Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Cue-Dependent Forgetting - Coggle Diagram
Cue-Dependent Forgetting
-
-
Recall is dependent upon accessing information by remembering the retrieval cue under which information is stored
Tulving (1973) explained this as the encoding specificity principle, where recall is hindered is the context of recall is different to that at coding
The effectiveness of the retrieval cue depends on how overloaded it is (the fewer number of items associated with it, the more effective the cue), how deep the processing of the cue was and how well the cue fits the information associated with it
Context dependent failure: Occurs with external retrieval cues, with forgetting occurring when the external environment id different at recall from how it was at coding
For example getting fewer marks in a test when sitting the test in the room you're not familiar with than when sitting the test in your normal classroom
Abernathy (1940) found that participants after learning some material recalled less well when tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room than participants who were tested by a familiar teacher in a familiar room. This supports context dependent forgetting
Godden and Baddeley (1975) got divers to learn material either on dry land or while underwater. Recall was found to be worse when it occurred in a different context to coding than the same context, for example recalling words learned under water were recalled better when underwater than on dry ground . This supports the cue dependent forgetting explanation
State dependent failure : Occurs with internal retrieval cues, with forgetting occurring when an individuals internal environment is dissimilar at recall to when information was coded
For example , trying to recall information learned when sober when you are drunk
Overton (1972) got participants to learn material when either drunk or sober and found recall was worse when participants were in a different internal state at recall than their internal state at coding. For example recalling information learned when drunk was better if the information had been learned when drunk rather than sober . This supports the state dependent explanation for forgetting
Darley et al (1973) found that participanrs who hid money while high on maijuana were less able to recall where the money was when they were not high than when they were high again, providing support for the state dependent explanation for forgetting
Evaluation
Many studies supporting CDF are lab based and not like everyday memory tasks, such as ones based on procedural memory . The ability to perform learned skills, like riding a bike, isn't affected by state dependent failure
Godden and Baddeleys findings only occurred when the divers had to free recall items learned . When given a recognition test (involving saying whether a named item was in the list or not) , the context based effect wasn't seen.
Cue dependent forgetting fits the levels of processing theory of memory that states the more deeply information is processed when coded, the more links and associations will be created between items in the LTM, decreasing the chances of forgetting , as more retrieval cues will be available to aid recall
Many psychologists see CDF as the main reason for forgetting in LTM, due to the amount of research evidence supporting the importance of cues and how they trigger memory
-
-
-
