Describe and evaluate one explanation for forgetting – retrieval failure
One explanation for forgetting is retrieval failure (the lack of accessibility rather than
availability). This is when you are unable to retrieve a memory due to the lack of cues or
clues.
The encoding specificity principle, established by Tulving and Thompson (1973), states that
memory is most effective if the information that is present at the time of encoding is also
present at the time of retrieval. While the cues don’t have to be exact, it has been implied
that the more similar the cue is, the more accurate retrieval will be. Tulving and Pearlstone
(1966) executed a study where participants were asked to learn a list of 48 words presented
with the 12 categories they each belonged to (e.g. flowers: daisy, pansy, tulip, rose). One
group of participants had to recall as many words as possible from free recall (names of
categories were not presented). The remaining participants had to recall as many words as
possible when the categories were presented to them. On average, 40% of words were
recalled through the free recall condition whereas 60% of words were recalled in the cue
condition. This study provides evidence to imply that cues have been have either been
implicitly or explicitly encoded at the time of learning, therefore supporting the ES principle
that memory is more effective when presented with cues i.e. the categories from the word
lists.
Context-dependant retrieval suggests that people are more likely to remember things more
effectively if they returned to the place in which they learned it. Godden and Baddeley
(1975) investigated the relationship between learning and retrieval environments.
Participants were asked to learn a list of 40 words either on land or underwater. They were
then asked to recall the words in the same or different locations. They found that those who
learned and recalled words in the same location were able to remember more words,
approximately 12.5 words on average. The findings conclusively supported the ES principle,
demonstrating that information about the environment is encoded along with the words.
The participants that recalled words in the same location benefitted from retrieval cues,
alluding to why their recall was more accurate than those that recalled in a different
location. Abernethy (1940) arranged for a group of students to be tested before a certain
course began. They were then tested each week. There were four experimental conditions.
Some students were tested in a teaching room by their usual instructor or a different
instructor. Others were tested in a different room by their usual instructor or a different
instructor. The familiar surroundings and instructor acted as memory cues. Abernethy found
that superior students were least affected by the changes and the inferior students the
most. This, therefore, reflects the insinuation that context affects recall. And, because it is a
real-life study, it can also be applied to how context can affect our recall in real life. However,
Baddeley questioned whether the contexts were different enough to fully support context-
dependant forgetting. He argued that the context can’t be that important because in reality,
it where we learn information isn’t massively different from each other. Therefore, we
cannot confirm that context affects recall.
State-dependant forgetting suggests that the state you are in at the time of learning can act
as a cue when returning to that state at the time of recall. Goodwin et al (1969) asked a
group of male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were drunk or sober. After
One explanation for forgetting is retrieval failure (the lack of accessibility rather than
availability). This is when you are unable to retrieve a memory due to the lack of cues or
clues.
The encoding specificity principle, established by Tulving and Thompson (1973), states that
memory is most effective if the information that is present at the time of encoding is also
present at the time of retrieval. While the cues don’t have to be exact, it has been implied
that the more similar the cue is, the more accurate retrieval will be. Tulving and Pearlstone
(1966) executed a study where participants were asked to learn a list of 48 words presented
with the 12 categories they each belonged to (e.g. flowers: daisy, pansy, tulip, rose). One
group of participants had to recall as many words as possible from free recall (names of
categories were not presented). The remaining participants had to recall as many words as
possible when the categories were presented to them. On average, 40% of words were
recalled through the free recall condition whereas 60% of words were recalled in the cue
condition. This study provides evidence to imply that cues have been have either been
implicitly or explicitly encoded at the time of learning, therefore supporting the ES principle
that memory is more effective when presented with cues i.e. the categories from the word
lists.
Context-dependant retrieval suggests that people are more likely to remember things more
effectively if they returned to the place in which they learned it. Godden and Baddeley
(1975) investigated the relationship between learning and retrieval environments.
Participants were asked to learn a list of 40 words either on land or underwater. They were
then asked to recall the words in the same or different locations. They found that those who
learned and recalled words in the same location were able to remember more words,
approximately 12.5 words on average. The findings conclusively supported the ES principle,
demonstrating that information about the environment is encoded along with the words.
The participants that recalled words in the same location benefitted from retrieval cues,
alluding to why their recall was more accurate than those that recalled in a different
location. Abernethy (1940) arranged for a group of students to be tested before a certain
course began. They were then tested each week. There were four experimental conditions.
Some students were tested in a teaching room by their usual instructor or a different
instructor. Others were tested in a different room by their usual instructor or a different
instructor. The familiar surroundings and instructor acted as memory cues. Abernethy found
that superior students were least affected by the changes and the inferior students the
most. This, therefore, reflects the insinuation that context affects recall. And, because it is a
real-life study, it can also be applied to how context can affect our recall in real life. However,
Baddeley questioned whether the contexts were different enough to fully support context-
dependant forgetting. He argued that the context can’t be that important because in reality,
it where we learn information isn’t massively different from each other. Therefore, we
cannot confirm that context affects recall.
State-dependant forgetting suggests that the state you are in at the time of learning can act
as a cue when returning to that state at the time of recall. Goodwin et al (1969) asked a
group of male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were drunk or sober. After
