The tip-of-the-tongue state bias permeates unrelated concurrent decisions and behavior

Abstract

The tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) state-the feeling of being near accessing an as yet inaccessible word from memory-is associated with cognitive bias. For example, prior work has shown that TOTs are associated with a bias toward inferring positive qualities of the unretrieved information. People are biased during TOTs to indicate that the unretrieved target has a greater likelihood of being positively valenced and to have been associated with a higher value number earlier in the experiment. Additionally, when the TOT is for a pictured person's name, that person is judged to be more likely to be ethical. The present study demonstrates that the TOT positivity bias extends to unrelated concurrent decisions and behavior. In Experiment 1, participants reported a greater inclination to take an unrelated gamble during TOTs than non-TOTs. Experiment 2 demonstrated the concurrent nature of this spillover effect. The TOT bias toward a greater inclination to gamble significantly diminished with a 10-second delay between the time of reporting the TOT state and the time to report the inclination. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that the increased inclination to want to take a gamble during TOTs translated to actual gambling behavior. Participants chose to gamble for points more often during TOTs than non-TOTs.Keywords Metamemory . Judgment . Heuristics . Memory . Tip of the tongue . Risk-taking . GamblingThe tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) state-the feeling of being on the verge of accessing an unrecalled word-has been the subject of scientific investigation for decades (e.g.

On the relationship between tip-of-the-tongue states and partial recollective experience: Illusory partial recollective access during tip-of-the-tongue states.

“…That is, people may merely be biased toward guessing partial attributes during TOTs relative to non-TOTs. As mentioned, TOTs have been shown to be biasing in various ways (e.g., Cleary, 2019;Cleary & Claxton, 2015), including the TOT word frequency bias shown in Experiment 1, and some of the ways in which TOTs are biasing have been shown to affect actual behavior even when TOTs are not actually relevant to the behavior in question (e.g., Cleary et al, 2020).…”

“…Although Bahrick et al (2011) found evidence for increased first-letter reporting during TOTs than non-TOTs, it is unclear if this was under forced-responding conditions as opposed to simply instructing people to guess and, if the latter, what the role of increased typed partial information responses during TOTs may have been. In previous research where participants are instructed or encouraged to guess, they still often choose not to guess when not forced on every trial (e.g., Cleary, 2006Cleary, , 2019Cleary & Claxton, 2015;Cleary & Specker, 2007;Cleary et al, 2020Cleary et al, , 2021Cleary & Reyes, 2009); thus, examining partial attribute access under forced-responding conditions is important in order to disentangle an increased inclination to type partial information from increased accuracy.…”

“…Although it seems adaptive for TOTs to be used in metacognitive control in ways that are useful (Cleary et al, 2021), it might seem odd that TOTs should be used in metacognitive control in ways that are not obviously useful (Cleary et al, 2020). A potentially relevant factor is a recently discovered TOT bias.…”

The tip-of-the-tongue state as a form of access to information: Use of tip-of-the-tongue states for strategic adaptive test-taking.

“…More recently, Cleary, Huebert, and McNeely-White (2020) found a greater inclination toward risk-taking during reported TOTs. This points toward the likelihood that TOT states will bias participants toward an inclination to take a guess on a subsequent multiple-choice set in a test-taking situation in which doing so involves risk.…”

“…Based on that estimate, we set a cut-off date to stop running an experiment and switch to another. Based on prior studies of TOT biases (e.g., Cleary, 2019; Cleary & Claxton, 2015; Cleary et al, 2020), we aimed to run approximately 50 participants per between-subjects condition of each experiment.…”