Adults of all ages experience increased tip-of-the-tongue states under ostensible evaluative observation

Schmank, Christopher J.; James, Lori E.

doi:10.1080/13825585.2019.1641177

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that group recall provides yet another clue fueling the inference that successful recall is imminent, provoking an upward shift toward the criterion set by the metacognitive monitoring system to launch TOT signals. Critically, singlerecall individual factors such as cue familiarity and target-related information (Metcalfe et al, 1993;Schwartz and Smith, 1997), social factors such as social pressure and social stress (Widner et al, 1996;James et al, 2018;Schmank and James, 2020), as well as group recall (the present experiment), have been shown to selectively increase TOTs without affecting correct recall, supporting a functional dissociation between metacognitive mechanisms on the one hand, and memory retrieval mechanisms on the other.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…But correct recall did not differ between the TSST and the pTSST conditions. This pattern of results, later replicated in a sample of elderly participants (Schmank and James, 2020), suggests, rather, that social stress selectively increased TOTs independently from the retrieval process.…”

Section: Social Influences On Totsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Although previous studies provided evidence that social factors do influence TOTs (Widner et al, 1996;James et al, 2018;Schmank and James, 2020), they were still based on a single-person recall setting. No published study has yet addressed factors underlying the co-occurrence of TOTs in small groups.…”

Section: Social Influences On Totsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the metacognitive monitoring system indeed tracks clues that the target word will be successfully retrieved, as posited in Schwartz and Metcalfe's (2011) inferential view, then the probability of experiencing a TOT should be shown to markedly increase from the individual to the group recall conditions. Moreover, if group recall selectively increases TOTs without affecting correct recall, as it is the case for other social factors, social pressure (demand characteristics; Widner et al, 1996) and social stress (James et al, 2018;Schmank and James, 2020), then it would add to the accumulating evidence that the TOT phenomenon is dissociable from the retrieval process.…”

Section: Two Distinct Factors Than Can Potentially Induce Tots In Small Groups: Social Contagion and Metacognitive Appraisal Of Group Recmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schwartz and Pournaghdali (2020) recommend reporting TOTs both ways and to discontinue the "highly problematic" practice of reporting TOTs as a proportion of all items. Nevertheless, because correct recall did not differ between our experimental conditions (mitigating potential index bias) and for sake of completeness, all three +TOT indexes are reported here [see also James et al (2018) and Schmank and James (2020)].…”

Section: Positive Totsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Socially Shared Feelings of Imminent Recall: More Tip-of-the-Tongue States Are Experienced in Small Groups

Rousseau

Kashur

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states are typically defined as feelings of imminent recall for known, but temporarily inaccessible target words. However, TOTs are not merely instances of retrieval failures. Clues that increase the subjective likelihood of retrieval success, such as cue familiarity and target-related information, also have been shown to elicit feelings of imminent recall, supporting a metacognitive, inferential etiology of the TOT phenomenon. A survey conducted on our university campus provided anecdotal evidence that TOTs are occasionally shared among people in small groups. Although shared TOTs may suggest the influence of social contagion, we hypothesized that metacognitive appraisal of group recall efficiency could be involved. There should be more instances of remembering in several heads than in one. From this, we conjectured that people remembering together entertain the inference that successful retrieval is more likely in group recall than in a single-person recall situation. Such a metacognitive appraisal may drive a stronger feeling of closeness with the target word and of recall imminence, precipitating one (or more people) into a TOT state. We used general knowledge questions to elicit TOTs. We found that participants reported more TOTs when remembering in small groups than participants remembering alone. Critically, the experimental manipulation selectively increased TOTs without affecting correct recall, suggesting that additional TOTs observed in small groups were triggered independently from the retrieval process. Near one third (31%) of the TOTs in small groups were reported by two or more participants for the same items. However, removing common TOTs from the analyses did not change the basic pattern of results, suggesting that social contagion was not the main factor involved in the observed effect. We argue that beyond social contagion, group recall magnifies the inference that target words will be successfully retrieved, prompting the metacognitive monitoring system to launch more near-retrieval success “warning” (TOT) signals than in a single-person recall situation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Social Influences On Totsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Social Influences On Totsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Two Distinct Factors Than Can Potentially Induce Tots In Small Groups: Social Contagion and Metacognitive Appraisal Of Group Recmentioning

confidence: 99%