Distraction, amnesia, and the next-in-line effect

Bond, Charles F.; Kirkpatrick, Charmaine

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(82)90056-7

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bond and Kirkpatrick (1982) studied the role of anticipation in preperformance memory deficits. In one experimental condition (Experiment 1, no anticipation trial), all of Bond and Kirkpatrick's (1982) subjects thought they might be called on to perform, yet only half were. The other subjects never read a word aloud; at this trial, they never saw a typed word.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study of the next-in-line effect, Bond and Kirkpatrick (1982) found a speaker-based clustering in free recall; subjects tended to retrieve in succession the two words performed by a given reader. Apparently, the reader served as a cue for retrieving the words that she or he had read.…”

Section: Clustering In Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brown and Oxman (1978) suggested that preperformance memory deficits might be a retroactive consequence of performing, much like retrograde amnesia (Detterman, 1975). Bond and Kirkpatrick (1982) discredited this suggestion, finding that subjects who anticipate performance have a memory deficit even if they never perform.In this article, I consider information-processing explanations for the next-in-line effect.I am grateful to Rich Morrison and Nancy Wells for their help with this research.Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles F.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The next-in-line effect: Encoding or retrieval deficit?

Bond

1985

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People cannot remember what happened when they were next-in-line to perform. Theorists have wondered whether this memory deficit reflects a failure to encode or an inability to retrieve preperformance events. These accounts are contrasted in a pair of studies. In Experiment 1, preperformance memories are assessed with free and cued recall. Although our semantic cues strongly facilitate access to memories, they do not moderate the next-in-line effect. In Experiment 2, subjects are told-either before or after performing-to make a special effort to remember preperformance events. If instructed afterward, subjects display the usual memory deficit. If instructed beforehand, they reverse the deficit and show a superior preperformance recall. The next-in-line effect is a failure at encoding, not at retrieval.Students who expect to be called on may not remember their teachers' remarks. In a study of this phenomenon, Brenner (1973) had a group of subjects take turns reading words aloud. On a subsequent test of free recall, subjects could not remember words read immediately before their reading performance. Relative to subjects who merely listened to all the words, readers displayed a next-in-line effect, a deficit in recalling events up to 9 s prior to performance.Researchers have described characteristics of the next-in-line effect. Brenner (1973) showed that preperformance memory deficits depend on performance difficulty, with more difficult performances yielding larger deficits. Walker and Orr (1976) found that the magnitude of the next-in-line effect is independent of a performer's fear of negative evaluation. Brown and Oxman (1978) suggested that preperformance memory deficits might be a retroactive consequence of performing, much like retrograde amnesia (Detterman, 1975). Bond and Kirkpatrick (1982) discredited this suggestion, finding that subjects who anticipate performance have a memory deficit even if they never perform.In this article, I consider information-processing explanations for the next-in-line effect.I am grateful to Rich Morrison and Nancy Wells for their help with this research.Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles F.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clustering In Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The next-in-line effect: Encoding or retrieval deficit?

Bond

1985

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brenner found a pre-performance memory deficit that he called the next-in-line effect: Participants who were "nextin-line" to read aloud had reduced memory for words, even though they could not rehearse their upcoming word. Bond and Kirkpatrick (1982) demonstrated an important boundary condition of this effect: If participants are not forewarned that they will be called on to read aloud, then they do not experience a pre-performance memory deficit. Recently, Forrin et al (2019) found that the presence of an experimenter was sufficient to yield a pre-performance memory deficit in participants who studied a list of words alone in the laboratory, presumably because the experimenter evoked evaluative pressure and performance anticipation.…”

Section: General Audience Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior research has highlighted two main components of performance anticipation: thoughts about one's upcoming performance (e.g., Bond & Kirkpatrick, 1982), and performance anxiety (e.g., Bond & Omar, 1990). Below, we outline each component and explain how they contribute to the negative relation between performance anticipation and memory.…”

Section: Why Does Performance Anticipation Reduce Memory?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance anticipation diminishes memory: Evidence from a simulated classroom.

Caron

Hicks

Browne

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students frequently engage in public speaking in their classes (e.g., giving oral presentations). Here we hypothesized that students' anticipation of giving a class presentation hinders their ability to learn information that precedes their presentation. We tested this hypothesis in a simulated classroom, in which undergraduate participants (N = 240) prepared short presentations. Participants were either informed (privately) that they would be presenting 2nd, that they would be presenting 5th, or that they would not be presenting. A research confederate gave the first presentation, after which students' memory for that presentation was assessed via a multiple-choice quiz. As predicted, students who expected to present (either 2nd or 5th) had significantly lower quiz scores compared to students who did not expect to present; those presenting 2nd did not significantly differ from those presenting 5th. We propose an account of how performance anticipation reduces memory and discuss educational implications.

show abstract

Social anxiety, state dependence, and the next-in-line effect

Bond

Omar

1990

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distraction, amnesia, and the next-in-line effect

Cited by 9 publications

References 19 publications

The next-in-line effect: Encoding or retrieval deficit?

The next-in-line effect: Encoding or retrieval deficit?

Performance anticipation diminishes memory: Evidence from a simulated classroom.

Social anxiety, state dependence, and the next-in-line effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About