explanations for forgetting; retrieval failure Flashcards
define retrieval failure
a form of forgetting, it occurs when we do not have the necessary cues to access memory. the memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided.
define cue
a trigger of information that allows us to access a memory. such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning. for example, may be external (environnmental context) or internal (mood or degree of drunkenness).
the encoding specificity principle
endel tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern to the findings. summarised as ESP.
what is the ESP?
if a cue is to help us recall info it has to be present at encoding and at retrieval. it follows from this that if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different, or if entirely absent at retrieval, there will be some forgetting.
context-dependent forgetting
a study by godden and baddeley (1975) investigated the effect of contextual cues. these researchers recruited scuba divers as participants and arranged for them to learn a set of words either on land or underwater. subsequently, they were tested either on land or underwater so there were again four expeirmental conditions.
findings of CD forgetting study
the results again showed that highest recall occured when the initial context matched the recall environment, eg learning on land and recalling on land.
state dependent forgetting
goodwin et al 1969 asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were either drunk or sober. the participants were asked to recall the lists after 24 hours when some were sober but others had to get drunk again.
findings of SD forgetting
the recall scores are shown in the graph on the right, suggesting that information learned when drunk is more available when in the same state later.
POINT + EVIDENCE
strength of retrieval failure
a strength of the retrieval failure explanation for forgetting lies in its capacity to explain interference effects.
Tulving and Psotka’s (1971) study, which employed word lists categorised into various groups, showcased that apparent interference effects stemmed from the absence of cues rather than true interference.
FINDINGS
strength of retrieval failure
their findings revealed that as participants were tasked with memorising more lists, their performance deteriorated, indicating retroactive interference. however, when provided with cues during recall, the interference effects vanished, with participants recalling approximately 70% of the words regardless of the number of lists learned.
EVALUATION
strength of retrieval failure
this illustrates that although the information remains available, its retrieval is hindered, emphasising the significance of retrieval failure in explaining forgetting over interference alone.
SUPPORTING POINT + EVIDENCE
strength of retrieval failure
an extensive body of research bolsters the retrieval failure hypothesis.
studies by Godden and Baddeley, as well as Goodwin et al offer additional empirical support. this empirical foundation enhances the validity of the retrieval failure explanation, particularly when considering its applicability in both laboratory settings and real-life contexts.
EVALUATION
strength of retrieval failure
the breadth of supporting evidence consolidates the credibility of the retrieval failure theory, strengthening its explanatory power in understanding forgetting phenomena.
POINT
limitation of retrieval failure
a critique of the retrieval failure explanation in psychology pertains to the nature of the relationship between encoding cues and subsequent retrieval.
EVIDENCE
limitation of retrieval failure
Nairne (2002) labels this as the ‘myth of the encoding-retrieval match,’ suggesting that the correlation observed may not necessarily imply causation.
similarly, Baddeley (1997) raises concerns regarding the testing of the encoding specificity principle, highlighting its inherent circularity.
