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。     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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。     

Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory

The present studies were designed to examine age differences in memory when attention was divided during encoding, retrieval, or at both times. In Experiment 1, Ss studied categorized words while performing a number-monitoring task during encoding, retrieval, or at both times. Older Ss' free recall and clustering performance declined more than that of young Ss when attention was divided at encoding, but there was no similar age interaction when divided attention occurred at retrieval. In Experiment 2, the task demands at retrieval were increased by using a fast-paced, cued-recall task. The results remained unchanged from Experiment 1. Again, an age interaction occurred with divided attention at encoding but not at retrieval. These results were unexpected, given the emphasis in the memory-aging literature on increased difficulty of retrieval by older adults. The findings pose difficulties for limited processing resource views of age differences in memory.     

When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory

Humans routinely encode and retrieve experiences in interactive, collaborative contexts. Yet much of what we know about human memory comes from research on individuals working in isolation. Some recent research has examined collaboration during retrieval, but not much is known about how collaboration during encoding affects memory. We examined this issue. Participants created episodes by elaborating on study materials alone or collaboratively, and they later performed a cued-recall task alone, with the study partner, or with a different partner (Experiment 1). Collaborative encoding impaired recall. This counterintuitive outcome was found for both individual and group recall, even when the same partners collaborated across encoding and retrieval. This impairment was significantly reduced, but persisted, when the encoding instructions encouraged free-flowing collaboration (Experiment 2). Thus, the collaborative-encoding deficit is robust in nature and likely occurs because collaborative encoding produces less effective cues for later retrieval.     

The effects of encoding distinctiveness on retrieval variability in children and adults

To what extent are developmental differences in encoding distinctiveness responsible for differences in retrieval variability? This study examined this question by comparing the effects of different kinds of encoding distinctiveness on the ability of children and adults to reinstate the input environment at retrieval. The critical manipulations involved the use of semantic orienting questions at both encoding and retrieval. Second and fourth (Experiment 1) or fifth (Experiment 2) graders and college adults were given moderately associated word pairs (Knife-Axe) at input. Encoding was free or constrained at input and retrieval. The retrieval questions biased the Same interpretation of the cue as at input (weapon), a uniquely Different interpretation (utensil), or an inappropriate Negative interpretation. Encoding distinctiveness was varied by crossing these manipulations with either picture or word input (Experiment 1) or general or distinctive orienting questions (Experiment 2). The results suggested that encoding distinctiveness and retrieval variability contribute independently to developmental differences in recall.     

The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition

Two experiments examined collaborative memory for information that was studied by all group members (shared items) and information that was studied by only a subset of group members (unshared items). In both experiments significant collaborative inhibition (reduced output of the collaborative groups relative to the pooled output of individuals) was obtained for both shared and unshared information. In Experiment 1 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition was larger for unshared items than for shared items, possibly because unshared items were less likely to be acknowledged and thus incorporated into the groups' recall. In Experiment 2 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for shared and unshared information was equivalent once all participants were provided with the category name associated with the shared and unshared items. The results of the experiments are discussed in relation to the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis of collaborative inhibition and the role of social process variables, such as acknowledgement, in influencing collaborative inhibition across situations involving memory of shared and unshared information.     

The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition

Two experiments examined collaborative memory for information that was studied by all group members (shared items) and information that was studied by only a subset of group members (unshared items). In both experiments significant collaborative inhibition (reduced output of the collaborative groups relative to the pooled output of individuals) was obtained for both shared and unshared information. In Experiment 1 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition was larger for unshared items than for shared items, possibly because unshared items were less likely to be acknowledged and thus incorporated into the groups’ recall. In Experiment 2 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for shared and unshared information was equivalent once all participants were provided with the category name associated with the shared and unshared items. The results of the experiments are discussed in relation to the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis of collaborative inhibition and the role of social process variables, such as acknowledgement, in influencing collaborative inhibition across situations involving memory of shared and unshared information.     

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.     

注意资源、学习方式与年龄因素对协作抑制的影响

本研究在前人研究的基础上,试图探讨不同编码因素对协作抑制效应的制约作用,从协作抑制角度为挖掘集体记忆的作用机制提供证据。实验1结果发现,集中注意条件下,出现协作抑制;分配注意条件下,协作抑制消失。说明学习时注意资源的投入程度,对协作抑制有影响。实验2结果发现不同的学习方式对协作抑制的影响在不同年龄被试身上表现不同。本研究将视角聚焦于编码因素,研究结果证实,协作抑制受到不同编码因素的制约,此外,本结果亦为协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说提供了新的证据。     

An asymmetry between memory encoding and retrieval. Revelation, generation, and transfer-appropriate processing

Transfer-appropriate-processing accounts of memory emphasize the similarity of encoding and retrieval processes, and imply that experimental manipulations should have similar effects on encoding and retrieval. Exceptions to this expectation are thus of great interest, but extant exceptions (produced by studies using divided attention, alcohol, and benzodiazepines) are debatable, single dissociations between encoding and retrieval. The present experiments demonstrate a reversed dissociation, in which the same variable produced opposite effects when implemented at encoding and retrieval. At encoding, participants either solved anagrams of study words or read intact study words. At retrieval, participants likewise solved anagrams or read intact words prior to making recognition memory judgments. Compared with reading intact words, solving anagrams at encoding enhanced later recognition accuracy, whereas solving anagrams at test impaired accuracy. These results were obtained with old/new decisions (Experiment 1) and with confidence ratings (Experiment 2).     

The effects of divided attention at study and test on false recognition: A comparison of DRM and categorized lists

Three experiments investigated the effects of divided attention at encoding and retrieval on false recognition. In Experiment 1, participants studied word lists in either full or divided attention (random number generation) conditions and then took part in a recognition test with full attention. In Experiment 2, after studying word lists with full attention, participants carried out a recognition test with either full or divided attention. Experiment 3 manipulated attention at both study and test. We also compared Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) and categorized lists, due to recent claims regarding the locus of false memories produced by such lists (Smith, Gerkens, Pierce, & Choi, 2002). With both list types, false "remember" responses were reduced by divided attention at encoding and increased by divided attention at retrieval. The findings suggest that the production of false memories occurs as a result of the generation of associates at encoding and failures of source monitoring retrieval. Crucially, this is true for both DRM and categorized lists.     

The joint influence of collaboration and part-set cueing

The present study was designed to examine the effects of retrieval cues on memory performance for both individuals and collaborating pairs. Participants worked either alone or together in the presence or absence of part-set cues to recall list items in Experiments 1 and 2 and to reconstruct the order of a list items in Experiment 3. The detrimental effects of collaborative inhibition were observed across all three experiments. In contrast, part-set cueing inhibition was found following free recall, whereas part-set cueing facilitation was observed on reconstruction tasks. Taken together, the results of the present experiments suggest that the effects of collaborative inhibition and part-set cueing may operate independently of one another.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Item-specific and relational encoding effects in children's recall and recognition memory for words

This study tests the hypothesis that children's deficiency in encoding itemspecific and relational information in episodic events contributes to age differences in recall and recognition. In two experiments, grade school children and college adults were presented with word triplets varying in categorical relatedness. The processing of the item-specific and relational information in the triplets was independently manipulated. Experiment 1 assessed cued recall, and Experiment 2 assessed recognition of both the central target and incidental contextual members of each triplet. The results showed that the processing manipulations had independent and different effects on recall and recognition, on memory for the members of the different kinds of triplets, on the use of the retrieval cues, and on memory for target and incidental words. Developmental differences were found in both recall and recognition, and of both target and incidental words, that varied with triplet type and the processing manipulations and that were attributable to differences in the encoding of item-specific and relational information in the triplets. The discussion contrasts alternative accounts of children's encoding deficiency, and suggests that the distinction between automatic, age-invariant, and strategic age-sensitive encoding processes needs to be redrawn.     

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.