Describe and evaluate retrieval failure for an explanation of forgetting.
Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting in the long-term memory occurs due to insufficient cues.
The memory is available but not accessible unless a cue is provided. A cue acts like a trigger that
allows us to access memory. Endel Tulving (1983) called this the ‘encoding specify principle’ which
states that if a cue helps us to recall information it must be present in encoding and retrieval, but if
the cue available at coding and retrieval differ there will be some forgetting. Tulving suggested that
memory recall is most effective when information present at the time of encoding is available during
retrieval. There are two main types of cue dependent forgetting, context dependent forgetting
(external-cue) and state dependent forgetting (internal cue).
Context dependent forgetting (external cue). Is when a retrieval cue may be based on context setting
or situation in which information is encoded and retrieved. For example, Abernethy (1970) got a
group of students to be tested before the certain course began. The students were tested each week
in one of the following conditions, same room same instructor, same room different instructor,
different room and same instructor and finally different room and different instructor. They found
those tested in the same room and instructor performed the best. This is because the room and
instructor were similar things, thus this acted as a cue.
State dependent forgetting (internal) is that depending on the mental state that you are in at the
time of encoding information it can also act as a cue. State dependent forgetting occurs when a
person internal mental state is different to when encoding information. For example, Goodwin et al
(1969) asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they are either drunk or sober. The
participants were then asked to recall the list after a 24hr period (either being drunk or sober)
depending on the condition. They found that information learnt when drunk is more available when
in the same state.
A strength of retrieval failure is that there is a range of supporting evidence for the explanation of
forgetting. For example, Michael Eysenck (2010) argued that retrieval failure is perhaps the main
reason for forgetting in the LTM. This is a strength because the evidence shows that retrieval failure
occurs in both real life situation as well as in highly controlled lab conditions. Therefore, this
increases the validity of retrieval failures explanation for forgetting as finding can be generalised to
real-life situations.
Another strength of retrieval failures is real-life application. Baddeley suggested despite context
related cues don’t appear to have a strong effect on forgetting they are still worth looking at. For
example, when you go downstairs to collect an item, but as soon as you get downstairs you happen
to forget what you came for. But the moment you go back up you remember again. This shows it’s
worth going back to the environment which you learned/ encoded the information in and try to
recall. Therefore, explanations of forgetting provided by retrieval failures is useful for real life
situations.
A limitation of retrieval failure is that the encoding specify principle is untestable making it less
scientific. For example, in an experiment if a cue produces successful recall of a word, we assume the
cue may have been encoded at the time of learning. But if a cue does not result in successful recall
of a word, then we assume the cue was not encoded at the time of learning. However, these are just
Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting in the long-term memory occurs due to insufficient cues.
The memory is available but not accessible unless a cue is provided. A cue acts like a trigger that
allows us to access memory. Endel Tulving (1983) called this the ‘encoding specify principle’ which
states that if a cue helps us to recall information it must be present in encoding and retrieval, but if
the cue available at coding and retrieval differ there will be some forgetting. Tulving suggested that
memory recall is most effective when information present at the time of encoding is available during
retrieval. There are two main types of cue dependent forgetting, context dependent forgetting
(external-cue) and state dependent forgetting (internal cue).
Context dependent forgetting (external cue). Is when a retrieval cue may be based on context setting
or situation in which information is encoded and retrieved. For example, Abernethy (1970) got a
group of students to be tested before the certain course began. The students were tested each week
in one of the following conditions, same room same instructor, same room different instructor,
different room and same instructor and finally different room and different instructor. They found
those tested in the same room and instructor performed the best. This is because the room and
instructor were similar things, thus this acted as a cue.
State dependent forgetting (internal) is that depending on the mental state that you are in at the
time of encoding information it can also act as a cue. State dependent forgetting occurs when a
person internal mental state is different to when encoding information. For example, Goodwin et al
(1969) asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they are either drunk or sober. The
participants were then asked to recall the list after a 24hr period (either being drunk or sober)
depending on the condition. They found that information learnt when drunk is more available when
in the same state.
A strength of retrieval failure is that there is a range of supporting evidence for the explanation of
forgetting. For example, Michael Eysenck (2010) argued that retrieval failure is perhaps the main
reason for forgetting in the LTM. This is a strength because the evidence shows that retrieval failure
occurs in both real life situation as well as in highly controlled lab conditions. Therefore, this
increases the validity of retrieval failures explanation for forgetting as finding can be generalised to
real-life situations.
Another strength of retrieval failures is real-life application. Baddeley suggested despite context
related cues don’t appear to have a strong effect on forgetting they are still worth looking at. For
example, when you go downstairs to collect an item, but as soon as you get downstairs you happen
to forget what you came for. But the moment you go back up you remember again. This shows it’s
worth going back to the environment which you learned/ encoded the information in and try to
recall. Therefore, explanations of forgetting provided by retrieval failures is useful for real life
situations.
A limitation of retrieval failure is that the encoding specify principle is untestable making it less
scientific. For example, in an experiment if a cue produces successful recall of a word, we assume the
cue may have been encoded at the time of learning. But if a cue does not result in successful recall
of a word, then we assume the cue was not encoded at the time of learning. However, these are just
