Cue-Dependent Forgetting

Test yourself on Cue-Dependent Forgetting

After reading these notes, test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Cue-Dependent Forgetting

The cue-dependent theory of forgetting says that effective recall is dependent on retrieval cues that are like labels on the files in a filing system. CDF happens when information in long-term memory can’t be accessed.

Cue-dependent forgetting (CDF)

Recall is dependent upon accessing information by recalling the retrieval cue under which it was stored.
Retrieval failure can be examined by giving participants lists of words to learn. Some are given a category title (the cue) and others are not.
The success of the retrieval cue depends on how overloaded it is (fewer associated items = more effective).
Recall is also more effective the deeper the processing of the cue is at the time of processing and how well the cue fits the information associated with it.

Example of CDF

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) gave participants a list of 48 words to learn, organised into 12 categories of four words each.
In one condition, the lists of words were given a category heading, such as ‘fruit’, followed by the names of the items, for example, banana, apple, pear, orange.
Participants were told that they only needed to recall the items and not the headings.
Participants who weren’t given the headings as cues recalled fewer words than those given the cued headings.

The Encoding-Specificity Principle

There are two forms of cue-dependent forgetting: context dependent failure and state-dependent failure.
Context-dependent failure happens with external retrieval cues referring to the environment.
State-dependent failure happens with internal retrieval cues referring to the person rather than the environment.

Research for context-dependent forgetting

Abernathy (1940) found that participants, after learning some material, performed worse on a test when tested by an unfamiliar teacher in unfamiliar surroundings than when they were tested by a familiar teacher in familiar surroundings.
Godden and Baddeley (1975) discovered that when divers learnt material underwater, they recalled the information better when tested underwater than when on dry land.
This supports the theory of context-dependent memory.

Research for state-dependent

Overton (1972) asked participants to learn material when either drunk or sober.
Recall was found to be more difficult if the state in which the learner learnt the material differed from that in which it was tested.
For example, participants performed better on a test when drunk if they had learned the material whilst drunk.
Darley et al. (1973) had participants hide money whilst under the influence of marijuana. They found that participants were better at remembering where they had hidden the money if they were asked when they were under the influence of the drug.

Evaluation of cue-dependent forgetting

Many of the studies supporting CDF are lab-based, so they don’t really represent what would happen in the real world.
The ability to perform learned skills, such as riding a bike, isn’t affected by state-dependent failure.
The effect found by Godden and Baddeley only happened with free recall items. When participants were asked to identify the correct items from a list, researchers found no context-based effect. This would suggest that cue-dependency doesn’t explain all forms of forgetting.

Research on Cue-Dependent Forgetting

Research for context-dependent forgetting

Abernathy (1940) found that participants, after learning some material, performed worse on a test when tested by an unfamiliar teacher in unfamiliar surroundings than when they were tested by a familiar teacher in familiar surroundings.
Godden and Baddeley (1975) discovered that when divers learned material underwater, they recalled the information better when tested underwater than when on dry land.
This supports the theory of context-dependent memory.

Research for state-dependent

Overton (1972) asked participants to learn material when either drunk or sober.
Recall was found to be more difficult if the state in which the learner learnt the material differed from that in which it was tested.
For example, participants performed better on a test when drunk if they had learned the material whilst drunk.

Research for state-dependent cont.

Darley et al. (1973) had participants hide money whilst under the influence of marijuana. They found that participants were better at remembering where they had hidden the money if they were asked when they were under the influence of the drug.

Evaluation of cue-dependent forgetting

Many of the studies supporting CDF are lab-based, so they don’t really represent what would happen in the real world.
The ability to perform learned skills, such as riding a bike, isn’t affected by state-dependent failure.
The effect found by Godden and Baddeley only happened with free recall items. When participants were asked to identify the correct items from a list, researchers found no context-based effect. This would suggest that cue-dependency doesn’t explain all forms of forgetting.