Encoding specificity principle

The encoding specificity principle is a theory, also referred to as “context shock” by psychologist Philip Zimbardo ^[1], within cognitive psychology regarding encoding and retrieval of memory. In short, encoding is the processing of information that leads to a representation being stored in memory. Retrieval is then the recovery of the memory at another time. The principle explains that the context in which you encode a memory becomes the optimal context in which you can retrieve your memory again at a later time. Other than offering insight to how our memory works in different situations, the theory of encoding specificity emphasizes the importance of the environment in which we first retrieve a memory as a connection between encoding and retrieval.^[2]

Theory

This theory of “encoding specificity” was developed by the memory researcher Endel Tulving and emphasizes the importance of retrieval cues in accessing episodic memories. The theory introduced the concept of episodic memory, which is a form of long-term memory dedicated to specific personal experiences in a way that it emerges most efficiently in the context of those experiences.^[3] Psychologists, Tulving and Thomson (1973) carried out an experiment which demonstrated the power of encoding specificity. The participants were told to remember the second word of the pair train-black in which train was the context as it was stated first, causing the word black to be related to it. Tulving and Thomson found that change in context mattered for memory retrieval, as the participants who had been told to remember the word black in the context of train, after some time, had a harder time recovering the memory of the word black when the context was changed to white.^[4] The context of train served as a part of the participants’ experience in remembering the word black. In other words, the retrieval of memory is primarily determined by the specific conditions of its initial encoding. Tulving has dubbed the process through which a retrieval cue activates a stored memory "synergistic ecphory."

Evidence

Initial evidence for the encoding specificity principle came from cued recall experiments using word lists. The principle is also supported by many related experimental phenomena (e.g., the recognition failure of recallable words, state-dependent learning, transfer-appropriate processing). More recently, Tulving has argued that the appropriate retrieval cues are necessary but not sufficient to retrieve episodic memories. One also must be in a "retrieval mode" or a remembering state of mind. Empirical evidence for this theory is not as strong as that for the encoding specificity. On the other hand, experiments on the theory of encoding specificity have demonstrated that context is a major contributor to the match between encoding and retrieval. Psychologists Hannon and Daneman conducted several experiments to support their claim that “success of our future activities is contingent on the similarity between a cue in the environment and the mental picture we have for our intended activity” (Hannon and Daneman)^[5], the “cue in the environment” being the context which emphasizes this “mental picture” of our experience. Furthermore, In their experiments they manipulated characteristics of the encoding-retrieval match in order to determine the relative contributions of the components, encoding, retrieval and context on prospective memory performance. Their findings showed that all three factors have an influence on the performance of prospective memory, which is remembering to act in a specific way according to a certain situation. Hannon and Daneman demonstrated that the encoding specificity principle -the context being a match between encoding and retrieval, affects prospective memory more so than episodic memory.

Implications

The implications of Hannon and Daneman’s findings open debate for how prospective memory is similar to retrospective memory. They predict that a match between encoding and retrieval has a greater effect on prospective memory performance than on retrospective memory (want to link to wikipage) performance. Another implication of the encoding specificity principle is that forgetting may be caused by the lack of appropriate retrieval cues, as opposed to decay of a memory trace over time or interference from other memories. Also, there is more information stored in memory relative to what can be retrieved at any given point (i.e., availability vs. accessibility). Moreover, the role of the encoding-retrieval match is “functional rather than nominal” and “retrieval cues must be a part of the original encoding in order to be effective” (Nairne)^[6]. In other words, the more similar the context is between both encoding and retrieval the better the memory performs. The theory of encoding-specificity claims that there is a correlation between the context in which a memory is being encoded, and the quality of the memory’s retrieval. The theory of encoding specificity contributes to the understanding our prospective memory and possibly increasing the quality of its performance.^[7]

References

1. Gerrig, Richard J., and Philip G. Zimbardo. "Memory." Psychology and Life. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008. Print.
2. Nairne, James S. "The myth of the encoding–retrieval match." Memory 10.5/6 (2002): 389-395. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.
3. Sheehy, Noel. "BEHIND THE NAME." The Psychologist 18.4 (2005): 237. Print.
4. Gerrig, Richard J., and Philip G. Zimbardo. "Memory." Psychology and Life. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008. Print.
5. Hannon, Brenda, and Meredyth Daneman. "Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval, and the match between encoding and retrieval." Memory 15.5 (2007): 572-604. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.
6. Nairne, James S. "The myth of the encoding–retrieval match." Memory 10.5/6 (2002): 389-395. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.
7. Hannon, Brenda, and Meredyth Daneman. "Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval, and the match between encoding and retrieval." Memory 15.5 (2007): 572-604. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.