A strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is that it as research support
that makes it more valid. Godden and Baddeley studied the impact of context (an external
cue) on forgetting. They asked divers to learn a list in certain conditions such as on land or
underwater, then asked them to recall them in different conditions. In their findings, they
noticed that accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching contextual conditions. These
findings indicate that the presence of a contextual cue makes a significant impact on how an
individual remembers information.
However, Baddeley also argued that the effects of context aren’t actually very strong and
that the contexts need to be very different in order to determine the success of a cue. As well
as this, he suggested that learning something in one room and recalling in another is likely to
have any significant difference in forgetting. This suggests that retrieval failure due to a lack
of contextual cues may not actually explain everyday forgetting.
As well as this, it is suggested that the context effect may be related to the kind of memory
being tested. When Godden and Baddeley repeated their diver study but with a recognition
test rather than recall, where participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to
them from the list. When this was tested - they found there was no context-dependent effect
- and performance was the same in all conditions. This is a useful limitation as the repeated
study cannot provide very strong support for retrieval failure theory as the situation tested in
may not be generalised to all situations. Furthermore, this suggests that the explanation isn’t
a completely valid explanation of forgetting
To conclude - retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is a good start on explaining
the effect of different conditions on forgetting, however, the research support wasn’t detailed
enough to fully support the idea, and therefore it has more limitations than it does strengths.
that makes it more valid. Godden and Baddeley studied the impact of context (an external
cue) on forgetting. They asked divers to learn a list in certain conditions such as on land or
underwater, then asked them to recall them in different conditions. In their findings, they
noticed that accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching contextual conditions. These
findings indicate that the presence of a contextual cue makes a significant impact on how an
individual remembers information.
However, Baddeley also argued that the effects of context aren’t actually very strong and
that the contexts need to be very different in order to determine the success of a cue. As well
as this, he suggested that learning something in one room and recalling in another is likely to
have any significant difference in forgetting. This suggests that retrieval failure due to a lack
of contextual cues may not actually explain everyday forgetting.
As well as this, it is suggested that the context effect may be related to the kind of memory
being tested. When Godden and Baddeley repeated their diver study but with a recognition
test rather than recall, where participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to
them from the list. When this was tested - they found there was no context-dependent effect
- and performance was the same in all conditions. This is a useful limitation as the repeated
study cannot provide very strong support for retrieval failure theory as the situation tested in
may not be generalised to all situations. Furthermore, this suggests that the explanation isn’t
a completely valid explanation of forgetting
To conclude - retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is a good start on explaining
the effect of different conditions on forgetting, however, the research support wasn’t detailed
enough to fully support the idea, and therefore it has more limitations than it does strengths.
