Evaluation of the Godden and Baddeley study

A main strength of this field experiment is that it did have a number of controls. For example, the timings between the presentation of words was controlled in all conditions which increases the experiments reliability.

The situations clearly demonstrate the two different context conditions to test the effect of context cues so we can argue that the study was a valid test of cue dependency.

There is also support from other studies that support the findings of this experiment. For example Aggleton and Waskett (1999) tested the effects of context dependency (smell cues) at the Jorvik museum. They found that smells present at encoding acted as cues and aided the recall of the participants.

It is also possible to argue that the experiment has useful applications for example in the training of divers. That is, divers should be taught safety information underwater.

However there are a number of ways in which we can challenge the reliability of the study. There were a number of flaws within the procedure, for example equipment failure may have led to an unreliable experience for some participants. Although the participants spent the same amount of time underwater the location differed and so did the time of day when the dives took place. This means the other contextual cues were not controlled. Other variables which may have affected the results and which were not controlled for were the level of the divers fitness, noise, weather condition etc.

It could also be argued that the change in environments were so extreme that this is not a normal occurrence in everyday life, which may mean that the results are not ecologically valid. Furthermore the experiment was quite artificial because the use of the word lists and that the changes in context were too extreme to be ecologically valid. On the other hand the participants were divers and therefore were use to being under water whilst carrying out various tasks.

It is also possible to argue that the experiment lacks population validity because the participants were all experienced divers and may not be representative of the general population. There might be something about divers that makes their responses to cues different to the rest of the population.