Collaborative Inhibition Effect Research Articles

Collaborative encoding with a new categorization task: a contribution to collaborative memory research.

Collaborative memory research has focused primarily on the effects of collaboration at recall with collaboration during encoding receiving less attention. In the present study, collaboration was investigated both at encoding and at retrieval to determine its effects and possible interactions. The aim was to clarify whether the collaborative inhibition effect depended on whether the encoding was with the same or with a different partner. A total of 320 participants (160 Italian and 160 Spanish undergraduate students) were administered a modified version of the collaborative memory paradigm with a new categorization task of verbal affective stimuli at encoding. Specifically, they were asked to classify 90 printed words into 6 categories, so as to have 15 words in each category and then did two recall tasks. Participants were assigned to one of five possible conditions according to encoding (collaborative, individual) and recall (collaborative with the same partner, with another partner, and individual). Results show a collaborative encoding deficit and the classic collaborative inhibition effect independently of whether the encoding was collaborative or individual and even in a collaborative recall group that showed a degree of recall output organization comparable to that of the individual recall group. These results are not wholly consistent with a retrieval disruption explanation and are discussed according to divided attention during collaborative recall and how it may contribute to the collaborative inhibition effect.

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

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.

Neurocognitive mechanisms of collaborative recall

Research on collaborative memory shows that people recalling in groups rarely achieve optimal performance. Collaborative groups typically recall less than nominal groups, where performance for the latter is derived by pooling the non-overlapping information recalled by the same number of individuals working alone. While behavioural evidence has widely replicated this collaborative inhibition in free recall, little evidence speaks to the neurophysiological signatures of this counterintuitive phenomenon. Behavioural evidence also indicates that disruption to one’s preferred recall strategy, resulting from processing others’ recalled information, is a key mechanism underlying this effect. We aimed to identify the neural signatures indexing the recollection process and their disruption during collaborative recall. In three experiments, we replicated the standard collaborative inhibition effect with an EEG-adapted procedure (Experiment 1), and recorded EEG while people recalled in groups or in isolation (Experiments 2a, 2b). Comparisons showed increments in N400 and theta power, the neurophysiological components associated with interference, at shorter intervals for the collaborative compared to the nominal groups. Stronger theta power for collaborative than nominal recall, and for speakers than non-speakers in collaborative groups, were also evident at longer intervals and suggest demanding reinstatement of memory associated with collaborative recall. Together, the results suggest distinct neural processes underlying collaborative inhibition, with neural responses at shorter intervals signaling processes that are consistent with strategy disruption (stronger interference signaled by N400 and theta power increments), and further increments in theta at later times suggesting more demanding reinstatement processes during collaborative remembering.

Collaborative inhibition in same-age and mixed-age dyads.

This study examined the influence of same-age and mixed-age dyads on the collaborative inhibition effect (reduced recall in collaborative groups compared to the combined recall of the same number people who recall individually). Younger (age 18-25) and older (age 65+) adults recalled categorized word lists alone or in collaboration with a same-age or a different-age partner. On an initial recall test, the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for veridical recall was similar across dyads, regardless of age. However, age differences emerged in false recall as older adults were less likely to correct each other's errors than younger adults in same-age dyads. Older adults in same-age dyads continued to demonstrate greater false recall on a subsequent recall test, but there were no lasting costs of collaboration on subsequent recall or recognition for same-age or mixed-age dyads. Mixed-age dyads were more likely to provide a simple acknowledgment and less likely to remain silent in response to partner suggestions than were same-age partners, however, this did not affect the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. Any lasting effects of collaboration are invariant across same-age and mixed-age partners. The results demonstrate age-invariance of the retrieval strategy disruption theory and highlight collaborative process variables as complementary mechanisms of collaborative inhibition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Collaborative Facilitation and Collaborative Inhibition in Virtual Environments

Worldwide, organizations and small and medium-sized enterprises have already disruptively changed in many ways their physiological inner mechanisms, because of information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution. Nevertheless, the still ongoing COVID-19 worldwide emergency definitely promoted a wide adoption of teleworking modalities for many people around the world, making it more relevant than before to understand the real impact of virtual environments (VEs) on teamwork dynamics. From a psychological point of view, a critical question about teleworking modalities is how the social and cognitive dynamics of collaborative facilitation and collaborative inhibition would affect teamwork within VEs. This study analyzed the impact of a virtual environment (VE) on the recall of individuals and members of nominal and collaborative groups. The research assessed costs and benefits for collaborative retrieval by testing the effect of experimental conditions, stimulus materials, group size, experimental conditions order, anxiety state, personality traits, gender group composition and social interactions. A total of 144 participants were engaged in a virtual Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) classical paradigm, which involved remembering word lists across two successive sessions, in one of four protocols: I-individual/nominal, I I -nominal/individual, I I I -nominal/collaborative, I V -collaborative/nominal. Results suggested, in general, a reduced collaborative inhibition effect in the collaborative condition than the nominal and individual condition. A combined effect between experimental condition and difficulty of the task appears to explain the presence of collaborative inhibition or facilitation. Nominal groups appeared to enhance the collaborative groups’ performance when virtual nominal groups come before collaborative groups. Variables such as personality traits, gender and social interactions may have a contribution to collaborative retrieval. In conclusion, this study indicated how VEs could maintain those peculiar social dynamics characterizing the participants’ engagement in a task, both working together and individually, and could affect their intrinsic motivation as well as performances. These results could be exploited in order to design brand new and evidenced-based practices, to improve teleworking procedures and workers well-being, as well as teleworking teamwork effectiveness.

Collaboration and prospective memory: comparing nominal and collaborative group performance in strangers and couples

ABSTRACTTo perform prospective memory (PM) tasks in day-to-day life, we often enlist the help of others. Yet the effects of collaboration on PM are largely unknown. Adopting the methodology of the “collaborative recall paradigm”, we tested whether stranger dyads (Experiment 1) and intimate couples (Experiment 2) would perform better on a “Virtual Week” task when working together or each working separately. In Experiment 1, we found evidence of collaborative inhibition: collaborating strangers did not perform to their pooled individual potential, although the effect was modulated by PM task difficulty. We also found that the overall collaborative inhibition effect was attributable to both the retrospective and prospective components of PM. In Experiment 2 however, there was no collaborative inhibition: there was no significant difference in performance between couples working together or separately. Our findings suggest potential costs of collaboration to PM. Intimate relationships may reduce the usual costs of collaboration, with implications for intervention training programmes and for populations who most need PM support.

A meta-analytic review of collaborative inhibition and postcollaborative memory: Testing the predictions of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis.

The retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997) is the most widely cited theoretical explanation for why the memory performance of collaborative groups is inferior to the pooled performance of individual group members remembering alone (i.e., collaborative inhibition). This theory also predicts that several variables will moderate collaborative inhibition. This meta-analysis tests the veracity of the theory by systematically examining whether or not these variables do moderate the presence and strength of collaborative inhibition. A total of 75 effect sizes from 64 studies were included in the analysis. Collaborative inhibition was found to be a robust effect. Moreover, it was enhanced when remembering took place in larger groups, when uncategorized content items were retrieved, when group members followed free-flowing and free-order procedures, and when group members did not know one another. These findings support the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis as a general theoretical explanation for the collaborative inhibition effect. Several additional analyses were also conducted to elucidate the potential contributions of other cognitive mechanisms to collaborative inhibition. Some results suggest that a contribution of retrieval inhibition is possible, but we failed to find any evidence to suggest retrieval blocking and encoding specificity impact upon collaborative inhibition effects. In a separate analysis (27 effect sizes), moderating factors of postcollaborative memory performance were examined. Generally, collaborative remembering tends to benefit later individual retrieval. Moderator analyses suggest that reexposure to study material may be partly responsible for this postcollaborative memory enhancement. Some applied implications of the meta-analyses are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Collaboration enhances later individual memory for emotional material

ABSTRACTResearch 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.

Efeito de Inibição Colaborativa: Revisão de algumas variáveis de influência

O presente artigo tem como objetivo proporcionar a compreensão do efeito de inibição colaborativa. Este efeito, traduz-se no facto de o desempenho mnésico de um grupo colaborativo ser inferior ao desempenho de um grupo nominal. Para tal, ao longo desta revisão focaremos os principais estudos e resultados no âmbito da memória colaborativa; identificaremos os fatores e variáveis que influenciam este efeito; e, finalmente debateremos as principais hipóteses explicativas do efeito de inibição colaborativa.

Patterns of interaction-dominant dynamics in individual versus collaborative memory foraging.

The extent to which a cognitive system's behavioral dynamics fit a power law distribution is considered indicative of the extent to which that system's behavior is driven by multiplicative, interdependent interactions between its components. Here, we investigate the dynamics of memory processes in individual and collaborating participants. Collaborative dyads showed the characteristic collaborative inhibition effect when compared to nominal groups in terms of the number of items retrieved in a categorical recall task, but they also generate qualitatively different patterns of search behavior. To categorize search behavior, we used multi-model inference to compare the degree to which five candidate models (normal, exponential, gamma, lognormal, and Pareto) described the temporal distribution of each individual and dyad's recall processes. All individual and dyad recall processes were best fit by interaction-dominant distributions (lognormal and Pareto), but a clear difference emerged in that individual behavior is more power law, and collaborative behavior was more lognormal. We discuss these results in terms of the cocktail model (Holden et al. in Psychol Rev 116(2):318-342, 2009), which suggests that as a task becomes more constrained (such as through the necessity of collaborating), behavior can shift from power law to lognormal. This shift may reflect a decrease in the dyad's ability to flexibly shift between perseverative and explorative search patterns. Finally, our results suggest that a fruitful avenue for future research would be to investigate the constraints modulating the shift from power law to lognormal behavior in collaborative memory search.

Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory.

Although a group of people working together remembers more than any one individual, they recall less than their predicted potential. This finding is known as collaborative inhibition and is generally thought to arise due to retrieval disruption. However, there is growing evidence that is inconsistent with the retrieval disruption account, suggesting that additional mechanisms also contribute to collaborative inhibition. In the current studies, we examined 2 alternate mechanisms: retrieval inhibition and retrieval blocking. To identify the contributions of retrieval disruption, retrieval inhibition, and retrieval blocking, we tested how collaborative recall of entirely unshared information influences subsequent individual recall and individual recognition memory. If collaborative inhibition is due solely to retrieval disruption, then there should be a release from the negative effects of collaboration on subsequent individual recall and recognition tests. If it is due to retrieval inhibition, then the negative effects of collaboration should persist on both individual recall and recognition memory tests. Finally, if it is due to retrieval blocking, then the impairment should persist on subsequent individual free recall, but not recognition, tests. Novel to the current study, results suggest that retrieval inhibition plays a role in the collaborative inhibition effect. The negative effects of collaboration persisted on a subsequent, always-individual, free-recall test (Experiment 1) and also on a subsequent, always-individual, recognition test (Experiment 2). However, consistent with the retrieval disruption account, this deficit was attenuated (Experiment 1). Together, these results suggest that, in addition to retrieval disruption, multiple mechanisms play a role in collaborative inhibition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Correction of false memory for associated word lists by collaborating groups.

Collaborative inhibition is often observed for both correct and false memories. However, research examining the mechanisms by which collaborative inhibition occurs, such as retrieval disruption, reality monitoring, or group filtering, is lacking. In addition, the creation of the nominal groups (i.e., groups artificially developed by combining individuals' recall) necessary for examining collaborative inhibition do not use statistical best practices. Using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm, we examined percentages of correct and false memories in individuals, collaborative interactive groups, and correctly created nominal groups, as well as the processes that the collaborative interactive groups used to determine which memories to report. Results showed evidence of the collaborative inhibition effect. In addition, analyses of the collaborative interactive groups' discussions found that these groups wrote down almost all presented words but less than half of nonpresented critical words, after discussing them, with nonpresented critical words being stated to the group with lower confidence and rejected by other group members more often. Overall, our findings indicated support for the group filtering hypothesis.

The Cognitive Mechanism of Collaborative Inhibition

The Collaborative Inhibition refers to that when individuals work together to retrieve information as a group, the collaborative group would recall less than the polled, non-redundant information recalled by the same number of individuals working alone (a nominal group). Researchers try to explain the collaborative inhibition effect in cognitive views such as retrieval strategy disruption hypotheses and retrieval inhibition hypotheses. The article makes a special focus on those two hypotheses in the introduction part. We also convey an analysis of recent studies which support those hypotheses respectively in details. And this review pays attention to the researches which the two hypotheses cannot explain as well. Future studies should focus on: ①Whether the retrieval strategy disruption or the retrieval inhibition contributes to the collaborative inhibition? ②Do the speaker's recall cause the listener's selective forgetting in a collaborative group? ③If we alter the conditions in the encoding phase, does the collaborative inhibition will remain stationary? Does the extent of the collaborative inhibition change? Future studies should also demonstrate the above two hypotheses and explain the cognitive mechanism of collaborative inhibition appropriately.

Paradigma subjacente ao estudo do efeito de inibição colaborativa

This paper presents the paradigm underlying the collaborative inhibition effect. This effect refers to the impaired memory performance observed in collaborative groups when compared to the memory performance of groups with the same number of individuals working alone. We describe the prototypical experimental paradigm of collaborative memory that shows the effect as well as some moderators and main theoretical accounts for the collaborative effect.

Learning and Remembering with Others: The Key Role of Retrieval in Shaping Group Recall and Collective Memory.

People frequently collaborate to learn and remember information, and this may help groups create a shared representation of the world (i.e., collective memories). However, contrary to intuitions, collaboration also lowers group recall levels. Such impairment occurs regardless of whether people collaborate when first experiencing, or encoding, an event (the collaborative encoding deficit), or when retrieving, or remembering, the event (the collaborative inhibition effect). In understanding how collaboration impairs group recall and enhances collective or shared memories it remains unknown as to where collaboration exerts the greatest influence - at encoding or at retrieval - to shape these distinct phenomena. The current study simultaneously compared collaboration at these two stages and revealed the power of collaborative retrieval. Collaboration impaired the group recall product at both time points, but especially so at retrieval. Furthermore, only collaborative retrieval played a significant role in the formation of collective memories.

Overcoming Collaborative Inhibition through Error Correction: A Classroom Experiment

SummaryResearch in classrooms has shown mixed evidence for benefits of collaborative learning compared with learning individually. Moreover, laboratory research has shown that individuals working in dyads or groups often perform worse than individuals working alone — a robust finding called the collaborative inhibition effect. Despite these findings, we hypothesize that some classroom activities may afford benefits for collaborative learning over individual learning. We created a classroom writing activity that incorporated features such as shared prior knowledge and error‐correction processes, which have been hypothesized to eliminate collaborative inhibition and to support constructive collaboration. Students participated in this activity either individually or in dyads. Results showed that the individuals who worked collaboratively performed equally well as those who worked individually and also showed better learning as measured by performance on a future writing assignment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: The role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption

When people are exposed to a subset of previously studied list items they recall fewer of the remaining items compared to a condition where none of the studied items is provided during recall. This occurs both when the subset of items is provided by the experimenter (i.e., the part-set cueing deficit in individual recall) and when they are provided during the course of a collaborative discussion (i.e., the collaborative inhibition effect in group recall). Previous research has identified retrieval disruption as a common mechanism underlying both effects; however, less is known about the factors that may make individuals susceptible to such retrieval disruption. In the current studies we tested one candidate factor: executive control. Using an executive depletion paradigm we directly manipulated an individual's level of executive control during retrieval. Results revealed no direct role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. In contrast, executive control abilities were indirectly related to retrieval disruption through their influence at encoding. Together these results suggest that executive control des not directly affect retrieval disruption at the retrieval stage, and that the role of this putative mechanism may be limited to the encoding stage.

The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory.

Research on collaborative memory has unveiled the counterintuitive yet robust phenomenon that collaboration impairs group recall. A candidate explanation for this collaborative inhibition effect is the disruption of people's idiosyncratic retrieval strategies during collaboration, and it is hypothesized that employing methods that improve one's organization protects against retrieval disruption. Here it is investigated how one's learning method during the study phase--defined as either repeatedly studying or repeatedly retrieving information--influences retrieval organization and what effects this has on collaborative recall and post-collaborative individual recall. Results show that repeated retrieval consistently eliminated collaborative inhibition. This enabled participants to gain the most from re-exposure to materials recalled by their partners that they themselves did not recall and led to improvements in their individual memory following collaboration. This repeated retrieval advantage stemmed from the preferential manner in which this learning method strengthened retrieval organization. Findings are also discussed that reveal a relationship between retrieval organization and the interaction observed between learning method and short versus long delay seen in the testing effect literature. Finally, results show that the elusive benefits of cross-cuing during collaboration may be best detected with a longer study-test delay. Together, these findings illuminate when and how collaboration can enhance memory.

Group remembering: does social loafing underlie collaborative inhibition?

When people collaborate to recall information, they experience collaborative inhibition, a deficit in recall relative to nominal groups (the pooled, nonredundant recall of individuals working alone). That is, people recalling in groups do not perform up to their potential. Collaborative inhibition may be due to retrieval interference (e.g., B. H. Basden, D. R. Basden, S. Bryner, & R. L. Thomas, 1997) or to motivational factors such as social loafing in the group situation. Five experiments examined the role of motivational factors by varying monetary incentives, recall criterion, personal accountability, group cohesion, and group gender. Increasing motivation sometimes increased the overall level of recall but failed to eliminate the collaborative inhibition effect. The results suggest that collaboration interferes with an individual's ability to reconstruct his or her knowledge.