| Course | PS 101 Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Memory paper |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 101 Unit 5
Starts With an S, Three Syllables: The Tip-of-the-Tongue State as a Retrieval Failure, From Brown and McNeill's Rare Words to What Popular Writing Gets Wrong
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 101: Psychology
Instructor Name
February 11, 2026
Starts With an S, Three Syllables: The Tip-of-the-Tongue State as a Retrieval Failure, From Brown and McNeill's Rare Words to What Popular Writing Gets Wrong
A Failure Worth Studying
Last fall I was describing a tree in my grandmother's yard to a friend and could not produce its name. I knew it started with an s, that it had three syllables, and that its leaves came in odd mitten shapes. I could almost hear the word. About twenty minutes later, while doing something else, it arrived: sassafras. That experience has a name, the tip-of-the-tongue state, and it has been studied for six decades because, as our course puts it, memory failures reveal how memory is organized. This paper places the tip-of-the-tongue state within the stage model of memory, reports the research that produced it in the laboratory, and separates what that research shows from what is often claimed about it.
The Model
The framework our course uses is the stage model proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). It describes memory as a set of stores, a brief sensory register, a limited short-term store and a large long-term store, with control processes such as rehearsal moving information between them. The model also distinguishes three processes that later textbooks emphasize: encoding, getting information into memory; storage, keeping it there; and retrieval, getting it back out. The model is a description of how memory behaves, not a map of particular brain structures.
The analytic question for any memory failure is which stage it belongs to. Forgetting a phone number someone said a moment ago is usually an encoding or short-term failure. Forgetting something you never really learned is an encoding failure. The tip-of-the-tongue state is different, and the evidence shows why.
How the Effect Was Produced in the Laboratory
Brown and McNeill (1966) found a way to create tip-of-the-tongue states on demand. They read participants the dictionary definitions of uncommon words, such as a definition describing a small boat used in parts of Asia, and asked them to name the word. Sometimes participants knew the word immediately and sometimes they did not know it at all, but sometimes they reported the feeling that the word was on the tip of the tongue. In those cases the researchers asked them for everything they could recall about the missing word.
The results showed that people in the state had real, partial access to the word. They could often guess its first letter and its number of syllables at rates well above chance, and the words that came to mind instead tended to share sounds or meaning with the target. For the definition of sampan, participants offered sound-alikes such as Saipan and Siam and words with related meanings such as barge and junk. The missing word was not absent; parts of it were available while the whole remained out of reach.
Which Stage the Failure Belongs To
That evidence places the tip-of-the-tongue state at retrieval. The word must have been encoded and stored, because the person can report its first letter and length and will usually recognize it instantly when it appears. What fails is getting the complete form back out at the moment it is needed. My own experience fits: I knew the first letter and the syllable count, and when the word arrived I recognized it at once.
Schwartz (1999) reviewed the research on why the state occurs and described competing explanations. One account holds that the target word is only weakly activated, enough to produce partial information but not the whole. Another holds that a similar word, sometimes called a blocker, comes to mind first and interferes with retrieval. A third suggests that the feeling of being close is itself an inference people make from the partial information and familiarity they can access. The review concludes that more than one mechanism may be involved, and that the evidence for blockers as the main cause is mixed.
What the Research Shows and What Popular Writing Claims
The third row matters most, because it is the claim that causes worry. The research describes the state as a normal feature of retrieval in healthy people. Anyone concerned about memory changes in themselves or a relative would need an evaluation by a professional; nothing in this literature supports diagnosing anything from tip-of-the-tongue experiences.
| Claim | What the research supports |
|---|---|
| The word is lost from memory | Not supported: people report partial information and recognize the word when they see it |
| Tip-of-the-tongue states are rare | Not supported: reviews of diary studies describe them as a common, roughly weekly experience in younger adults and more frequent with age |
| More of them is a sign of dementia | Not supported by this research: the increase with age appears in healthy older adults, and the studies reviewed do not diagnose disease |
| Stopping trying helps the word come back | Partly consistent: many states resolve on their own, often within minutes, though the research does not show that stopping is what causes resolution |
What the Effect Teaches About Memory
The tip-of-the-tongue state is a useful failure because it splits memory into pieces that are normally invisible. A word turns out to be stored not as a single unit but as linked information about its sound, its spelling and its meaning, and these can be retrieved separately. The stage model, which treats long-term memory as one store, does not by itself explain that partial access. Later models of word retrieval do, which is a reminder that the model our course begins with is a starting framework rather than a complete account.
Limits of the Evidence
The laboratory method has limits worth stating. Brown and McNeill created the state with rare words that participants may have encountered only a few times, which is different from blanking on a familiar name. Their participants were college students, so the study says little directly about older adults, whose experiences are described mainly through later diary research. And the state is reported by the person having it, so researchers depend on participants' judgments of whether they are close to a word. None of these limits undermines the central finding that partial information is available during the state, which has been reproduced many times, but they mean the details of frequency and cause rest on a mix of laboratory and self-report evidence rather than on a single decisive study.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80040-3
Schwartz, B. L. (1999). Sparkling at the end of the tongue: The etiology of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210827
The Herzing PS 101 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth PS 101 unit asks for a paper on memory organized around a model and one specific failure. Expect to present the framework the course teaches, usually a stage model of encoding, storage and retrieval, credited to its authors and described as a model rather than anatomy. Then select one failure, state which stage it belongs to and support that placement with research: the procedure that produced the effect, the conditions it required and what was found. A section should separate demonstrated effects from popular versions. Eyewitness research is a common choice, though less familiar failures can make a stronger paper. Using a relative's memory loss as an example raises privacy and health concerns.
How this PS 101 Unit 5 example is built
The paper opens with the writer's own tip-of-the-tongue moment and the reason failures are worth studying. Atkinson and Shiffrin's stage model is introduced and used to pose the question of which stage fails. The laboratory section describes Brown and McNeill's procedure and results, including the sampan example. A section argues for retrieval as the failing stage and summarizes Schwartz's review of possible causes. A table sets four popular claims beside what the research supports, followed by a note declining any medical conclusion and pointing worried readers to professionals. Two closing sections explain what partial access reveals about how words are stored and set out the limits of the evidence.
Where the points sit in the PS 101 Unit 5 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the memory paper usually weighs accurate presentation of the model, a clearly selected failure, correct placement at a stage, research described with procedure and conditions, separation of findings from popular claims and APA writing. The model earns credit when attributed and described as a model. Selection scores when the failure is specific. Placement is often the central criterion, rewarding papers that use evidence to locate the failure rather than asserting it. The research criterion credits procedures described clearly enough to picture. Separating findings from popular claims earns points when each claim is checked against what the studies actually showed. A brief section on the limits of the evidence is often credited too.
PS 101 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Memory papers lose points when they survey memory in general instead of one failure. Another frequent problem is describing the stage model as if it were a map of the brain. Students often name an effect without explaining the procedure that produced it. Some place the failure at a stage without evidence. Others repeat popular claims, such as memory lapses being early signs of disease, without checking them against research. Using a relative's diagnosis as an example shares health information that is not yours to share. If you are unsure which failure to pick or how to place it, our writers can help you build the paper around one.
Get a PS 101 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 5 instructions and your PS 101 rubric, along with the readings your section assigns on memory research. We write a custom example that sets out the model, locates one failure at one stage, reports the conditions with the effect and separates the finding from its popular version. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 101 papers and psychology samples
- PS 101 Unit 1: Discussion post on a course concept
- PS 101 Unit 2: Research methods explanation
- PS 101 Unit 3: Biological basis short paper
- PS 101 Unit 4: Learning and conditioning application
- PS 101 Unit 6: Development or personality paper
- PS 101 Unit 7: Psychological disorder overview
- PS 101 Unit 8: Final applied paper
- PS 105 Unit 5: Adolescence paper
- PS 130 Unit 5: Informational interview write-up
- PS 323 Unit 5: Gender and work paper
- PS 350 Unit 5: Memory distortion paper
PS 101 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which area of memory research makes the strongest paper?
Whichever one your readings actually support. A well known effect with a clear procedure behind it gives you conditions to report and a stage to argue about, while a broad area such as improving recall leaves you summarizing advice. If your instructions name the area, work inside it and narrow further, because narrowing is what creates room for the evidence.
Should I mention eyewitness testimony?
Only if your readings cover it and you can report the studies rather than the headlines. The research on suggestibility in recall is genuine and well documented, but it has been retold so often that the classroom version and the published version have drifted apart. Cite what the study did and found, keep courtroom conclusions out, and let the model carry the argument.
Can I describe a relative's memory loss as my example?
Keep that out of a graded paper. A family member's memory difficulties, their medical history and anything a clinician has recorded about them are theirs, and an instructor reading the file has no standing to receive it. It also pushes the paper toward a conclusion about a real person, which an introductory survey is in no position to reach. Use published cases instead.
Where can I find a free PS 101 Unit 5 sample paper?
Every part of the PS 101 Unit 5 memory paper on the tip-of-the-tongue state is free on this page, with the claims table and margin notes. Writing about a different memory failure? Forward the instructions; we turn them into a paper on your chosen failure, free, usually within two days.
Which memory failure makes a strong PS 101 Unit 5 paper?
One with clear laboratory evidence that points to a single stage. The sample uses the tip-of-the-tongue state because people can report a word's first letter while failing to retrieve it, which locates the problem at retrieval.