Memory- retrieval failure

Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)
1. Tulving, 1983
2. A cue must be present at both encoding and recall
Context-dependent forgetting
1. External cues
2. Godden and Baddeley, 1975
3. Studied deep sea divers recall of a word list
  1. Learning: on land
    1. Recall: on land
      1. Best
  2. Learning: on land
    1. Recall: in sea
  3. Learning: in sea
    1. Recall: in sea
  4. Learning: in sea
    1. Recall: on land
      1. Best
  5. In the two conditions in which context of learning and recall was the same, recall was better
    1. Accuracy was 40% worse in non-matching conditions
      1. Lead to retrieval failure
State-dependent forgetting
1. Carter and Cassaday, 1998
2. Internal cues
3. Studied effects of anti-histamines on recall of a word list
  1. Recall: on drug
    1. Learning: on drug
  2. Recall: not on drug
    1. Learning: on drug
  3. Recall: not on drug
    1. Learning: not on drug
  4. Recall: on drug
    1. Learning: not on drug
  5. Anti-histamines cause drowsiness
    1. Matching internal states caused better recall
Evaluation
1. Supporting evidence
  1. Godden+ Baddeley
  2. Carter+ Cassaday
  3. Increased validity
    1. Especially because retrieval failure is shown to occur in real life situations
2. Context effects not very strong
  1. Contexts have to be very different for any effect to be seen
  2. Not a full explanation
3. May only affect recall, not recognition
  1. Baddeley and Godden replicated their study, but the divers had to say if they recognised the word read to them
    1. Performance was the same in all 4 condition
4. ESP can't be tested
  1. Circular arguments aren't scientific
  2. Based on assumptions
5. Real life application
  1. Going upstairs, forgetting reason, going downstairs and remembering

Nächster

Memory- retrieval failure

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Grace Fawcitt vor fast 7 Jahre