Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-04-2023 | Research

Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method

Auteurs: Magda Saraiva, Pedro B. Albuquerque, Margarida V. Garrido

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2023

Abstract

It is well established that the recall of collaborative groups is lower than the pooled recall of an equal number of lone individuals—the collaborative inhibition effect (Weldon and Bellinger, J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1160–1175, 1997). This is arguably the case because group members have conflicting retrieval strategies that disrupt each other's recall—the retrieval strategies disruption hypothesis (Basden et al., J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1176–1191, 1997). In two experiments, we further examined this hypothesis by testing whether the memory task (free recall vs. serial recall) and the recall method (turn-taking vs. unconstraint) moderate collaborative inhibition. Experiment 1 compared the performance of collaborative and nominal groups in a free recall and a serial recall task. Results revealed collaborative inhibition in free recall, but this effect was reduced in serial recall. In Experiment 2, collaborative and nominal performance was compared in the same tasks with collaborative but also nominal groups, using the turn-taking method. The collaborative inhibition effect was still observed in free recall, although to a lesser extent when participants in nominal groups used the turn-taking method. In the serial recall task, the collaborative inhibition effect was eliminated. Taken together, these results further support retrieval strategies disruption as an explanation for the collaborative inhibition effect.

vorige artikel Does social rigidity predict cognitive rigidity? Profiles of socio-cognitive polarization

volgende artikel Interperformer coordination in piano-singing duo performances: phrase structure and empathy impact

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Despite that the collaborative inhibition effect increases as the group size increases (e.g., triads, tetrads), meta-analytic studies (e.g., Marion & Thorley, 2016) have already confirmed that collaborative inhibition was reliably observed in groups of two individuals.

The databases and the syntaxes for both experiments are available at OSF (https://osf.io/e95pd/?view_only=701e843751324d9c9b589fd3b407fbda).

Typically, in serial recall tasks, the responses are scored as correct if entered in the proper position (see Thomas et al., 2003). However, to ensure that observed differences between the two memory tasks do not result from different scoring methods, we considered a recalled word as correct (if it has been presented on the list), irrespective of the position in which it was recalled.

Prior to all analyses reported, relevant assumptions were checked. Additional analysis of recall task order, stimulus list order, and the serial position curves for nominal and collaborative groups in both memory tasks can be found in SM. Relevant results are addressed in the discussion.

Considering the recall task order, we found that in the free recall task, the nominal performance did not vary with task order, but the collaborative recall was higher when it was the second task than the first. In the serial recall task, nominal group performance was higher when it was the second recall task (vs. first) and the collaborative performance did not vary with task order (see SM for more details).

Prior to all analyses reported, relevant assumptions were checked. Some additional analysis and the serial position curves for nominal and collaborative groups in both memory tasks can be found in SM.

Equivalence tests (TOST procedure; Lakens, 2017) using as bounds Cohen's medium effect size (dz = .50) indicated that the observed effect size in the serial recall (dz = .192) was significantly within the equivalent bounds, t(37) = 1.89, p = .033, suggesting that the absence of the collaborative inhibition effect in serial recall is reliable. The same procedure revealed that the presence of collaborative inhibition in the free recall is also reliable, t(37) = 0.72, p = .238.

Considering the recall task order, we found that in the free recall task, the nominal performance did not vary with task order, but the collaborative recall was higher when it was the second task than the first. In the serial recall task, both nominal and collaborative group performance did not vary with task order (see SM for more details).

Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H.T. (2017). Collaborative remembering revisited: Study context access modulates collaborative inhibition and later benefits for individual memory. Memory & Cognition, 45(8), 1319–1334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0737-9CrossRef

Andersson, J. (2001). Net effect of memory collaboration: How is collaboration affected by factors such as friendship, gender and age? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00248CrossRefPubMed

Andersson, J., Hitch, G., & Meudell, P. (2006). Effects of the timing and identity of retrieval cues in individual recall: An attempt to mimic cross-cueing in collaborative recall. Memory, 14(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000557CrossRefPubMed

Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1996). Collaboration and memory: Effects of dyadic retrieval on different memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199604)10:2%3c171::AID-ACP385%3e3.0.CO;2-DCrossRef

Barber, S. J., Harris, C. B., & Rajaram, S. (2014). Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: Multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000037CrossRefPubMed

Barber, S. J., & Rajaram, S. (2011). Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall. Memory, 19(5), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.584389CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Aron, A. (2010). When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.255CrossRef

Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Barnier, A. J., Harris, C. B., Morris, T., & Savage, G. (2018). Collaborative facilitation in older couples: Successful joint remembering across memory tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02385CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas, R. L., III. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1176–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1176CrossRefPubMed

Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., & Henry, S. (2000). Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0720(200011/12)14:6%3c497::AID-ACP665%3e3.0.CO;2-4CrossRef

Basden, B., Basden, D., Thomas, R., III., & Souphasith, S. (1998). Memory distortion in group recall. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 16, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-997-1001-4CrossRef

Bhatarah, P., Ward, G., & Tan, L. (2006). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The effect of concurrent task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(1), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.215CrossRefPubMed

Bhatarah, P., Ward, G., & Tan, L. (2008). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The serial nature of recall and the effect of test expectancy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.20CrossRef

Blumen, H. M., & Rajaram, S. (2008). Influence of re-exposure and retrieval disruption during group collaboration on later individual recall. Memory, 16(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701804495CrossRefPubMed

Blumen, H. M., Young, K. E., & Rajaram, S. (2014). Optimizing group collaboration to improve later retention. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(4), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.002CrossRef

Bruder, G. A. (1970). Analysis of differences between free and serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2), 232–237.CrossRef

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497CrossRef

Drewnowski, A., & Murdock, B. B. (1980). The role of auditory features in memory span for words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.3.319CrossRefPubMed

Ekeocha, J. O., & Brennan, S. E. (2008). Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups. Memory, 16(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701807480CrossRefPubMed

Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J., & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556–1567. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1556CrossRefPubMed

Garcia-Marques, L., Garrido, M. V., Hamilton, D. L., & Ferreira, M. B. (2012). Effects of correspondence between encoding and retrieval organization in social memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.017CrossRef

Garrido, M. V., Garcia-Marques, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2012a). Enhancing the comparability between part-list cueing and collaborative recall: A gradual part-list cueing paradigm. Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000144CrossRefPubMed

Garrido, M. V., Garcia-Marques, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2012b). Hard to recall but easy to judge: Retrieval strategies in social information processing. Social Cognition, 30(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.56CrossRef

Grenfell-Essam, R., & Ward, G. (2012). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The role of list length, strategy use, and test expectancy. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 106–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.004CrossRef

Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028906CrossRefPubMed

Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., Sutton, J., Barnier, A. J., & McIlwain, D. J. F. (2011). We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes, 48(4), 267–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2010.541854CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3228CrossRef

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43CrossRefPubMed

Kelley, M. R., Pentz, C., & Reysen, M. B. (2014). The joint influence of collaboration and part-set cueing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(10), 1977–1985. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.881405CrossRefPubMed

Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Larson, J. R., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 5–30.CrossRef

Maki, R. H., Weigold, A., & Arellano, A. (2008). False memory for associated word lists in individuals and collaborating groups. Memory & Cognition, 36, 598–603. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.598CrossRef

Marion, S. B., & Thorley, C. (2016). A meta-analytic review of collaborative inhibition and postcollaborative memory: Testing the predictions of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000071CrossRefPubMed

Marques, J. F. (2005). Normas de imagética e concreteza para substantivos comuns. Laboratório de Psicologia, 3(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.14417/lp.784CrossRef

Maswood, R., & Rajaram, S. (2019). Social transmission of false memory in small groups and large networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(4), 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12348CrossRefPubMed

Meade, M. L., Nokes, T. J., & Morrow, D. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802524240CrossRefPubMed

Rajaram, S., & Maswood, R. (2017). Collaborative memory: A selective review of data and theory. In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (2nd ed.). Elsevier.

Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388763CrossRefPubMed

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.

Rossi-Arnaud, C., Cestari, V., Rezende Silva Marques, V., Gabrielli, G., & Spataro, P. (2017). Collaboration in implicit memory: evidence from word-fragment completion and category exemplar generation. Psychological Research, 81, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0725-2CrossRefPubMed

Saraiva, M., Albuquerque, P. B., & Arantes, J. (2016). Elimination of collaborative inhibition effect using the method of Loci. Psicothema, 28(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2015.241CrossRefPubMed

Saraiva, M., Albuquerque, P. B., & Arantes, J. (2017). Production of false memories in collaborative memory tasks using the DRM paradigm. Psicológica, 38, 209–229.

Saraiva, M., Garrido, M. V., & Albuquerque, P. B. (2021). Emergence and transmission of misinformation in the context of social interactions. Memory & Cognition, 49(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01081-xCrossRef

Takahashi, M., & Saito, S. (2004). Does test delay eliminate collaborative inhibition? Memory, 12(6), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000521CrossRefPubMed

Thomas, J. G., Milner, H. R., & Haberlandt, K. F. (2003). Forward and backward recall: Different response time patterns, same retrieval order. Psychological Science, 14(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01437CrossRefPubMed

Thorley, C., & Dewhurst, S. A. (2007). Collaborative false recall in the DRM procedure: Effects of group size and group pressure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 867–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440600872068CrossRef

Ward, G., Tan, L., & Grenfell-Essam, R. (2010). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The effects of list length and output order. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1207–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020122CrossRefPubMed

Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160CrossRefPubMed

Weldon, M. S., Blair, C., & Huebsch, P. D. (2000). Group remembering: Does social loafing underlie collaborative inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1568–1577. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1568CrossRefPubMed

Wright, D. B., & Klumpp, A. (2004). Collaborative inhibition is due to the product, not the process, of recalling in groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1080–1083. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196740CrossRef

Yuker, H. E. (1955). Group atmosphere and memory. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046464CrossRef

Titel: Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method
Auteurs: Magda Saraiva
Pedro B. Albuquerque
Margarida V. Garrido
Publicatiedatum: 07-04-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01821-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2023

Contributions of transient and sustained reward to memory formation

What we imagine learning from watching others: how motor imagery modulates competency perceptions resulting from the repeated observation of a juggling action

Interperformer coordination in piano-singing duo performances: phrase structure and empathy impact

Parafoveal syntactic processing from word N + 2 during reading: the case of gender-specific German articles

The effects of self-selected background music and task difficulty on task engagement and performance in a visual vigilance task

The initiation of a hand grip is delayed by silently reading an incompatible syllable