AQA A Level Psychology复习笔记2.3.2 Retrieval Failure: Cue & State Dependent

• This is a type of forgetting that occurs in long-term memory (LTM)

What is cue-dependent retrieval failure?

• It is caused by the absence of cues and so technically it has not left the LTM but cannot be accessed
• Think about it this way: Imagine you have a very large and messy wardrobe
• If you just fling your jumper into it one night, then chances are you will struggle to find it again
• This is like your memory; something has been stored poorly and it is hard to recall/retrieve it as a result
• An example of this is you cannot remember where you left your keys when your friend reminds you that it was raining earlier and you had a coat on
• That mention of the coat could be the trigger for you to recall you left the keys in your coat pocket

Studies into cue-dependent retrieval failure

• Tulving et al (1978) asked participants to learn six word lists
• All the words were divided into categories (animals, items of furniture)
• In the first condition the participants were not told the categories of the words
• In the second condition participants were told about the categories
• It was found that recall was higher when participants knew the categories in advance
• The presence of the cues (condition 2) had recall rates of 70% compared to 50% in condition 2
• But this study lacks ecological validity
• This is supported by Baddeley and Godden’s study on deep sea divers

What is state-dependent retrieval failure?

• People find it easier to recall information if they are in the same emotional and/or physical state as they were when they originally learnt it
• If a person tries to recall something they learnt when they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then they may struggle
• However, if they try to recall it when they are under the same influences, the recall may be easier

Studies into state-dependent retrieval failure

• Goodwin et al (1975) asked 48 male medical students to learn a list of words either drunk or sober
• They were then asked to recall the words 24 hours later
• This was either in the same condition: Drunk on both occasions/sober on both days
• Or they were asked o recall the words in the opposite state i.e. drunk on learning so sober on recall or sober on learning so drunk for the recall
• It was found that information learnt when drunk was more easily accessed the next day if drunk again
• When the state was different the next day (drunk to sober, sober to drunk) then recall was shown to be the worst  of the 4 groups

Evaluation of the study

• Is it ethical to ask participants to get drunk?
• Participants may have had demand characteristics as they could easily work out the aim of the study
• But it is highly reliable and easy to repeat

Evaluation of retrieval failure

• This theory has huge practical applications
• It can be applied to a range of real-life situations: Sitting for an exam, remembering what to buy in the supermarket, recalling people’s names
• For example: In an exam, you could use retrieval cues to assist you
• Maybe trying to recall things that happened in the class on the day you learned a certain theory could serve as a cue
• Even visualising yourself back in the classroom you learned the information originally is known to help
• But one of the biggest issues is separating cue retrieval from decay
• It could be the memory has decayed and is no longer accessible
• This was an issue for Bahrick’s Year Book study (see LTM)