Does test delay eliminate collaborative inhibition?

Earlier research has demonstrated that collaborative groups recall more than individuals, but less than nominal groups (pooled performance of individuals), thus exhibiting collaborative inhibition. In two experiments, all participants were first asked to recall story material on their own. Some participants were then assigned to pairs and recalled the material collaboratively. On the other hand, the participants in the individual recall condition were asked to recall the material once again on their own. In Experiment 1, the collaborative pairs recalled less than the nominal pairs in accordance with previous studies. In Experiment 2, the timing of the initial individual recall was manipulated by inserting one week between the learning and the recall. The collaborative inhibition was eliminated in this situation. Sources of the collaborative inhibition in immediate recall and its disappearance in delayed recall are discussed in terms of the effect of cross cueing in collaborative remembering.     

Children's collaborative recall of shared and unshared information

This study examined age differences in collaborative inhibition and the role of inter‐subjectivity, collective information sampling (CIS) and collaborative inhibition for the collaborative recall of shared and unshared information in groups of 7‐ and 9‐year‐old children. Three‐hundred and thirteen 7‐ and 9‐year‐old children recalled memorized wordlists either in real or nominal groups of three. All group members either recalled the same items, or each group member was given some unique items. Nine‐year‐olds, but not 7‐year‐olds, recalled significantly more items in nominal than real groups, a phenomenon called collaborative inhibition. Groups whose interactions were characterized by higher numbers of inter‐subjective exchanges recalled fewer words than groups low in inter‐subjectivity. In both age groups, a higher proportion of shared compared with unshared information was recalled consistent with processes of CIS. However, 7‐year‐olds recalled more unshared items than predicted, suggesting that collaborative inhibition additionally contributes to the recall of shared and unshared items.     

Does collaborative remembering reduce false memories?

Collaborative remembering refers to recall by groups rather than by an individual. Three experiments investigated whether, relative to individual remembering, collaborative remembering decreased correct recall and false recall using the Deese‐Roediger‐McDermott paradigm. Participants were first asked to study and recall five lists of 15 words that were each semantically associated with a critical non‐presented word. Half the participants recalled the words by themselves, while the remaining half were assigned to pairs and collaboratively recalled the words. In Experiment 1, pairs produced the same number of false or correct words as individuals who were tested alone. In Experiment 2, the interpersonal closeness of the groups was also manipulated: friends and pairs who were not friends were assigned to the collaborative groups. Both friends and non‐friends produced fewer false or correct words than individuals. Experiment 3, in which the performance of the individuals and non‐friend pairs were compared using a recall test of the same 75 words as the previous experiments, replicated the results of Experiment 2. These results are discussed in terms of the retrieval‐strategy disruption.     

Collaborative recall of details of an emotional film

Collaborative inhibition refers to the phenomenon that when several people work together to produce a single memory report, they typically produce fewer items than when the unique items in the individual reports of the same number of participants are combined (i.e., nominal recall). Yet, apart from this negative effect, collaboration may be beneficial in that group members remove errors from a collaborative report. Collaborative inhibition studies on memory for emotional stimuli are scarce. Therefore, the present study examined both collaborative inhibition and collaborative error reduction in the recall of the details of emotional material in a laboratory setting. Female undergraduates (n = 111) viewed a film clip of a fatal accident and subsequently engaged in either collaborative (n = 57) or individual recall (n = 54) in groups of three. The results show that, across several detail categories, collaborating groups recalled fewer details than nominal groups. However, overall, nominal recall produced more errors than collaborative recall. The present results extend earlier findings on both collaborative inhibition and error reduction to the recall of affectively laden material. These findings may have implications for the applied fields of forensic and clinical psychology.     

Memory distortion in group recall

Earlier we reported (Basden, Basden, Bryner, ...Thomas, 1997) that, in comparison with nominal groups (three people tested individually), three-person collaborative groups recalled fewer presented words but intruded more nonpresented words. In the present research, Experiment 1 showed that when presented words were associatively related to critical nonpresented words, collaboration inhibited recall of presented words but did not influence recall of critical nonpresented words. Experiment 2 showed that with categorized lists, recall of high taxonomic frequency critical nonpresented words was greater for collaborative groups than for nominal groups. Collaboration did not inhibit recall of presented words, presumably because guessing supplemented recall in collaborative groups. Greater false recall in collaborative than in nominal groups appears to result from activation of superordinate-to-item associations rather than item-to-item associations.     

Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall

Most crimes have multiple eyewitnesses. The police typically interview co-witnesses separately. In time-sensitive investigations, this could slow down evidence accumulation. Having co-witnesses collaboratively recall a crime could potentially expedite evidence accumulation. However, past research shows that collaborative group members often have conflicting retrieval strategies that disrupt each other, degrading overall recall. This cost could potentially be overcome by aligning group members’ retrieval strategies with category clustering recall (CCR), which is a retrieval strategy where information is recalled from a series of forensically relevant categories (e.g., recalling the protagonists’ appearance, then actions). This study examined the costs and benefits of collaborative eyewitness memory by having collaborative pairs of strangers, nominal pairs (i.e., two individuals whose recall is pooled) and lone individuals watch a crime and recall it using free recall or CCR. The collaborative pairs recalled the crime faster than the nominal pairs. They also recalled more correct information than individuals but less than nominal pairs, irrespective of the retrieval method. There is therefore a speed-recall completeness trade-off when collaborative groups recall crimes. Importantly, all participants recalled more correct information when using CCR. This provides initial evidence suggesting that CCR is superior to free recall. Further research examining CCR’s benefits is recommended.     

Age differences in collaborative memory: the role of retrieval manipulations

In two experiments, we examined age differences in collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in pairs of people, relative to pooled individuals) across repeated retrieval attempts. Younger and older adults studied categorized word lists and were then given two consecutive recall tests and a recognition test. On the first recall test, the subjects were given free-report cued recall or forced-report cued recall instructions (Experiment 1) or free recall instructions (Experiment 2) and recalled the lists either alone or in collaboration with another subject of the same age group. Free-report cued recall and free recall instructions warned the subjects not to guess, whereas forcedreport cued recall instructions required them to guess. Collaborative inhibition was obtained for both younger and older adults on initial tests of free-report cued recall, forced-report cued recall, and free recall, showing that the effect generalizes across several tests for both younger and older adults. Collaborative inhibition did not persist on subsequent individual recall or recognition tests for list items. Older adults consistently falsely recalled and recognized items more than did younger adults, as had been found in previous studies. In addition, prior collaboration may exaggerate older adults’ tendency toward higher false alarms on a subsequent recognition test, but only after a free recall test. The results provide generality to the phenomenon of collaborative inhibition and can be explained by invoking concepts of strategy disruption and source monitoring.     

Collaborative Inhibition and Semantic Recall: Improving Collaboration Through Computer‐mediated Communication

Two experiments investigated the recall of nominal and collaborating groups to test the following hypotheses: (i) semantic memory, as well as episodic memory, is disrupted by collaborative recall and (ii) both episodic and semantic recall will be greater in groups collaborating via computer‐mediated communication (CMC) than groups collaborating face to face. Experiment 1 investigated different collaborative constellations (nominal, face to face and parallel CMC) in a series of episodic and semantic word recall tasks. In Experiment 2, collaborative groups (nominal, face to face, parallel CMC and cyclic CMC) completed a Scrabble task in which they were required to generate words from a set of 12 letters. Both experiments demonstrated that collaborative inhibition was present in semantic recall. Parallel CMC improved recall by comparison with face‐to‐face collaboration in both experiments, whereas cyclic CMC did not. The underlying causes of collaborative inhibitory effects and the potential for reducing them with CMC are discussed.Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

Collaborative remembering revisited: Study context access modulates collaborative inhibition and later benefits for individual memory

Collaborating groups typically show reduced recall relative to nominal groups, i.e., to the cumulated non-redundant recall of the same number of people remembering in isolation—a finding termed collaborative inhibition. Motivated by the results of several previous studies, this study examined in two experiments whether access to study context at test influences the effects of collaboration. In both experiments, subjects collaborated in triads or recalled previously studied material in isolation. Experiment 1 applied short versus prolonged retention intervals to vary access to study context at test, whereas Experiment 2 used the list-method directed forgetting task and applied remember versus forget instructions to modulate context access. In both experiments, collaborative inhibition was present when access to study context at test was intact (i.e., after the short delay and the remember instruction) but was eliminated when the access was impaired (i.e., after the prolonged delay and the forget instruction). Also, post-collaborative gains for individual recall were greater when context access was impaired and collaborative inhibition was eliminated. The findings demonstrate a critical role of access to study context at test for collaborative inhibition, indicating that impaired context access may reflect a general boundary condition for the recall impairment. The possible role of context reactivation processes for beneficial effects of social recall is discussed.     

Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity

Collaborative recall in episodic memory tasks was investigated in two experiments. The experiments were explicitly designed to investigate how the interaction between two subjects influences group productivity. Subjects were requested to recall twice, first individually, and second, in different subject constellations (individually, or in dyads, as friends or non-friends). Experiment 1 employed free recall of words and story recall. In Experiment 2, a video-taped lecture on child development was recalled. The observed score at the second recall (Recall 2) was compared with the nominal predicted score, based on the initial recall. The results of the experiments are summarized and discussed in four clusters: (1) observed productivity for dyads never reached their predicted potential; (2) the negative effects of collaborative recall can be reduced; (3) friends rather than non-friends, and complex rather than simple tasks, reduce the loss in productivity; and (4) the data also suggest that encoding alone is superior to collaborative encoding.     

成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响

当人们与搭档组成社会群体一起协作讨论某些已经发生的事件或经验时, 该社会群体中的成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响仍不明确。本研究通过两项实验, 分别使用语词词单和情景故事作为实验材料, 考察成员关系(包括关系类型和关系时长)对协作提取成绩的影响。研究结果表明, 当记忆的材料为语词词单时, 青年陌生组出现了协作抑制; 而当记忆的材料为情景故事时, 青年夫妻和老年夫妻组均出现了协作促进。此外, 老年夫妻在协作提取情景故事的过程中使用的有效交流策略更多, 且这些有效交流策略的使用与更高的协作提取成绩有关。该结果支持了具有长时亲密关系的老年夫妻之间的“交互记忆系统”对协作促进的关键作用, 为理解成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响提供了全面的证据。     

回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节——情绪效价和编码水平的影响

前人在项目回忆条件的合作记忆研究中记录到明显的合作抑制和错误修剪,背景提取条件的相关研究尤显不足;同时,情绪效价和编码水平对两类现象调节的研究尚未涉及。为此,本文在两个实验中采用经典合作记忆研究范式,以不同情绪效价的词汇为实验材料并以词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色为背景展开研究。实验1和实验2分别在学习阶段采用了深编码和浅编码任务,回忆阶段则均含项目回忆(回忆已学词汇)和背景提取(回忆词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色)两种任务。采用深编码条件的实验1的结果显示,项目回忆比背景提取条件的合作抑制更强、错误修剪更弱,回忆任务与词汇情绪效价交互影响合作抑制强度;采用浅编码条件的实验2则发现错误修剪在两种任务间的差异不显著。两实验的联合分析显示,回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。上述结果表明:回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节支持双重加工模型;回忆任务与情绪效价对合作抑制强度的交互影响支持权衡说,且与双重加工模型相吻合;回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。     

False memory for associated word lists in individuals and collaborating groups

Using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, we investigated recall of presented and nonpresented associated words by collaborating groups, nominal groups, and individuals. In Experiment 1, participants recalled individually and then recalled in collaborating groups. Nominal groups made up of individual recall produced more presented and nonpresented associated words than did collaborating groups. Collaborating groups recalled more presented words than did individuals, but not more nonpresented words. In Experiment 2, collaborating groups versus individuals was a between-subjects variable, and everyone made two recall attempts. For recall, the pattern was the same as that in Experiment 1, in that collaborating groups recalled more presented words than did individuals but about the same number of nonpresented words. In a DRM paradigm, collaborating groups were able to produce more presented words than were individuals, without increasing their false 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.     

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.     

协作抑制的多机制解释:来自编码加工方式和编码相似性的证据

协作抑制是指小组提取的信息量比等量个体单独提取的信息总量要少。对于协作过程降低小组成员提取潜能的机制解释,不同研究之间仍有争论。本研究实验1使用经典的生存加工范式,实验2使用联想记忆训练法,分别考察编码加工方式和编码相似性对协作提取成绩的影响,从而检验提取抑制和策略破坏机制是否能分别影响协作抑制。研究结果表明,被试在生存和非生存(愉悦度和自我经历)加工条件下都出现协作抑制现象,而生存加工条件下的协作抑制量显著小于非生存加工条件;在使用联想记忆训练法之后,相同学习顺序组没有出现协作抑制,而不同学习顺序组出现了经典的协作抑制。本研究结果为协作抑制的可能存在的多机制解释提供了证据。     

Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy

We often remember in groups, yet research on collaborative recall finds “collaborative inhibition”: Recalling with others has costs compared to recalling alone. In related paradigms, remembering with others introduces errors into recall. We compared costs and benefits of two collaboration procedures—turn taking and consensus. First, 135 individuals learned a word list and recalled it alone (Recall 1). Then, 45 participants in three-member groups took turns to recall, 45 participants in three-member groups reached a consensus, and 45 participants recalled alone but were analysed as three-member nominal groups (Recall 2). Finally, all participants recalled alone (Recall 3). Both turn-taking and consensus groups demonstrated the usual pattern of costs during collaboration and benefits after collaboration in terms of recall completeness. However, consensus groups, and not turn-taking groups, demonstrated clear benefits in terms of recall accuracy, both during and after collaboration. Consensus groups engaged in beneficial group source-monitoring processes. Our findings challenge assumptions about the negative consequences of social remembering.     

Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy

We often remember in groups, yet research on collaborative recall finds "collaborative inhibition": Recalling with others has costs compared to recalling alone. In related paradigms, remembering with others introduces errors into recall. We compared costs and benefits of two collaboration procedures--turn taking and consensus. First, 135 individuals learned a word list and recalled it alone (Recall 1). Then, 45 participants in three-member groups took turns to recall, 45 participants in three-member groups reached a consensus, and 45 participants recalled alone but were analysed as three-member nominal groups (Recall 2). Finally, all participants recalled alone (Recall 3). Both turn-taking and consensus groups demonstrated the usual pattern of costs during collaboration and benefits after collaboration in terms of recall completeness. However, consensus groups, and not turn-taking groups, demonstrated clear benefits in terms of recall accuracy, both during and after collaboration. Consensus groups engaged in beneficial group source-monitoring processes. Our findings challenge assumptions about the negative consequences of social remembering.     

Collaborative inhibition persists following social processing

In this experiment, participants read target words that were presented in the context of a social sentence “Willow towered over Meadow” or a nonsocial sentence “The willow towered over the meadow.” Subsequently, they received a surprise cued recall test for the target nouns/names and completed the test either alone or in a group of two. Despite the fact that the stimulus materials were held constant across conditions, participants showed a social processing advantage in memory—that is, they remembered the social (name) versions of the target words significantly better than the nonsocial (noun) versions. Further, the social benefit was not strong enough to neutralise the inhibitory effects of collaboration as collaborative groups (two people working together) recalled significantly fewer words than did nominal groups (combined, nonredundant, output of two individuals working separately). The present study also demonstrated robust collaborative inhibition with cued recall, a task previously assumed to eliminate such inhibition.