1. A01: Retrieval Failure definition, the encoding specificity principle
Tulving proposed a theory that memory works best if any information presented at the time
of encoding is also available at the time of retrieval. Tulving (1966) demonstrated this effect
in research where participants (pps) had to learn 48 words belonging to 12 categories. Free
recall condition - 40% of words were recalled, whereas in the cued-recall (category name)
the success rate was 60%. The results suggest that cues that have been explicitly or
implicitly encoded at the time of learning have a strong effect on later recall. This clearly
supports the powerful effect of retrieval cues in relation to memory suggesting that an
absence of appropriate cues is a strong explanation for forgetting.
A03: however, In the most of the research on cues, pps learn word lists but when meaningful
learning is taking place the effect the cues have on recall decreases. There are complex
associations that are less likely to be triggered by single cues. This has been called the
outshining hypothesis, when a cue's effectiveness is reduced by the presence of better cues.
This hypothesis undermines the retrieval hypothesis and suggest that while the absence
cues can explain some aspects of everyday forgetting, they don't explain everything.
2. Context - dependant forgetting
A01: A context-dependant cue is a type of cue which is not related to the learning material in
any meaningful way. Context-dependant forgetting suggests that being in a different place
might inhibit the memory.
A03: Abernathy (1940) Students tested before a course began. They were then tested each
week throughout the course. Some of the students were tested in the usual room, with their
usual teacher, whereas others were tested in a different room, or with a different teacher.
Familiar things (room, instructor) acted as memory cues; therefore, this study provides
support for the context-dependant cues. Real world applications. Students can develop
effective revision strategies for improving their recall during the exam. For example, they can
revise in the same room they will be taking their exams.
3. Limitation of the research into retrieval cues is that the relationship between
encoding cues and later retrieval is a correlation rather than cause. It is impossible to
draw conclusions based on correlational research. Baddeley made another criticism,
pointing out that the encoding specificity principle is impossible to test because it is circular.
The E.S..P states that if the right cue doesn't lead to retrieval than it can't have been
encoded in memory. However, you can never know if a person never knew the information or
the cue didn.t work. It is impossible to test for an item that hasn’t been encoded in memory,
so the encoding-specificity principle can't be proved. Therefore, we cannot say whether
better recall can be attributed to the presence of cues or they are just associated with
retrieval.
4. A strength of the retrieval failure explanation is its ability to explain interference
effect. Tulving demonstrated and that apparent interference effects are actually due to the
absence of cues. Pps were given 6 word lists divided into 6 categories. Free recall - the
more lists a pp had to learn, the worse their performance was, evidence for retroactive
interference. With cued recall, the effect of interference disappeared - they remembered
70% of the words regardless of how many lists they had been given. This shows that the
information is available but not accessible (cannot be retrieved) and provides evidence that
retrieval failure is a more powerful explanation for forgetting in LTM than interference.
Tulving proposed a theory that memory works best if any information presented at the time
of encoding is also available at the time of retrieval. Tulving (1966) demonstrated this effect
in research where participants (pps) had to learn 48 words belonging to 12 categories. Free
recall condition - 40% of words were recalled, whereas in the cued-recall (category name)
the success rate was 60%. The results suggest that cues that have been explicitly or
implicitly encoded at the time of learning have a strong effect on later recall. This clearly
supports the powerful effect of retrieval cues in relation to memory suggesting that an
absence of appropriate cues is a strong explanation for forgetting.
A03: however, In the most of the research on cues, pps learn word lists but when meaningful
learning is taking place the effect the cues have on recall decreases. There are complex
associations that are less likely to be triggered by single cues. This has been called the
outshining hypothesis, when a cue's effectiveness is reduced by the presence of better cues.
This hypothesis undermines the retrieval hypothesis and suggest that while the absence
cues can explain some aspects of everyday forgetting, they don't explain everything.
2. Context - dependant forgetting
A01: A context-dependant cue is a type of cue which is not related to the learning material in
any meaningful way. Context-dependant forgetting suggests that being in a different place
might inhibit the memory.
A03: Abernathy (1940) Students tested before a course began. They were then tested each
week throughout the course. Some of the students were tested in the usual room, with their
usual teacher, whereas others were tested in a different room, or with a different teacher.
Familiar things (room, instructor) acted as memory cues; therefore, this study provides
support for the context-dependant cues. Real world applications. Students can develop
effective revision strategies for improving their recall during the exam. For example, they can
revise in the same room they will be taking their exams.
3. Limitation of the research into retrieval cues is that the relationship between
encoding cues and later retrieval is a correlation rather than cause. It is impossible to
draw conclusions based on correlational research. Baddeley made another criticism,
pointing out that the encoding specificity principle is impossible to test because it is circular.
The E.S..P states that if the right cue doesn't lead to retrieval than it can't have been
encoded in memory. However, you can never know if a person never knew the information or
the cue didn.t work. It is impossible to test for an item that hasn’t been encoded in memory,
so the encoding-specificity principle can't be proved. Therefore, we cannot say whether
better recall can be attributed to the presence of cues or they are just associated with
retrieval.
4. A strength of the retrieval failure explanation is its ability to explain interference
effect. Tulving demonstrated and that apparent interference effects are actually due to the
absence of cues. Pps were given 6 word lists divided into 6 categories. Free recall - the
more lists a pp had to learn, the worse their performance was, evidence for retroactive
interference. With cued recall, the effect of interference disappeared - they remembered
70% of the words regardless of how many lists they had been given. This shows that the
information is available but not accessible (cannot be retrieved) and provides evidence that
retrieval failure is a more powerful explanation for forgetting in LTM than interference.
