
  • some cues have no meaningful link - other cues are also included at the time of learning but not in a meaningful way:

  -context dependent forgetting: when memory retrieval is dependent on an external/environmental cue (weather or place)

  -state-dependent forgetting: when memory retrieval is dependent on an internal cue, state of mind (feeling upset, being drunk)
• key study: Godden + Baddely (1975) context-dependent forgetting


  procedure: cues were the contexts where learning + recall took place - on land or underwater

  deep-sea drivers learned word lists + were later asked to recall them

  • group1: learn on land - recall on land
  • group2: learn on land - recall underwater
  • group3: learn underwater - recall on land
  • group4: learn underwater - recall underwater
• key study: Godden + Baddely (1975) context-dependent forgetting


  findings: when the environmental contexts of learning + recall didn't match (i.e conditions 2 + 3) accurate recall was 40% lower than they. did match (conditions 1+4). 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 didn't match context at learning
• strength - evidence supports it

  for example, godden + baddely's research with deep sea divers. 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
• limitation - context effects are not very strong in real life

  Baddeley (1966) argued that different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen. learning something in one room + recalling it 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 for forgetting
• strength - context-related cues have useful everyday applications


  people often report these experiences : they were upstairs + went downstairs to get an item but forgot what they came downstairs for. but when they go back upstairs, they remember again. the application is that when we have trouble remembering something, it's probably worth making an effort to revisit the environment in which you first experienced it. this is a basic principle of the cognitive interview, getting the eyewitness to recall more information about crimes by using 'context reinstatement'