There is a lot of research support: including lab,field and natural experiments as well as anecdotal evidence (reports/obsevations) and thus has relevance to everyday memory experiences. This can be seen by Godden and Baddeley who found participants who learned a list of words in the one condition and had to recall it in the same conditon had 40% higher recollection then participants who mixed and matched conditions.
Research can be seen by the fact it made use of extreme situations: this can be seen by the fact contexts such as above or below water are more extreme then the cues seen in real life. This reduces the theory's face validity.
Essentially not testable: this can be seen by the fact if the recollection does increase due to cues, we say they were encoded, whereas if it doesn't we simple say the cue wasn't remembered. This means the theory is bases only of assumptions and no real evidence decreasing the validity.
Practical application: this can be seen by examples such police interviews where the police try and reinstate the context to increase what witnesses remember. It shows its usefullnes in the real world.
Comments
No comments have yet been made