The phenomenology of real and illusory tip-of-the-tongue states

Abstract

The tip-of-the-tongue state (TOT)is the phenomenological experience that a word is on the verge of being recalled. Most research has been directed at TOT etiology and at retrieval processes occurring during a TOT. In this study, TOT phenomenology was examined. In Experiment 1, strong TOTs were more likely than weak TOTsto be followed by correct recognition, and resolution (later recall) of TOTs was higher for strong than for weak TOTs, but only for commission errors. In Experiment 2, emotional TOTswere more likely to be resolved and recognized than nonemotional TOTs. In Experiment 3, imminence was defined as the feeling that retrieval is about to occur. Imminent TOTswere more likely to be followed by resolution and recognition than were nonimminent TOTs.lIIusory TOTs(TOTsfor unanswerable questions) tended to be weaker, less emotional, and less imminent than TOTsfor answerable questions.18

Working memory load differentially affects tip-of-the-tongue states and feeling-of-knowing judgments

“…Schwartz, Travis, Castro, and Smith (2000) also found strong positive correlations between TOT and FOK judgments. In all of these studies, FOK judgments were measured on Likert ordinal scales, and TOT judgments were measured either in dichotomous scales (Metcalfe et al, 1993;Yaniv & Meyer, 1987) or in nominal categories (Schwartz et al, 2000). In the present study, both were measured on dichotomous scales in order to minimize procedural differences between the two judgments.…”

“…On the other hand, Widner, Smith, and Graziano (1996) and Schwartz et al (2000) did find behavioral evidence for differences between the two metacognitive judgments. looked at the effect of demand char-acteristics on TOT and FOK judgments.…”

“…Although explanations of this effect have varied (e.g., see Schwartz, 2002), it could potentially suggest that TOT and FOK judgments tap different processes. Schwartz et al (2000) found one subtle difference between TOT and FOK judgments, pertaining to the feeling of imminence. In an experiment, Schwartz et al asked participants to distinguish between imminent TOT judgments-that is, those that felt like retrieval was just about to occur-and those TOT judgments for which retrieval did not feel imminent.…”

Partial word knowledge in the absence of recall

“…The experimenter read the correct target aloud, and participants orally indicated whether or not they recognized the object name ("yes" or "no"). This simple identification test is standard in TOT research (Brown & Nix, 1996;Gollan & Acenas, 2004;Gollan & Brown, 2006) primarily to exclude those trials where the participant's intended target does not match the one provided by the experimenter (Schwartz, 2002;Schwartz & Smith, 1997;Schwartz et al, 2000;Smith et al, 1994). Our purpose in using this test was not for exclusionary purposes, but as a simple verification that participants were using the response scale in an appropriate fashion.…”

“…The reason for making this finer differentiation at the high end of DK (HF) is that there may be some permeability in that weaker TOTs may be classified with DKs (Bahrick, 2008;Jönsson & Olsson. 2003;Jönsson, Tchekhova, Lönner, & Olsson, 2005;Naito & Komatsu, 1989;Schwartz, 2002;Schwartz, Travis, Castro, & Smith, 2000). Indeed, a few investigations have revealed some first-letter (phoneme) knowledge for DK items (Beidermann, Ruh, Nickels, & Coltheart, 2008;Gollan & Acenas, 2004;Koriat & Lieblich, 1974;Schwartz, 2008;Smith, Balfour, & Brown, 1994), but one could argue that participants classified some weak TOTs as DKs and that such knowledge does not exist for moderate or low-confidence DKs.…”