Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure

?

Encoding specificity principle

Tulving + Thomson (1973) - memory most effect if info present at encoding also available at time of retrieval. ESP further states cue doesn't have to be exactly right, but closer cue to original, more useful.

Tulving + Pearlstone (1966) - value of retrieval cues. Participants learn 48 words in 12 categories. Each word presented as category + word eg fruit-apple. 2 diff recall conditions. 1) recall as many words as could (free recall), 2) given cues (category names - cued recall). Free recall - 40% recall. Cued recall - 60% recall - evidence cues encoded at time of learning have link to learning material.

Another type of cue - not related to learning material. When info learned, also remember where we are (environmental context) or how we felt (emotional state). Info encoded to varying degrees along w/ material learned. Sometimes case that being reminded of place/mood acts as cue to help access memory.

1 of 5

Context-dependent forgetting

Abernethy (1940) - group of students tested before certain course began. Tested each week - some in teaching room by usual instructor, others by diff instructor. Others in diff room w/ usual instructor, others diff instructor. Tested in same room by same instructor - best performance. Familiar things acted as memory cues. Also found superior students least affected by changes + inferior students most.

Godden + Baddeley (1975) - scuba divers learned set of words either on land or underwater. Tested either on land or underwater. Highest recall - initial context matched recall environment.

2 of 5

State-dependent forgetting

Mental state in at time of learning - cue. 

Goodwin et al (1969) - male volunteers to remember list of words when drunk or sober (drunk condition - 3x UK legal drink driving limit). Asked to recall lists after 24 hours - some sober, others had to get drunk again. Recall scores suggests info learned when drunk more available when in same state after. But, sober at learning + sober at recall - highest performance.

3 of 5

Evaluation - Strengths

A lot of research support. Includes lab, field + natural experiments as well as anecdotal evidence - relevance to everyday memory experiences.

Real world app - Abernethy's research suggest ought to revise in room you'll be taking exams in. May be unrealistic, but can use imaginative to achieve this. Smith (1979) - just thinking of room where did original learning (mental reinstatement) as effective as being in same room at time of retrieval.

Tulving + Psotka (1971) - apparent interference effects due to absence of cues. Participants 6 diff word lists to learn, 24 words on each, 6 diff categories. After each list presented, asked to write down as many words as could remember (free recall), or given category names + then asked to recall (cued recall). Some only learned 1 list, others more. According to interference theory, more lists learned, worse performance - what Tulving + Psotka found - evidence of retroactive interference. When given cued recall, effects of interference disappeared - rememberd about 70% regardless of how many lists. Shows info available, but can't be retrieved - shows how retrieval failure more important than interference.

4 of 5

Evaluation - Weaknesses

Retrieval cues don't always work - info learned related to more than cues. Most of research on context effects, learning word lists, but when learning, learning about complex associations less easily triggered by single cues - outshining hypothesis - a cue's effectiveness reduced by presence of better cues. Smith + Vela (2001) - context effects largely eliminated when learning meaningful material.

Danger of circularity - Nairne (2002) - criticised 'myth of encoding - retrieval match'. Claims relationship b/ween encoding cues + later retrieval is correlation rather than cause - cues don't cause retrieval, just associated w/ retrieval. Baddeley (1997) - ESP impossible to test b/c circular. If stimulus -> retrieval, must have been encoded in memory. If doesn't, according to ESP, can't have been encoded. But impossible to test for item not encoded in memory - cannot be proved.

5 of 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »