Retrieval failure | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
Updated: Sep 9
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40 minutes
These Retrieval failure A-Level Psychology revision notes explain why information stored in long-term memory may become temporarily inaccessible. Retrieval depends on cues that were present when the memory was formed. When these cues are absent or different during recall, forgetting becomes more likely. You will examine context-dependent forgetting involving external surroundings and state-related forgetting involving internal conditions. The explanation differs from forgetting caused by competing memories, although both suggest that information may remain stored even when it cannot be recalled.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define retrieval failure.
Explain the role of retrieval cues.
Explain the encoding specificity principle.
Distinguish between context-dependent and state-related forgetting.
Apply retrieval failure to unfamiliar situations.
Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
Revision Notes đź“š
Retrieval failure A-Level Psychology revision overview
Retrieval failure occurs when information is stored in long-term memory but cannot be accessed because suitable retrieval cues are absent.
The explanation proposes that forgetting does not always mean that a memory has:
Disappeared.
Decayed.
Been permanently erased.
Failed to enter long-term memory.
Instead, the information may still be available but temporarily inaccessible.
The basic process is:
Information is encoded and stored.
Features present during learning become associated with the memory.
These features can later act as retrieval cues.
The cues are absent or different when recall is attempted.
The stored information cannot be accessed easily.
Retrieval failure occurs.
Retrieval from long-term memory
According to the movement of information through memory stores, information retrieved from long-term memory enters short-term memory and becomes consciously available.
Retrieval failure occurs when this process is unsuccessful.
For example, a student may know that they learned a psychologist’s name but be unable to recall it during an examination. The name may still exist in long-term memory, but the cues available at that moment do not activate it effectively.
This explains the familiar experience of saying:
“I know that I know it, but I cannot bring it to mind.”
Availability and accessibility
Retrieval failure involves an important distinction between availability and accessibility.
Availability concerns whether information is stored in memory.
Accessibility concerns whether the information can be retrieved at a particular moment.
A memory may be available without being accessible.
For example, someone may fail to recall a former teacher’s surname but immediately recognise it when another person says it.
The recognition suggests that the memory was still stored. The problem was accessing it without an effective cue.
Availability | Accessibility |
Information exists in memory | Information can be retrieved |
Concerns storage | Concerns access |
May remain intact during forgetting | May change according to available cues |
Demonstrated when recognition succeeds after recall fails | Demonstrated when information enters conscious awareness |
Retrieval cues
A retrieval cue is information that helps a person access a stored memory.
A cue may be:
A place.
A sound.
A smell.
A person.
An image.
A category heading.
A word or phrase.
A physical condition.
An emotional state.
For example, returning to a childhood home may trigger memories that were difficult to recall elsewhere.
The location has not created the memories. It provides cues associated with their original encoding.
Meaningful and context-based cues
Some cues have a direct connection with the information being recalled.
For example:
The heading “memory models” may cue the multi-store model.
The word “verbal” may cue the phonological loop.
The phrase “old disrupts new” may cue proactive interference.
Other cues are connected because they were present during learning.
For example:
The room in which the material was learned.
The music playing during revision.
The person’s mood or level of alertness.
The smell of a particular environment.
Retrieval failure focuses particularly on the absence of cues that became associated with information during encoding.
The encoding specificity principle
The encoding specificity principle states that retrieval is most successful when the cues available during recall match those present when the information was encoded.
A cue helps retrieval when:
It was present or encoded when the memory was formed.
It is present again when recall is attempted.
The principle can be summarised as:
Matching conditions at encoding and retrieval → effective cues → improved recall
By contrast:
Different conditions at encoding and retrieval → absence of matching cues → increased forgetting
The cues do not have to be deliberately learned. Features of the environment or the person’s internal state may become associated with the information automatically.
Encoding and retrieval conditions
Encoding conditions are the circumstances in which information is initially learned.
Retrieval conditions are the circumstances in which the person later attempts to recall it.
Recall should be easier when the two sets of conditions are similar.
Encoding condition | Retrieval condition | Expected recall |
Same context | Same context | Better |
Same context | Different context | Poorer |
Same internal state | Same internal state | Better |
Same internal state | Different internal state | Poorer |
This does not mean that memories can only be recalled in the original conditions. Matching cues make retrieval more likely rather than guaranteeing it.
Context-dependent forgetting
What is context-dependent forgetting?
Context-dependent forgetting occurs when the external environment during recall differs from the environment in which the information was learned.
External contextual cues may include:
The physical location.
Background sounds.
Lighting.
Smells.
Weather conditions.
The layout of a room.
Objects present in the environment.
When these cues are present during learning, they may become associated with the memory.
If they are absent during retrieval, recall may become more difficult.
The process of context-dependent forgetting
The process can be summarised as follows:
Information is learned in Context A.
Features of Context A are encoded alongside the information.
These environmental features become retrieval cues.
Recall is attempted in Context B.
The original contextual cues are absent.
Access to the stored memory becomes more difficult.
Example of context-dependent forgetting
Sophie revises a speech repeatedly in her bedroom. When she arrives at an unfamiliar hall, she struggles to remember the opening lines.
Retrieval failure could explain this because:
The speech was encoded in Sophie’s bedroom.
Features of the bedroom became associated with the material.
The hall contains different environmental cues.
The absence of the original context makes retrieval more difficult.
This does not prove that the speech was never stored. Returning to the bedroom or mentally recreating it might help Sophie remember.
Context-dependent remembering
The same process can improve recall when the contexts match.
For example, Sophie may remember the speech more easily when practising again in her bedroom.
The room provides environmental cues that were present when the speech was encoded.
The explanation therefore predicts both:
Poorer recall when contexts differ.
Better recall when contexts match.
Godden and Baddeley’s research
Godden and Baddeley investigated context-dependent memory using divers.
Participants learned word lists either:
On land.
Underwater.
They later recalled the words either:
In the same environment.
In the different environment.
This produced four conditions:
Learning environment | Recall environment | Context |
Land | Land | Matching |
Land | Underwater | Different |
Underwater | Underwater | Matching |
Underwater | Land | Different |
Recall was generally better when the learning and recall environments matched.
This supports context-dependent retrieval because environmental cues available during learning helped when they were present again during recall.
Why the underwater context is useful
The land and underwater environments were highly distinctive.
They differed in:
Physical sensations.
Visual surroundings.
Sound.
Movement.
Breathing equipment.
Temperature and pressure-related sensations.
These differences made it possible to investigate whether a major change of context affected retrieval.
However, this also creates a limitation. Everyday changes of environment may be much smaller than moving between land and underwater conditions.
Applying context-dependent forgetting
A student learns a presentation in an empty classroom. During the actual presentation, the room is crowded, brightly lit and noisy. The student temporarily forgets part of the presentation.
A developed explanation would state:
The presentation was encoded in a quiet, empty classroom, so features of that environment became associated with the material. During the actual presentation, these contextual cues were absent. According to the encoding specificity principle, the mismatch between learning and recall conditions could cause retrieval failure.
Mentally reinstating the context
Physical return to the original environment is not always possible.
A person may instead mentally recreate features of the original context.
For example, they could think about:
Where they were sitting.
What they could see.
What happened immediately before the memory.
Who was present.
The order in which events occurred.
This idea contributes to mentally reinstating the original situation.
Mental reinstatement may provide cues that help access stored information.
State-related forgetting
What is state-related forgetting?
State-related forgetting occurs when a person’s internal state during recall differs from their state during learning.
It is also commonly called state-dependent forgetting.
Internal state cues may include:
Mood.
Alertness.
Tiredness.
Anxiety.
Physiological arousal.
The effects of medication.
Other bodily conditions.
If a particular state is present during encoding, it may become associated with the memory.
Recall may then become more difficult when the person is in a different state.
The process of state-related forgetting
The process can be summarised as:
Information is learned in State A.
Features of State A become associated with the information.
The internal state acts as a retrieval cue.
Recall is attempted in State B.
The original internal cues are absent.
Retrieval becomes less successful.
Example involving alertness
Aaron revises late at night when he is extremely tired. During an examination in the morning, he is alert but struggles to recall some of the material.
Retrieval failure could explain this because:
The information was encoded while Aaron was tired.
Tiredness provided internal state cues.
His alert examination state does not match the learning state.
The absence of matching cues makes retrieval more difficult.
This does not mean students should deliberately become tired during examinations. A state-related explanation describes a possible memory effect, not a recommended revision method.
Example involving mood
Nadia learns a poem while feeling calm and happy. Later, when she feels anxious, she struggles to recall it. When she becomes calmer, parts of the poem return to mind.
This may demonstrate state-related retrieval because:
The calm emotional state was present during encoding.
Anxiety created a different internal context.
The mismatch reduced access to the stored information.
Returning to a similar state may have restored useful cues.
Mood may affect memory in several ways, so state-related retrieval should be applied only when the scenario clearly concerns a match or mismatch between learning and recall states.
Carter and Cassaday’s research
Carter and Cassaday investigated whether internal physiological states could act as retrieval cues.
Participants learned and recalled information while either:
In a usual alert state.
In a drowsy state produced by an antihistamine.
Recall was poorer when the internal state during learning differed from the state during recall.
Recall was better when the states matched.
This supports state-related retrieval because the internal condition present during encoding appeared to help retrieval when it occurred again.
Four state conditions
The general design can be represented as:
State during learning | State during recall | State match |
Alert | Alert | Matching |
Alert | Drowsy | Different |
Drowsy | Drowsy | Matching |
Drowsy | Alert | Different |
The important comparison is not simply whether participants were alert or drowsy.
The key issue is whether the state was the same at encoding and retrieval.
Context and state compared
Context-dependent forgetting | State-related forgetting |
Involves external environmental cues | Involves internal cues |
May involve room, location, sound or smell | May involve mood, alertness or physiological state |
Recall is poorer when the physical environment changes | Recall is poorer when the internal condition changes |
Supported by research using different external settings | Supported by research using different internal states |
Explained through encoding specificity | Explained through encoding specificity |
Both involve a mismatch between encoding and retrieval cues.
The difference is whether the cue comes from outside or within the person.
Applying both forms of retrieval failure
Consider the following scenario:
Mia learns lines for a play in a quiet rehearsal room while feeling relaxed. On the night of the performance, she is on a brightly lit stage and feels highly anxious. She forgets the beginning of a speech.
Context-dependent explanation
The stage differs from the rehearsal room.
The quiet room’s environmental cues are absent, so the physical context does not support retrieval.
State-related explanation
Mia’s anxious state differs from the relaxed state in which she learned the lines.
The internal cues present during encoding are also absent.
Combined explanation
Both external and internal cues have changed.
A strong application answer could explain that retrieval failure becomes more likely because neither the physical context nor Mia’s emotional state matches the original encoding conditions.
Avoiding vague application
A weak answer would state:
Mia forgets because she is in a different situation.
A stronger answer would explain:
Mia encoded the lines in a quiet rehearsal room while feeling relaxed. During the performance, both the external context and her internal state are different. The absence of matching cues makes it more difficult to retrieve the lines from long-term memory.
Tip-of-the-tongue forgetting
A tip-of-the-tongue experience occurs when someone feels that they know a word or name but cannot produce it at that moment.
The person may remember:
The first sound.
The approximate length.
A similar word.
Where they encountered it.
Other related information.
This suggests that part of the memory is accessible, but the complete target cannot be retrieved.
Later, a cue may suddenly make the word available.
This illustrates retrieval failure because the memory appears to exist even though access is temporarily blocked.
Retrieval failure and recognition
Recall
Recall requires a person to produce information without being shown the answer.
Examples include:
Writing a psychologist’s name.
Recalling a word list.
Describing an event.
Answering an essay question.
Recall is highly dependent on the person generating or using suitable cues.
Recognition
Recognition requires a person to identify previously encountered information.
Examples include:
Choosing an answer from a list.
Recognising a face.
Selecting a correct definition.
Identifying a previously seen photograph.
Recognition provides more external information, which can act as a retrieval cue.
Why recognition may be easier
Someone may fail to recall a name but recognise it immediately when shown several possibilities.
The recognition options provide cues that are absent during free recall.
This supports the idea that:
The memory remains available.
The original problem involved accessibility.
Additional cues can overcome retrieval failure.
Testing method and context effects
Context-dependent effects may be stronger during free recall than during recognition.
Recognition supplies powerful cues within the test itself. These cues may reduce the importance of the original environment.
For example, recognising a learned word from a list may be possible even in a different location because the word itself acts as a cue.
This limits the claim that environmental context always has a major influence on memory.
Retrieval failure and interference
Retrieval failure and interference are separate explanations of forgetting.
Retrieval failure
Forgetting occurs because suitable cues are absent.
Example:
A student cannot recall a definition because the contextual cues present during revision are missing.
Interference
Forgetting occurs because another memory competes with the target.
Example:
A student confuses an older and newer definition because they are similar.
Comparison
Retrieval failure | Interference |
Suitable cues are absent | Memories compete |
Focuses on encoding and retrieval conditions | Focuses on similarity between memories |
Includes context and state effects | Includes proactive and retroactive interference |
Recall may improve when cues are restored | Recall may improve when the target is distinguished from competing information |
The memory may remain stored | The memory may also remain stored |
The explanations may sometimes operate together.
A cue could help the person select the correct memory from several competing possibilities.
Evaluating retrieval failure
Research supports context-dependent forgetting
Godden and Baddeley found that recall was better when learning and testing took place in the same environment.
This supports the encoding specificity principle because the reinstatement of environmental cues improved access to stored information.
The use of four conditions allowed researchers to compare matched and mismatched contexts.
However, the land and underwater environments were extremely different. This may exaggerate the effect compared with moving between two ordinary classrooms.
Research supports state-related forgetting
Carter and Cassaday found that recall was poorer when participants’ internal states differed between learning and testing.
This supports the claim that physiological states can become associated with information and later act as retrieval cues.
The findings also support the wider principle that the effectiveness of a cue depends on whether it was present during encoding.
However, a drug-induced state may differ from the ordinary changes in mood or alertness experienced during everyday learning.
Controlled research identifies cause and effect
Studies of retrieval failure can manipulate whether conditions match while keeping other aspects of the procedure similar.
Researchers can control:
The material learned.
The time allowed.
The instructions.
The delay before recall.
The method used to test memory.
If recall is poorer in mismatched conditions, the difference can reasonably be linked to the absence of matching cues.
This gives the research good internal validity.
Contexts may need to be very different
A limitation is that context-dependent effects may be small when the learning and recall environments are only slightly different.
Moving between:
Land and underwater conditions
is a much greater change than moving between:
Two classrooms.
A bedroom and a school library.
Two desks in the same building.
This suggests that external context may explain forgetting mainly when the environments are sufficiently distinctive.
In many everyday situations, other cues may be strong enough to support retrieval despite a change of room.
Everyday memory contains many cues
Laboratory research often uses short word lists with limited meaning.
Everyday memories may have many potential cues, including:
Meaning.
Personal importance.
Images.
Related knowledge.
Emotional significance.
Repeated use.
Category information.
If one contextual cue is absent, another cue may still trigger retrieval.
This means that context-dependent forgetting may have less influence over meaningful and well-organised information than over artificial word lists.
Recall and recognition produce different effects
Context effects may be more noticeable during free recall than recognition.
Recognition provides the target or related options, which act as strong cues.
This limits the explanation because retrieval failure may depend partly on how memory is tested.
It would be too broad to claim that a change of context causes forgetting in every type of memory task.
The explanation has practical applications
Retrieval failure has useful applications to learning.
Students can improve access to information by:
Revising under conditions that resemble an examination.
Practising without relying on notes.
Using category headings.
Producing their own retrieval cues.
Completing timed questions.
Recalling information in several environments.
Using distinctive prompts to organise topics.
A strategy must be connected to the explanation.
For example:
Practising in timed, quiet conditions may create cues similar to those present during the examination. According to the encoding specificity principle, this match may support retrieval.
Simply stating “revise more” is not an application of retrieval failure.
Learning in several contexts may be useful
Revising only in one highly distinctive setting could make a student dependent on cues from that environment.
Practising retrieval in several locations may create a wider range of cues.
This may help information become accessible even when the examination room differs from the revision environment.
The practical aim is not to reproduce every detail of the examination. It is to strengthen retrieval and reduce dependence on one narrow set of cues.
Retrieval cues are used in eyewitness recall
Encouraging a person to mentally recreate the original event may provide contextual cues.
This has influenced memory techniques such as context reinstatement within the cognitive interview.
The application supports the idea that memories may become more accessible when original cues are restored.
However, improved recall does not prove that every forgotten detail was inaccessible only because cues were absent.
Alternative explanations are needed
Retrieval failure does not explain every example of forgetting.
Forgetting may also occur because:
Similar memories interfere.
Information received limited attention.
Learning was incomplete.
The person misunderstood the information.
Short-term information was not rehearsed.
The target memory is weak or disorganised.
The existence of proactive and retroactive interference means that absent cues are only one possible cause of retrieval difficulty.
The explanation may apply more to temporary forgetting
Retrieval failure is especially convincing when:
A person suddenly remembers after receiving a cue.
Recognition succeeds after recall fails.
Returning to the original context improves performance.
The memory becomes available later without relearning.
These situations suggest that the memory remained stored.
The explanation is less able to show whether information that is never recovered is still available in long-term memory.
Supporting evidence does not prove separate stores
Retrieval-failure research shows that cues affect access to memory.
It does not by itself prove that memory consists of the exact stores shown in a particular model.
The findings concern retrieval processes rather than the full physical or structural organisation of memory.
This distinction is relevant when considering the strengths and limitations of memory models.
Applying retrieval failure to revision
Revising in examination-like conditions
A student might:
Work at a desk.
Remove music and notifications.
Complete questions under time pressure.
Practise without notes.
Use the same command words likely to appear in the exam.
These conditions create cues connected with the later task of examination recall.
The strategy is most effective when combined with repeated retrieval rather than passive rereading.
Using category headings
A category heading can act as a retrieval cue.
For example, the heading retrieval failure could cue:
Absence of cues.
Encoding specificity.
Context-dependent forgetting.
State-related forgetting.
Godden and Baddeley.
Carter and Cassaday.
Practical applications.
Limitations involving context and test method.
Organising information into categories gives the learner routes for accessing stored knowledge.
Creating distinctive cues
A student could associate each explanation of forgetting with a clear question:
Interference:Â Which memory is competing?
Retrieval failure:Â Which cue is absent?
These prompts help distinguish explanations and reduce confusion.
Practising free recall
Rereading notes provides the information again, so the page itself acts as a powerful cue.
Free recall requires the student to generate information without seeing it.
Useful activities include:
Writing everything remembered about a topic.
Answering a question from memory.
Explaining an idea aloud.
Creating an essay plan without notes.
Labelling a blank diagram.
This more closely resembles the retrieval demands of many examination questions.
Answering application questions
Use this four-stage structure:
Identify context-dependent or state-related forgetting.
State the conditions present during encoding.
State how the retrieval conditions differ.
Explain why the absence of matching cues causes forgetting.
Context-dependent application template
This is context-dependent forgetting because the information was encoded in ______ but recall is being attempted in ______. The original environmental cues are absent, making retrieval from long-term memory more difficult.
State-related application template
This is state-related forgetting because the person learned the information while ______ but is trying to recall it while ______. The internal state does not match, so the cues present during encoding are unavailable.
Weak application
Liam forgets because he is in a different room.
This identifies a difference but does not explain the psychological process.
Stronger application
Liam learned the information in the library, so features of that environment became associated with the material. He is trying to recall it in an unfamiliar examination hall. The absence of the original contextual cues creates retrieval failure.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Keep the focus on forgetting caused by an absence of cues. Do not describe retrieval failure as information failing to enter long-term memory.
Examiner hint:Â Distinguish external and internal cues accurately. External surroundings relate to context-dependent forgetting, while mood or physiological condition relates to state-related forgetting.
Examiner hint:Â Use the encoding specificity principle to explain the process. Naming a different room or mood is not enough unless you explain the mismatch between encoding and retrieval.
Examiner hint:Â Do not confuse retrieval failure with interference. Interference involves memories becoming mixed up or competing, whereas retrieval failure involves missing cues.
Examiner hint:Â When evaluating the explanation, link research findings directly to retrieval failure. Better recall in matched conditions supports the claim that reinstated cues aid access to stored information.
Examiner hint:Â Generic methodological criticisms gain little credit unless they affect the explanation. Explain why highly different environments or artificial word lists may exaggerate context effects.
Examiner hint:Â Context effects may depend on how memory is tested. Recognition provides additional cues and may reduce the difference between matched and mismatched contexts.
Examiner hint:Â A revision strategy requires both a practical suggestion and psychological justification. Explain how the strategy creates cues that may be available during the examination.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying retrieval failure means the memory was never stored
Why this is incorrect:
The explanation assumes that the information is available in LTM but temporarily inaccessible.
How to improve:
Refer to a failure to access stored information because suitable cues are absent.
Mistake: Describing every example of forgetting as retrieval failure
Why this is incorrect:
Forgetting may result from interference, weak learning, limited attention or other processes.
How to improve:
Look for evidence that cues or encoding and retrieval conditions have changed.
Mistake: Confusing context with state
Why this is incorrect:
Context concerns the external environment. State concerns the person’s internal condition.
How to improve:
Remember:
Context = outside the person.
State = inside the person.
Mistake: Naming a different context without explaining it
Why this is incorrect:
A change of location alone does not demonstrate understanding of retrieval failure.
How to improve:
Explain that cues encoded in the original environment are unavailable during recall.
Mistake: Saying the encoding specificity principle requires identical conditions
Why this is incorrect:
A perfect recreation is not required. Recall improves when useful cues overlap with those present during encoding.
How to improve:
Refer to matching or similar cues rather than completely identical circumstances.
Mistake: Assuming matching contexts guarantee recall
Why this is incorrect:
Matching cues increase the likelihood of successful retrieval but cannot compensate for information that was not learned effectively.
How to improve:
Use cautious wording such as “may improve recall”.
Mistake: Treating state-related forgetting as context-dependent forgetting
Why this is incorrect:
Internal and external cues are different forms of retrieval support.
How to improve:
Identify whether the scenario concerns surroundings or internal condition.
Mistake: Describing Godden and Baddeley without linking the findings
Why this is incorrect:
Procedural details alone do not evaluate the explanation.
How to improve:
State that better recall in matching environments supports context-dependent retrieval.
Mistake: Giving a generic artificial-task criticism
Why this is incorrect:
Simply stating that a study lacks realism does not explain its impact.
How to improve:
Explain that short word lists and extremely different environments may produce larger context effects than meaningful everyday learning.
Mistake: Confusing retrieval failure with interference
Why this is incorrect:
Retrieval failure is caused by absent cues. Interference involves another memory disrupting the target.
How to improve:
Ask:
Is a cue missing, or is another memory competing?
Mistake: Suggesting an impractical examination strategy
Why this is incorrect:
A student cannot always recreate the exact room or internal state used during revision.
How to improve:
Suggest realistic methods such as timed practice, category headings, free recall and practising in more than one environment.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following best describes retrieval failure?
A. Information is permanently removed from long-term memory
B. Stored information cannot be accessed because suitable cues are absent
C. New information replaces items in short-term memory
D. Similar memories are always combined into one memory
[1 mark]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: B. Stored information cannot be accessed because suitable cues are absent
Question 2
Define the encoding specificity principle.
[2 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 2
2 marks:Â Clear definition referring to the effectiveness of cues that are present both when information is encoded and when it is retrieved.
1 mark:Â Limited or partial definition.
Example answer
The encoding specificity principle states that retrieval is more successful when cues present when a memory was encoded are also available when the memory is retrieved.
Question 3
Explain one difference between context-dependent forgetting and state-related forgetting.
[3 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 3
1 mark:Â Context-dependent forgetting involves external environmental cues.
1 mark:Â State-related forgetting involves internal physical or emotional cues.
1 mark:Â Clear comparison or appropriate example.
Example answer
Context-dependent forgetting occurs when external cues, such as the location, are different at learning and recall. State-related forgetting occurs when the person's internal physical or emotional state is different at learning and recall.
Question 4
Eva learns a poem in a quiet library. She later tries to recall it in a noisy drama studio and struggles to remember the opening lines.
Explain Eva’s forgetting using retrieval failure.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
Identifying context-dependent retrieval failure.
The quiet library provides environmental cues when the poem is encoded.
The noisy drama studio does not provide the same contextual cues.
The absence of these cues makes access to the stored poem more difficult.
Example answer
Eva is experiencing context-dependent retrieval failure. When she learns the poem, features of the quiet library become associated with the memory and act as retrieval cues. In the noisy drama studio these cues are absent, so she has difficulty accessing the information stored in long-term memory.
Question 5
Marcus revises while feeling extremely tired. The following afternoon, when he is alert, he has difficulty recalling some of the information.
Explain Marcus’s forgetting using state-related retrieval failure.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
Identifying state-related retrieval failure.
Marcus's tiredness is an internal state present during encoding.
He is alert during recall, so his internal state is different.
The absence of matching internal cues makes retrieval more difficult.
Example answer
Marcus may experience state-related retrieval failure because he encoded the information while extremely tired. When he tries to retrieve it he is alert, so his internal state is different. According to the encoding specificity principle, the absence of matching state cues makes recall more difficult.
Question 6
Divers learned a list of words either on land or underwater. They later recalled the list either in the same environment or in the other environment.
Explain the pattern of results that retrieval-failure theory would predict.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1/AO2 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
Recall should be better when learning and recall both occur on land.
Recall should also be better when both occur underwater.
Recall should be poorer when learning occurs in one environment and recall in the other.
Matching environmental cues provide effective retrieval cues, whereas mismatched contexts produce retrieval failure.
Example answer
Retrieval-failure theory predicts better recall when the learning and recall environments match. Divers who learn and recall on land or learn and recall underwater should remember more words than divers who change environments. This is because cues present during encoding are available again during recall.
AQA identifies Godden and Baddeley's diver study as relevant evidence for context-dependent retrieval failure.
Question 7
A student says:
“Retrieval failure and interference are the same because both mean that a memory has disappeared.”
Explain why this statement is incorrect.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 4
Award 1 mark each for:
Retrieval failure occurs because suitable cues are absent.
The memory is still stored in LTM but is temporarily inaccessible.
Interference occurs when memories conflict, become confused or compete with one another.
In neither explanation does forgetting necessarily mean that the original memory has permanently disappeared.
Example answer
The statement is incorrect because retrieval failure occurs when a memory is still stored but cannot be accessed because suitable cues are absent. Interference occurs when one memory competes with or disrupts another memory. Therefore, neither explanation necessarily means that the memory itself has permanently disappeared.
AQA also recognises evidence that interference can sometimes be overcome using cued recall, supporting the idea that the information has not simply vanished.
Question 8
A psychologist investigated context-dependent memory.
Learning condition | Recall condition | Mean number of words recalled |
Quiet room | Quiet room | 15.2 |
Quiet room | Busy café | 9.4 |
Busy café | Busy café | 14.8 |
Busy café | Quiet room | 9.1 |
Describe the pattern shown in the results. Use the encoding specificity principle to explain the findings.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for describing the pattern and 3 marks for explaining it.
Indicative content
Pattern
Recall is highest when learning and recall occur in the same context.
Quiet-to-quiet produces 15.2 words and café-to-café produces 14.8.
Recall is considerably lower when contexts differ, 9.4Â and 9.1.
Explanation
Environmental features become associated with the memory during encoding.
According to the encoding specificity principle, these cues are most effective when available again during retrieval.
Changing context removes these cues and increases retrieval failure.
Example answer
Recall is much better when the learning and recall contexts match. Participants recalled 15.2 words when they learned and recalled in the quiet room and 14.8 when both occurred in the café. Recall fell to 9.4 and 9.1 when the contexts were different. According to the encoding specificity principle, environmental cues present during encoding become associated with the memory. When the same cues are present at recall they help retrieval, whereas changing the context removes these cues and increases retrieval failure.
Question 9
Suggest one practical revision strategy based on retrieval failure. Justify your answer.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO3 = 4
Award up to 2 marks for an appropriate strategy and 2 marks for justification.
Indicative content
Strategy
Practise retrieving information under conditions similar to an examination, for example sitting quietly at a desk and completing timed recall without notes.
Other sensible strategies involving retrieval cues, such as using category headings that can be recreated during the exam, can also be credited.
Justification
Features present during revision can act as retrieval cues.
According to the encoding specificity principle, recall should be better when appropriate cues available during encoding are also present during retrieval.
Similar revision and examination conditions may therefore reduce context-dependent retrieval failure.
AQA's 2025 mark scheme specifically accepts strategies involving similarity between revision and examination conditions, including timed conditions, category headings and similar contextual cues.
Example answer
A student could practise recalling material under exam-like conditions, such as sitting quietly at a desk and completing timed questions without notes. Features of this situation may become retrieval cues. According to the encoding specificity principle, having similar cues available during the real exam should make stored information easier to retrieve and reduce retrieval failure.
Question 10
Discuss retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting. Refer to context-dependent and state-related forgetting in your answer.
[16 marks]
Comments