Abstract
Recall is poorer when tested in a new environment than when tested in the original learning context. Two techniques for reducing this context-dependent forgetting were compared. One technique involved instructing subjects to recall their learning room(s), and the other attempted to establish multiple environmental retrieval cues by presenting lists in multiple rooms rather than all in the same room. Subjects were given three word lists to study in one or three rooms. All subjects were given a free-recall test in a new room, and half were asked to use remembered environmental context (EC) information to facilitate word memory. Multiple input contexts benefited only subjects who were uninstructed in the use of EC cues. Subjects given EC-recall instructions, however, recalled somewhat less in the three-room condition than in the one-room condition. The facilitative effects of the two techniques were not additive: EC-recall instructions benefited only one-room subjects. The results suggest that both EC-recall instructions and multiple learning contexts induce subjects to use contextual retrieval cues that are otherwise not spontaneously utilized, and that the greater the number of context cues stored in memory, the less accessible those cues become.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartlett, J. C., &Santrock, J. W. (1979). Affect-dependent episodic memory in young children.Child Development,5, 513–518.
Dong, T., &Kintsch, W. (1968). Subjective retrieval cues in free recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,7, 813–816.
Eich, J. E. (1980). The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval.Memory & Cognition,8, 157–173.
Glenberg, A. M. (1977). Influences of retrieval processes on the spacing effect in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,3, 282–294.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Mandler, G., &Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Free and constrained concept learning and subsequent recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,5, 126–131.
Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., &Witkin, H. A. (1971).Group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rand, G., &Wapner, S. (1967). Postural status as a factor in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,6, 268–271.
Smith, S. M. (1979). Remembering in and out of context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,5, 460–471.
Smith, S. M. (1982). Enhancement of recall using multiple environmental contexts during learning.Memory & Cognition,10, 405–412.
Smith, S. M., Glenberg, A. M., &Bjork, R. A. (1978). Environmental context and human memory.Memory & Cognition,6, 342–353.
Smith, S. M., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (in press). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the classroom.Cognition and Instruction.
Tulving, E., &Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,5, 381–391.
Watkins, O. C., &Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,104, 442–452.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was funded by an expense grant from the Liberal Arts College at Texas A&M University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, S.M. A comparison of two techniques for reducing context-dependent forgetting. Memory & Cognition 12, 477–482 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198309
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198309