Collaboration enhances later individual memory for emotional material

Research on collaborative remembering suggests that collaboration hampers group memory (i.e., collaborative inhibition), yet enhances later individual memory. Studies examining collaborative effects on memory for emotional stimuli are scarce, especially concerning later individual memory. In the present study, female undergraduates watched an emotional movie and recalled it either collaboratively (n?=?60) or individually (n?=?60), followed by an individual free recall test and a recognition test. We replicated the standard collaborative inhibition effect. Further, in line with the literature, the collaborative condition displayed better post-collaborative individual memory. More importantly, in post-collaborative free recall, the centrality of the information to the movie plot did not play an important role. Recognition rendered slightly different results. Although collaboration rendered more correct recognition for more central details, it did not enhance recognition of background details. Secondly, the collaborative and individual conditions did not differ with respect to overlap of unique correct items in free recall. Yet, during recognition former collaborators more unanimously endorsed correct answers, as well as errors. Finally, extraversion, neuroticism, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms did not moderate the influence of collaboration on memory. Implications for the fields of forensic and clinical psychology are discussed.     

Effects of pair collaboration and word-frequency in recognition memory: a study with the remember-know procedure

The present study investigated the effects of pair collaboration and word-frequency on recognition memory, using the "remember-know" procedure. The aim was to test the predictions of the information-exchange hypothesis (Clark, Hori, Putnam & Martin, 2000), which states that collaborative facilitation occurs when participants are able to share their recollective memories with other members of the group. Results showed that recognition performance was significantly better in the collaborative than in the individual condition, and better for low-frequency than for high-frequency words. The advantage of collaborating dyads was produced by an increase of correct hits, coupled with a significant reduction of false alarms. Furthermore, the analysis of the "remember" (R) and "know" (K) responses indicated that the effects of both pair collaboration and word-frequency were larger on recollection than on familiarity processes. It is concluded that, in a collaborative condition, arguments based on the retrieval of the contextual details associated with the target words are more effective than those based on familiarity in increasing the proportions of correct hits. In addition, it is proposed that collaboration may lead to a reduction of the probability to accept new items on the basis of familiarity (K) responses.     

Exploring the Performance Benefits of Group Training: Transactive Memory or Improved Communication?

Several experiments (see Hollingshead, 1998a; Moreland, 1999) have shown that groups perform tasks better if their members are trained together rather than apart. The performance benefits of group training have been attributed to the development of transactive memory systems. This experiment tested whether such benefits are due instead to improved communication among group members. The results indicated that they are not. Groups whose members were trained apart, with no chance to communicate with one another, performed well after receiving information about one another's skills. Their performance was comparable to that of groups whose members were trained together, and both types of groups performed significantly better than did groups whose members were trained apart. The relationship between transactive memory and communication processes was discussed briefly, along with the prospect of using feedback about workers' skills to create transactive memory systems in large organizations as well as in small groups.     

Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering

Collaborative inhibition, the poorer memory performance of collaborative groups as compared with nominal (noninteracting) groups was measured in the free recall of categorized lists. In Experiment 1, collaborative inhibition was present in four‐person groups, but not in pairs of two‐person groups, where each was compared with performance in four‐person nominal groups. However, on a final individual free recall test, members of two‐ and four‐person collaborative groups recalled a higher proportion of the list than members of nominal groups. In Experiment 2, recall in three‐person collaborative groups was less than in three‐person nominal groups but only on the first of three successive study‐test trials. On the final individual free recall test, members of collaborative groups recalled more words than members of nominal groups. Despite inhibiting recall and reminiscence, collaboration benefits remembering when collaborators are subsequently tested individually. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Going shopping and identifying landmarks: does collaboration improve older people's memory?

Older participants (mean age = 72.82 years) attempted to recall items from shopping lists while shopping in a supermarket and subsequently in their homes on recognition tests. They also attempted to identify local landmarks on a map. The recall occurred either together with their spouses or independently. Collaborative recall was compared to the pooled, nonredundant recall of spouses who completed the memory tasks alone (nominal groups). Nominal groups produced more hits on most measures and never fewer hits than did collaborative groups. However, collaborative groups consistently generated fewer memory errors than did nominal groups. In many everyday contexts, a tendency for collaboration to reduce false recall could be advantageous to older people. Signal detection analyses revealed that collaboration leads couples to require a higher level of certainty before they are willing to claim that they recognize an item. Finally, we examined the relation between expertise and recall in the shopping and landmark tasks. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Groups: An Analysis of the Interplay Between Quality of Social Regulation and Group Processes

This study extends prior research on both individual self-regulation and socially shared regulation during group learning to examine the range and quality of the cognitive and behavioral social regulatory sub-processes employed by six small collaborative groups of upper-elementary students (n = 24). Qualitative analyses were conducted based on videotaped observations of groups across a series of three mathematics tasks. Variation in the quality of social regulation as a function of group processes (positive and negative socioemotional interactions, collaborative and non-collaborative interactions) was also considered. Findings suggested that the synergy among the social regulatory processes of planning, monitoring, and behavioral engagement was important for differentiating quality variation between groups. Positive socioemotional interactions and collaboration also appeared to facilitate higher quality social regulation. Implications for comprehensively supporting high quality social regulation, alongside positive socioemotional interactions and collaboration, in small group contexts are discussed.     

Group collaboration in recognition memory

Group collaboration was examined in item and associative recognition. The present study distinguishes between group effects versus collaborative processes and defines the latter as interactive information exchange among group members. By that definition, many group effects do not involve collaboration. For example, group performance can exceed individual performance by pooling the increased resources of the group. Specifically, a group advantage can be obtained by deferring to a majority vote or to the group's best member. For both item and associative recognition, a group advantage was obtained that could not be accounted for by resource pooling. Collaborative facilitation was shown reliably in recognizing targets but not for rejecting distractors.     

Collaboration inflation: Egocentric source monitoring errors following collaborative remembering

Following collaborative remembering, people may adopt their partner's contributions as their own memory. In two studies, we asked people to study partially overlapping lists of words. During collaborative remembering, dyads either worked to include all words no matter who studied them or limited recall to only words studied by both dyad members. This differential focus on source information during collaborative recall impacted performance on a later source memory test. Nonetheless we found frequent source monitoring errors that displayed an egocentric bias. People were more likely to claim their partner's contributions as their own memories than attribute their memories to their partners. In collaborative remembering, people work to construct an agreed upon version of the past that quickly becomes each individual's memory.     

Compensating strategies in collaborative remembering in very old couples

This study investigates collaborative memory performance in very old married couples working in two types of participant constellations, and with two types of memory tasks, i.e. working as couples, or as individuals in episodic or semantic memory tasks. Sixty-two old married couples were a priori classified as high or low on two dimensions suggested to be important for successful collaboration, i.e. responsibility (how division of responsibility was organized) and agreement (how they mutually agreed on each other's view). The episodic memory task was immediate recall of short stories. The semantic memory tasks were to answer questions about names, places, and concepts. The results suggested that: (1) groups outperformed a single individual, but (2) groups in general suffered from collaboration relative to the predicted potential in episodic tasks only, thus replicating earlier results. Nevertheless, (3) the couples scoring high on division of responsibility achieved the same productivity as nominal pairs (i.e. the predicted potential); (4) the couples scoring high on the agreement dimension showed that they were not as affected by collaboration, but then performed less well in "absolute" performance. Finally, the results were discussed in terms of optimal compensation strategies, especially for elderly couples.     

“Going episodic”: collaborative inhibition and facilitation when long-married couples remember together

Two complementary approaches to the study of collaborative remembering have produced contrasting results. In the experimental “collaborative recall” approach within cognitive psychology, collaborative remembering typically results in “collaborative inhibition”: laboratory groups recall fewer items than their estimated potential. In the cognitive ageing approach, collaborative remembering with a partner or spouse may provide cueing and support to benefit older adults’ performance on everyday memory tasks. To combine the value of experimental and cognitive ageing approaches, we tested the effects of collaborative remembering in older, long-married couples who recalled a non-personal word list and a personal semantic list of shared trips. We scored amount recalled as well as the kinds of details remembered. We found evidence for collaborative inhibition across both tasks when scored strictly as number of list items recalled. However, we found collaborative facilitation of specific episodic details on the personal semantic list, details which were not strictly required for the completion of the task. In fact, there was a trade-off between recall of specific episodic details and number of trips recalled during collaboration. We discuss these results in terms of the functions of shared remembering and what constitutes memory success, particularly for intimate groups and for older adults.     

The applied value of collaborative memory research in aging: Behavioral and neural considerations

Our aim in this paper is to bring attention to the applied value of collaborative memory research in aging. At this time, much collaborative memory research focuses on the negative effects of collaboration in younger adults, and is primarily basic in nature. Here, we highlight the positive effects of collaboration that have received less attention, with a particular emphasis on the applied value of these effects in older adults. We first review studies to show that recalling in a group improves later individual recall and reduces memory errors in older adults. We then outline a four-step approach towards bridging laboratory and applied collaborative memory research, which involves: (1) complementing traditional paradigms with more ecologically valid paradigms, (2) evaluating these paradigms in applied settings, (3) adapting these paradigms for use with cognitively intact and cognitively impaired populations, and (4) modifying these paradigms to examine the neural systems that operate during collaborative recall.     

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.     

Performance and process in collective and individual memory: the role of social decision schemes and memory bias in collective memory

To assess performance and processes in collective and individual memory, participants watched two job candidates on video. Beforehand, half the participants were told they would be tested on their memory of the interviews, and the other half were asked to make a decision to hire one of the candidates. Afterwards, participants completed a recognition memory task in either a group or individual condition. Groups had better recognition memory than individuals. Individuals made more false positives than false negatives and groups exaggerated this. Post-hoc analysis found that groups only exaggerated the tendency towards false positives on items that reflected negatively on the job candidate. There was no significant difference between instruction conditions. When reaching consensus on the recognition task, groups tended to choose the correct answer if at least two members had the correct answer. This method of consensus is discussed as a factor in groups' superior memory performance.     

Net effect of memory collaboration: How is collaboration affected by factors such as friendship,gender and age?

The purpose of the study was to investigate explicit spatial and verbal collaborative memory performance. Factors such as friendship, age and gender were chosen for ecological and theoretical reasons. In Experiment 1 friendship and age were studied. The task was to retrieve the location of 25 pictures, which were presented in a 5 x 5-matrix grid. All participants retrieved once individually and once dyadically. Dyads were compared to the predicted base line, i.e., the pooled score from two participants working on their own (the same participants as in the dyad). Based on cognitive development aspects and collaboration data, it was predicted that the young collaborating dyads would not be able to reduce the net negative effects of collaboration to the same extent as older dyads. The findings revealed that, (1) dyadic collaboration affected spatial memory performance negatively, i.e., net negative effects of collaboration; (2) older (15-years-old), as opposed to young (7-years-old) dyads, reduced the net negative effects of collaboration and; (3) friend dyads, regardless of age, were able to reduce the net negative effect. In experiment 2, gender differences were studied in two explicit memory tasks. The purpose was to investigate if earlier findings of collaboration can be generalised to another ecological aspect of group composition, i.e., gender. Gender differences were studied at individual and group level. The results suggest that gender related memory differences exist on an individual and dyadic level in terms of absolute scores. Women remember explicit memory tasks to a greater degree than men. No main effect was found for gender in collaboration, i.e., both genders suffered compared to predicted potential.     

Improving the Accuracy of Group Judgment: A Process Intervention Combining Group Facilitation,Social Judgment Analysis,and Information Technology

Interacting groups fail to make judgments as accurate as those of their most capable members due to problems associated with both interaction processes and cognitive processing. Group process techniques and decision analytic tools have been used with groups to combat these problems. While such techniques and tools do improve the quality of group judgment, they have not enabled groups to make judgments more accurate than those of their most capable members on tasks that evoke a great deal of systematic bias. A new intervention procedure that integrates group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology was developed to overcome more fully the problems typically associated with interaction processes and cognitive processing. The intervention was evaluated by testing the hypothesis that groups using this new procedure can establish judgment policies for cognitive conflict tasks that are more accurate than the ones produced by any of their members. An experiment involving 16 four- and five-member groups was conducted to compare the accuracy of group judgments with the accuracy of the judgments of the most capable group member. A total of 96 participants (48 males and 48 females) completed the individual part of the task; 71 of these participants worked in groups. Results indicated that the process intervention enabled small, interacting groups to perform significantly better than their most capable members on two cognitive conflict tasks (p < .05). The findings suggest that Group Decision Support Systems that integrate facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology should be used to improve the accuracy of group judgment.     

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.     

Collaboration can improve individual recognition memory: Evidence from immediate and delayed tests

In two experiments, we tested the effects of collaboration on individual recognition memory. In Experiment 1, participants studied pictures and words either for meaning or for surface properties and made recognition memory judgments individually either following group discussion among 3 members (collaborative condition) or in the absence of discussion (noncollaborative condition). Levels of processing and picture superiority effects were replicated, and collaboration significantly increased individual recognition memory. Experiment 2 replicated this positive effect and showed that even though memory sensitivity declined at longer delays (48 h and 1 week), collaboration continued to exert a positive influence. These findings show that (1) consensus is not necessary for producing benefits of collaboration on individual recognition, (2) collaborative facilitation on individual memory is robust, and (3) collaboration enhances individual memory further if conditions predispose individual accuracy in the absence of collaboration. Psychonomic Society, Inc. nt]pra|Parts of the research reported in this article were presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore.     

Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving

The relations between short-term memory, working memory, inhibitory control, and arithmetic word problem solution were studied in children who were poor in arithmetic problem solving (n = 23). The children were compared with a group of good problem solvers (n = 26), matched for vocabulary, age, and gender. The results corroborate the hypothesis of poor problem solvers' general deficit in inhibitory processes. They had lower scores and made more intrusion errors in a series of working memory tasks requiring inhibition of irrelevant information. The results showed that problem solving performance is related to the ability of reducing the accessibility of nontarget and irrelevant information in memory. Span tasks that imply passive storage of information showed that poor problem solvers were impaired when they have to retain numerical information, but they did not differ from children who did not have difficulty with mathematics when the material included words.