Collaboration in Recall: Do Pairs of People Cross-cue Each Other to Produce New Memories?

When people collaborate over their recall of a shared experience, it might be expected that they could “cross-cue” each other so as to produce new memories not available to either member of the pair on their own. In a previous series of experiments (Meudell et al., 1992), we found that pairs of people always recalled more than one person, but we failed to show that social interaction facilitated performance so as to produce such “emergent” new memories. However, a phenomenon akin to cross-cuing was employed by Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) in their classic study of the availability and accessibility of memories; accordingly, in this study, we repeated Tulving and Pearlstone's work directly in a social context. So as to assess whether new memories emerged in collaborating pairs, a sequential design was employed. People learned categorized lists of words, and then all the subjects recalled the items strictly on their own. Subjects then recalled again in pairs (collaboratively) or once more on their own. The results showed that even when the opportunity for cross-cuing was directly manipulated through the provision of categorized lists, no additional new memories emerged in the collaborating groups. Possible mechanisms for the results are considered.     

The Real Questions are Theological

Book reviewed in this article:
Alastair McFadyen, Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of Sin     

Prevalence of Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury in Nonclinical Samples: Systematic Review,Meta‐Analysis and Meta‐Regression

Published prevalence estimates of nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) among nonclinical samples are highly heterogeneous, raising concerns about their reliability and hindering attempts to explore the alleged increase in NSSI over time. Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to investigate the influence of methodological factors on heterogeneity in NSSI prevalence estimates, explore changes over time, and estimate overall international NSSI prevalence. Results showed that methodological factors contributed over half (51.6%) of the heterogeneity in prevalence estimates, and, after adjusting for these factors, NSSI prevalence did not increase over time. Overall, pooled NSSI prevalence was 17.2% among adolescents, 13.4% among young adults, and 5.5% among adults. Clearly, development of standardized methodology in NSSI research is crucial if accurate estimates are desired.