Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure

Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure

1. the encoding specificity principle

   • forgetting in LTM mainly due to retrieval failure - failure to find info due to insufficient cues
   • Tulving & Thomson (1973)
     • idea that memory is most effective if info that was present at the time of encoding is also available at time of retrieval
       • encoding specificity principle (ECP)
   • Tulving & Pearlstone (1966)
     • participants recalled 40% of words in a free recall task
     • compared to 60% of words in a cued-recall task
   • retrieval cues could include environmental context and/or person's emotional/internal state

2. Context-dependent & state-dependent forgetting

   • context-dependent learning
     • Godden & Baddeley (1975)
       • recruited scuba divers & arranged for them to learn a list of words on land or underwater
       • divers then tested on land or underwater
       • highest recall when initial context matched the recall environment
   • state-dependent forgetting
     • Goodwin et al (1969)
       • asked male volunteers to remember list of words when drink or sober
       • participants then recalled list 24 hours after sober or had to get drunk again
       • highest recall when matched internal state

3. Evaluation

   • research support for retrieval failure
     • range of lab, field & natural experiments support retrieval failure
     • e.g. Tulving & Pearlston (1966) demonstrate power of retrieval cues & Godden & Baddely (1975) demonstrate importance of context-dependent learning
     • evidence has high relevance to memory experiences & therefore high ecological validity
   • application to everyday memory
     • Abernethy (1940) students recalled more info when tested in the same room with the same teacher, compared to different room with a different teacher
     • supports idea of context-dependent learning in everyday memory & suggests students should revise where they will take their exams
     • research provides strategy for students to enhance their memory & improve their exam results
   • retrieval cues - don't always work
     • most research participants are learning word lists, but everyday learning is more complex
     • e.g. learning about multi-store model requires complex associations that are not easily triggered by a single cue
     • retrieval cues are unable to explain all types of learning/forgetting
   • ECP - correlational relationship between encoding & retrieval
     • Nairne (2002) criticized what he calls the 'myth of the encoding-retrieval match' relationship is correlational not causal
     • cues do not use retrieval they are just associated with retrievalca
     • matters because a casual relationship between encoding & retrieval cannot be established
   • Retrieval failure explains interference effects
     • Tulving & Psotka (1971) when participants were given cued recall, effects of interference disappeared - remembered 70% of words regardless how many lists they'd been given
     • shows that info is there but cannot be retrieved due to interference, as retrieval cues improvement subsequent recall
     • demonstrates retrieval failure is a more important explanation of forgetting in comparison to interference