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.     

集体记忆中的协作促进及其原因

摘 要 协作促进是指先前协作提取的经验对后续的个人提取具有积极影响。为了探讨协作促进产生的基本条件及其原因,本研究通过两个实验分别考察了小组的人数和回忆方式对协作促进的影响以及他人再现和交叉线索对协作促进的贡献。结果表明：无论小组的大小为2人组、3人组还是4人组,回忆方式为轮流回忆还是自由回忆均能产生协作促进,且轮流回忆的协作促进量要高于自由回忆的协作促进量;他人再现对协作促进的贡献大于交叉线索。这说明协作促进是一个稳定的现象,其主要原因是他人再现的作用。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of learning instructions and cueing on free recall

Eighty unrelated high-imagery words were presented for free recall learning in groups of four words each. Learning instructions were varied, with one group told to relate the words in each input group by means of images, another group told to use verbal (sentence) mediators, and the control group not given specific learning instructions. During recall, list items were presented as retrieval cues in some conditions. In comparison with the control condition, imagery and verbal mediation instructions produced greater recall, more clustering, and a largez number of instances per group recalled. When the retrieval cues were selected such that one cue came from each of the input groups and when the strength of within-group organization was quite high, Ss recalled more words and a larger number of input groups. It was concluded that instructions and cueing conditions influenced different aspects of the free recall process. Instructions influenced the organization of individual words into units, and cueing affected the retrieval of specific units.     

Variables affecting subjective organization during posthypnotic amnesia

Subjects learned a list of unrelated words to a criterion of either two successive correct trials (standard criterion), or two successive correct trials plus five additional recall trials (extra criterion). The extra recall trials significantly increased the subjective organization of recall. In the extra criterion group, a posthypnotic amnesia suggestion and a nonhypnotic distraction task produced equivalent decrements both in the amount recalled and in the subjective organization of recall. In the standard criterion group, suggestion and distraction reduced the amount recalled, but not the subjective organization of recall. The implications of these findings for understanding the contradictory results of earlier studies of recall organization during amnesia are discussed. Implications for theories of hypnotic amnesia are also discussed.     

Emotional discussions reduce memory recall

People often discuss events they have seen and these discussions can influence later recollections. We investigated the effects of factual, emotional, and free retelling discussion on memory recollections of individuals who have witnessed an event. Participants were shown a video, made an initial individual recall, participated in one of the three retelling conditions (emotional versus factual versus free) or a control condition, and then recalled the event individually again. Participants in the factual and free retelling conditions reported more items not previously recalled than participants in the control condition did, while the emotional condition did not show the same advantage. Participants in all three retelling conditions failed to report more previously recalled items as compared with the control condition. Finally, a memory conformity effect was observed for all three retelling conditions. These findings suggest that eyewitnesses’ discussions may influence the accuracy of subsequent memory reports, especially when these discussions are focused on emotional details and thoughts.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Age- and task-related differences in the use of category-size information for the retrieval of categorized items

Both the accuracy of category-size information and its use during the retrieval of categorized materials were investigated among kindergarten (5-year-old) and third-grade (8-year-old) children. Subjects were asked for free recall of a 34-item, categorized list wherein eight categories contained varying numbers of items. Subjects recalled items under either limited-time or unlimited-time conditions. Additionally, subjects were tested under one of three instructions: they were provided with the size of each category (Informed group), they were asked to estimate the size of each category (Estimation group), or they were given standard free recall instructions. Analysis of both the amount recalled and intercategory pause times indicated that third-graders' use of category size information was spontaneous, while kindergartners used the size information only when explicitly provided with it or asked for size estimates. Also, kindergartners' estimates of category size were much more in error than those of third-graders, although both groups erred on the side of underestimation. Importantly, when recall time limitations made the use of exhaustive category search less appropriate, third-graders were more apt to modify their search strategies.     

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.     

How informed is online informed consent?

We examined participants' reading and recall of informed consent documents presented via paper or computer. Within each presentation medium, we presented the document as a continuous or paginated document to simulate common computer and paper presentation formats. Participants took slightly longer to read paginated and computer informed consent documents and recalled slightly more information from the paginated documents. We concluded that obtaining informed consent online is not substantially different than obtaining it via paper presentation. We also provide suggestions for improving informed consent--in both face-to-face and online experiments.     

Anxiety and Mood-congruent Autobiographical Memory: A Conceptual Failure to Replicate

This study further explored whether highly anxious participants exhibit a mood-congruent autobiographical memory bias, as was found in two previous studies (Burke & Mathews, 1992; Richards & Whittaker, 1990). The 74 high and low trait anxious participants retrieved personal memories to anxiety-related, neutral, and positive cue words, and were then asked to recall the original cue words. The study also explored how expression of emotional versus factual responses might affect a memory bias. On most dependent measures, no differences were found between anxiety groups. However, low anxious participants recalled more memories overall than high anxious participants. In addition, the emotions groups recalled more words at free recall than the facts groups. Findings fail to support previous studies that found an autobiographical memory bias to be associated with high anxiety, and cast more support for the mounting evidence against a mood-congruent memory bias in anxiety.     

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 retrieval strategy disruption cause general and specific collaborative inhibition?

The purpose of the experiment on collaborative memory was to investigate if the collaborative inhibition is due to collaborating pair's disruption of each others' retrieval strategies (the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis, RSD). The participants' (N = 36) task was to recall a list of 60 words individually and collaboratively. Retrieval strategies were manipulated by presenting word lists organised either by categories or by country of origin and adoption of retrieval strategies were examined by the adjusted ratio of clustering score. Half of the dyads received word lists organised by the same strategy and half of the dyads received word lists organised by different strategies. The results revealed a main effect of collaboration, i.e., collaborative recalled items were significantly fewer than the sum of the non-redundant individually recalled items. Both conditions (same strategies vs different strategies) suffered to the same extent from collaboration, which did not support the RSD hypothesis. However, focusing on words recalled individually but not collaboratively, dyads with different strategies, as predicted by the RSD, forgot more items during collaboration than did dyads with the same strategy. Additional results suggest that collaborative forgetting is mainly manifested by forgetting of non-overlapping items (as measured by individual recalls).     

Witnessing postevents does not change memory traces,but can affect their retrieval

The results of three experiments suggest that a memory trace for an event is not altered by witnessing similar events, but that postevents can interfere with its retrieval. On an immediate recall test, details from an original story (e.g. wrench) were recalled less often if a subsequent story mentioned a ‘screwdriver’ than if it did not. The interference effect occurred if people were asked to recall details fromboth stories (tool —— ——), but not if people were asked to recall primarily from the first story. Thus, the interference effect in immediate recall was averted if the target trace could be activated selectively (Experiments 1a and 1b). A more general interference effect was found after a day. Fewer targets from the original story were recalled if the second story was presented just before the test than if both stories occurred a day earlier. Thus, the second story interfered with recall only if it emphasized contextual retrieval cues that did not match the trace for the targets (Experiment 2). Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.