Effects of repeated collaborative retrieval on individual memory vary as a function of recall versus recognition tasks

Our research examines how prior group collaboration modulates later individual memory. We recently showed that repeated collaborative recall sessions benefit later individual recall more than a single collaborative recall session (Blumen & Rajaram, 2008). Current research compared the effects of repeated collaborative recall and repeated collaborative recognition on later individual recall and later individual recognition. A total of 192 participants studied a list of nouns and then completed three successive retrieval sessions in one of four conditions. While two collaborative recall sessions and two collaborative recognition sessions generated comparable levels of individual recall (CRecall-CRecall-I Recall ～ CRecognition-CRecognition-I Recall , Experiment 1a), two collaborative recognition sessions generated greater levels of individual recognition than two collaborative recall sessions (CRecognition-CRecognition- IRecognition > CRecall-CRecall- I Recognition , Experiment 1b). These findings are discussed in terms of two opposing mechanisms that operate during collaborative retrieval—re-exposure and retrieval disruption—and in terms of transfer-appropriate processing across collaborative and individual retrieval sessions.     

Short-term and long-term collaboration benefits on individual recall in younger and older adults

A recent study of younger adults suggests that, compared to repeated individual recall trials, repeated collaborative recall trials produce better individual recall after a short delay (Blumen & Rajaram, 2008). Our study was designed to determine if such collaboration benefits would remain after a one-week delay, in both younger and older adults. Sixty younger (M age = 24.60) and 60 older (M age = 67.35) adults studied a list of words and then completed either two collaborative recall trials followed by two individual recall trials, or four individual recall trials. A five-min delay was inserted between the first three recall trials. The fourth recall trial was administered 1 week later. Collaborative recall was completed in groups of three individuals working together. Both younger and older adults benefitted from repeated collaborative recall trials to a greater extent than repeated individual recall trials, and such collaboration benefits remained after a one-week delay. This is the first demonstration of collaboration benefits on later individual recall at delays as long as 1 week, in both younger and older adults. Findings are discussed within the context of the negative effects of collaboration associated with group memory (collaborative inhibition) and the positive effects of collaboration associated with later individual memory (collaboration benefits).     

The origin of the interaction between learning method and delay in the testing effect: The roles of processing and conceptual retrieval organization

Recent research has demonstrated a relationship between retrieval organization and the efficacy of prior repeated retrieval on delayed tests. The present study asked why repeated study engenders higher recall at a short delay despite lower retrieval organization but produces a decline at a long delay, and why repeated retrieval engenders lower recall at a short delay despite higher retrieval organization but produces stable recall over time. This relationship was examined through the inclusion of two successive recall tests—one immediately after learning method and one a week later. Results replicated the interaction in recall between learning method and delay characterizing the testing effect and, critically, revealed the qualitative differences inherent in the retrieval organization of each method. Specifically, stable recall in repeated retrieval was accompanied by strong and sustained conceptual organization, whereas organization for repeated study was tenuous and weakened across tests. These differences quantitatively were assessed through the use of five targeted analyses: specifically, the examination of cumulative recall curves, the accumulation of organization across time (a curve akin to cumulative recall), item gains and losses across time, changes in the size of categories across time, and the fate of specific clusters of recalled items across time. These differences are discussed within the context of differential processes occurring during learning method.     

The influence of multiple trials and computer-mediated communication on collaborative and individual semantic recall

Collaborative inhibition is a phenomenon where collaborating groups experience a decrement in recall when interacting with others. Despite this, collaboration has been found to improve subsequent individual recall. We explore these effects in semantic recall, which is seldom studied in collaborative retrieval. We also examine “parallel CMC”, a synchronous form of computer-mediated communication that has previously been found to improve collaborative recall [Hinds, J. M., & Payne, S. J. (2016). Collaborative inhibition and semantic recall: Improving collaboration through computer-mediated communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 554–565]. Sixty three triads completed a semantic recall task, which involved generating words beginning with “PO” or “HE” across three recall trials, in one of three retrieval conditions: Individual–Individual–Individual (III), Face-to-face–Face-to-Face–Individual (FFI) and Parallel–Parallel–Individual (PPI). Collaborative inhibition was present across both collaborative conditions. Individual recall in Recall 3 was higher when participants had previously collaborated in comparison to recalling three times individually. There was no difference between face-to-face and parallel CMC recall, however subsidiary analyses of instance repetitions and subjective organisation highlighted differences in group members' approaches to recall in terms of organisation and attention to others' contributions. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to retrieval strategy disruption.     

Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall

Two experiments tested the effects of encoding manipulations on group recall and on the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. Collaborative inhibition refers to the phenomenon where by a collaborative group recalls less than do the same number of individuals who work alone and then have their nonredundant responses pooled. Participants studied categorized word lists once or three times (Experiment 1) or under conditions of full versus divided attention (Experiment 2). Study repetition both improved retrieval organization in recall and attenuated collaborative inhibition, and divided attention encoding both reduced retrieval organization in recall and eliminated collaborative inhibition. These experiments are the first to focus on encoding variables and to show that collaborative inhibition can vary as a function of encoding manipulations.     

Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: evidence for a retrieval-based account

In Experiment 1 participants gave 3 successive free recalls of items learned either individually or in pairwise collaboration. The first and third recalls were performed individually, the second alone or in collaboration. Collaborative recall led to an inhibitory effect after individual learning but not after collaborative learning, in which partners had similar retrieval strategies. Consistent with a retrieval locus for collaborative inhibition, non-recalled items reappeared in subsequent individual recall. Experiment 2 showed that collaborative inhibition was eliminated when a separate retrieval cue was given for each item. Experiments 2 and 3 also showed that when participants learned items in the same order, their retrieval strategies were more similar and they showed less collaborative inhibition. It is concluded that mutual interference in collaborative recall is due to the mutual disruption of individual retrieval strategies.     

协作抑制的作用机制：来自编码阶段的证据

协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少。本研究采用经典的协作抑制研究范式和两次提取任务,考察编码方式和学习次数对协作提取任务的影响,进一步将考察协作抑制的产生机制作为总研究目的。结果表明,编码方式相同条件下出现协作抑制,而编码方式不同条件下协作抑制消失,显示协作抑制的出现与否依赖于认知条件的改变;无论是学习一次还是学习两次,在第一次小组提取中出现协作抑制,而在第二次个人提取中协作抑制消失,在使用困难学习材料时也得到同样的研究结果。研究结果支持协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说。     

Optimizing group collaboration to improve later retention

In educational settings, collaborative learning and recall are often encouraged and sometimes required. Yet, we know very little about the cognitive processes that operate during collaboration, and how they can be optimized to improve later individual retention. The current study aimed to address this gap by testing how the operations of three cognitive processes during collaboration: (1) retrieval disruption, (2) re-exposure and (3) cross-cuing, influence the formation of individual and group recall strategies. Across two experiments, 252 undergraduates studied a word list and recalled it in a Collaborative–Collaborative–Individual–Individual (CCII), an Individual–Collaborative–Individual–Individual (ICII), or an Individual–Individual–Individual–Individual (IIII) sequence. A 40-min delay was inserted early (CC-delay-II, IC-delay-II and II-delay-II; Experiment 1) or later in the recall sequence (CCI-delay-I, ICI-delay-I and III-delay-I; Experiment 2) to assess the differential benefits of different recall sequences. Regardless of where the delay occurred in the recall sequence, both collaboration conditions (CC and IC) benefited later individual recall to a greater extent than the individual recall condition (CCII > III and ICII > IIII). Repeated collaboration (CC) generated greater post-collaborative recall benefits than single collaboration (IC) when the delay was inserted early in the recall sequence (CC-delay-II > IC-delay-II), but the benefits were equivalent when the delay was inserted later in the recall sequence (CCI-delay-I–ICI-delay-I). Implications for future research and educational applications are discussed.     

The testing effect as a function of explicit testing instructions and judgments of learning

During study, people monitor their learning; the output of this monitoring is captured in so-called judgments of learning (JOLs). JOLs predict later recall better if they are made after a slight delay, instead of immediately after study (the delayed JOL effect). According to the self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) hypothesis delayed JOLs are based on covert retrieval attempts from long-term memory, and successful retrieval attempts in themselves enhance learning (the testing effect). We compared memory for 40 Swahili-Swedish paired associates after a week as a function of three different learning conditions, namely study plus (i) explicitly instructed self-testing, (ii) delayed JOLs, or (iii) less self-testing. We showed that repeated delayed JOLs lead to a memory improvement that does not differ significantly from a comparable condition where the participants are explicitly testing memory, and both the latter groups performed reliably better than a group that self-tested less. The results suggest that delayed JOLs improve long-term retention as efficiently as explicit memory testing and lend support to the SFP hypothesis.     

Effects of short-term retrieval on adult age differences in long-term recall of actions.

In Experiment 1 young and elderly subjects either recalled or repeated after every block of 4 actions, whereas control subjects received neither interpolated short-term recall nor action repetition. On a later long-term memory test, experimental subjects, regardless of age or condition, recalled slightly more actions than control subjects. In Experiment 2 young adult and elderly subjects received 12 short-term memory trials in which 2 actions were performed on each trial, but only 1 was cued for recall after a brief retention interval filled with a distracting activity. On a later long-term memory test for the actions performed on the short-term trials, both young and elderly subjects recalled significantly more previously cued than noncued actions. The Age X Cuing Condition interaction was negligible. Prior retrieval of actions appears to enhance later recall regardless of age but seemingly only when prior retrieval requires considerable cognitive effort (as in Experiment 2).     

Redintegration and the benefits of long-term knowledge in verbal short-term memory: an evaluation of Schweickert's (1993) multinomial processing tree model

The impact of four long-term knowledge variables on serial recall accuracy was investigated. Serial recall was tested for high and low frequency words and high and low phonotactic frequency nonwords in 2 groups: monolingual English speakers and French-English bilinguals. For both groups the recall advantage for words over nonwords reflected more fully correct recalls with fewer recall attempts that consisted of fragments of the target memory items (one or two of the three target phonemes recalled correctly); completely incorrect recalls were equivalent for the 2 list types. However, word frequency (for both groups), nonword phonotactic frequency (for the monolingual group), and language familiarity all influenced the proportions of completely incorrect recalls that were made. These results are not consistent with the view that long-term knowledge influences on immediate recall accuracy can be exclusively attributed to a redintegration process of the type specified in multinomial processing tree model of immediate recall. The finding of a differential influence on completely incorrect recalls of these four long-term knowledge variables suggests instead that the beneficial effects of long-term knowledge on short-term recall accuracy are mediated by more than one mechanism.     

The influence of learning methods on collaboration: prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory

Research on collaborative memory has unveiled the counterintuitive yet robust phenomenon that collaboration impairs group recall. A candidate explanation for this collaborative inhibition effect is the disruption of people's idiosyncratic retrieval strategies during collaboration, and it is hypothesized that employing methods that improve one's organization protects against retrieval disruption. Here it is investigated how one's learning method during the study phase--defined as either repeatedly studying or repeatedly retrieving information--influences retrieval organization and what effects this has on collaborative recall and post-collaborative individual recall. Results show that repeated retrieval consistently eliminated collaborative inhibition. This enabled participants to gain the most from re-exposure to materials recalled by their partners that they themselves did not recall and led to improvements in their individual memory following collaboration. This repeated retrieval advantage stemmed from the preferential manner in which this learning method strengthened retrieval organization. Findings are also discussed that reveal a relationship between retrieval organization and the interaction observed between learning method and short versus long delay seen in the testing effect literature. Finally, results show that the elusive benefits of cross-cuing during collaboration may be best detected with a longer study-test delay. Together, these findings illuminate when and how collaboration can enhance memory.     

‘Liars are less detailed’ …So what? Comparing two recall instructions to detect deception within-subject

Most deception research provides between-subject results (e.g., liars give on average less detailed accounts), which might be of limited value for professionals evaluating credibility on an individual basis. This study examines the optimal instructions of a within-subject multiple recalls strategy to detect deception. A total of 110 participants, divided into a Lie and Truth group, were randomly placed into four interview conditions: two Basic report-everything instructions (1), a Basic recall followed by an Open depth instruction (2), a Basic recall followed by the Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol (3), and two recalls with the Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol (4). All recalls were coded for total details and verifiable details. Group (lie and truth) × Recall (first and second) was only significant in condition 3, with truth tellers providing more verifiable details in the second recall than the first. A simple within-subject decision rule was derived, allowing a 76.9% discrimination rate. Professionals can optimally evaluate credibility using two recalls (Basic recall followed by Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol) and observing the evolution of verifiable details.     

Effects of correspondence between encoding and retrieval organization in social memory

Memory research has shown impaired recall performance when a subset of the studied stimuli is presented at recall (the part-list cueing effect, Slamecka, 1968) or when the recall is collaborative (collaborative-inhibition effect, Weldon & Bellinger, 1997). In two experiments we explore these effects in an impression-formation context and compare two prominent accounts (retrieval blocking versus strategy disruption) for them. We varied the correspondence between item organization at encoding and retrieval, either by manipulating the organization of part-list cues (Experiment 1) or the organization of the stimulus list that was later recalled collaboratively (Experiment 2). Results showed that when encoding and recall organizations did not correspond recall was impaired, replicating part-list cueing and collaborative-inhibition effects. However, when encoding and retrieval organization corresponded, these effects were greatly reduced. Such results support the recall strategy disruption hypothesis and challenge the retrieval blocking account. Implications for understanding memory in a social context are discussed.     

Persistence of the spacing effect in free recall under varying incidental learning conditions

In three incidental learning experiments, an attempt was made to eliminate the processing deficit under massed presentation that is assumed to be responsible for the spacing effect in free recall, according to the attenuation of attention hypothesis. This was to be accomplished in Experiment I by requiring subjects to attend specifically to the total exposure duration of each item and in Experiments II and III by requiring subjects to rate the successive occurrences of repeated items on different semantic rating scales. The results of the three experiments consistently showed that these manipulations were ineffective in eliminating the spacing effect. Subsidiary analyses indicated that the activities involved in doing the semantic rating tasks do not provide direct access to retrieval cues useful for subsequent recall. Instead, it appears that, in order to perform the semantic rating tasks reliably, subjects must compare the to-be-rated item with previously rated items, and this comparison process may serve as the source of retrieval cues for subsequent recall.     

Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall

When people recall together in a collaborative group they recall less than their potential. This phenomenon of collaborative inhibition is explained in terms of retrieval disruption. However, collaborative recall also re-exposes individuals to items recalled by others that they themselves might otherwise have forgotten. This re-exposure produces post-collaborative benefits in individual recall. The current study examined whether reduced retrieval disruption during group recall is related not only to less collaborative inhibition, but also to greater post-collaborative recall benefits. To test this we devised a paradigm to calculate the extent to which each individual experienced retrieval disruption during group recall. We also included two types of collaborative groups, one of which was expected to experience greater retrieval disruption than the other. Results suggest that the relationship between retrieval disruption and recall performance depends on the level at which retrieval disruption is measured. When retrieval disruption was assessed at the individual level, then minimising retrieval disruption was associated with higher recall (i.e., less collaborative inhibition and greater post-collaborative individual recall). However, when retrieval disruption was assessed at the group level there was no relationship with recall. Furthermore, the findings from this design suggest a role of cross-cueing in modulating group recall levels.     

Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests

Recent work on testing effects has shown that retrieval practice can facilitate memory even for complex prose materials (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a, 2006b). In three experiments the current study explores the effectiveness of retrieval practice on fill-in-the-blank (FITB) tests requiring the recall of specific words or phrases from a text. Final tests included both repeated items that were directly taken from initial tests, and related items. In Experiment 1, with a 2-day delay between initial and final tests, FITB testing benefited performance only on repeated items. In Experiment 2 a 7-day delay between testing sessions led to more robust effects on repeated items. However, once again no benefits were seen for related items. In Experiment 3 the scope of retrieval was varied by comparing FITB tests to paragraph recall tests requiring retrieval of all sentences following a topic sentence. Only the more open-ended recall practice demonstrated improvements in transfer to novel questions. The results suggest that scope or type of processing required during retrieval practice is likely a critical factor in whether testing will have specific or robust benefits.     

How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?

Combining study and test trials during learning is more beneficial for long-term retention than repeated study without testing (i.e., the testing effect). Less is known about the relative efficacy of different response formats during testing. We tested the hypothesis that overt testing (typing responses on a keyboard) during a practice phase benefits later memory more than covert testing (only pressing a button to indicate successful retrieval). In Experiment 1, three groups learned 40 word pairs either by repeatedly studying them, by studying and overtly testing them, or by studying and covertly testing them. In Experiment 2, only the two testing conditions were manipulated in a within-subjects design. In both experiments, participants received cued recall tests after a short (~19 min) and a long (1 week) retention interval. In Experiment 1, all groups performed equally well at the short retention interval. The overt testing group reliably outperformed the repeated study group after 1 week, whereas the covert testing group performed insignificantly different from both these groups. Hence, the testing effect was demonstrated for overt, but failed to show for covert testing. In Experiment 2, overtly tested items were better and more quickly retrieved than those covertly tested. Further, this does not seem to be due to any differences in retrieval effort during learning. To conclude, overt testing was more beneficial for later retention than covert testing, but the effect size was small. Possible explanations are discussed.     

Total retrieval time and hypermnesia: Investigating the benefits of multiple recall tests

Hypermnesia is an increase in recall over repeated tests. A core issue is the role of repeated testing, per se, versus total retrieval time. Prior research implies an equivalence between multiple recall tests and a single test of equal total duration, but theoretical analyses indicate otherwise. Three experiments investigated this issue using various study materials (unrelated word lists, related word lists, and a short story). In the first experimental session, the study phase was followed by a series of short recall tests or by a single, long test of equal total duration. Two days later, participants took a final recall test. The multiple and single test conditions produced equivalent performance in the first session, but the multiple test group exhibited less forgetting and fewer item losses in the final test. In a fourth experiment, using a brief delay (15 min) between the recall sessions, the multiple recall condition produced greater hypermnesia as well as fewer item losses. In addition, final recall was significantly higher in the multiple than in the single test condition in three of the four experiments. Thus, single and repeated recall tests of equal total duration are not functionally equivalent, but rather produce differences observable in subsequent recall tests.