Collaborative Recall Research Articles

The influence of multiple trials and computer-mediated communication on collaborative and individual semantic recall

ABSTRACTCollaborative 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.

Transactive Memory in Small, Intimate Groups: More Than the Sum of Their Parts

Thirty years after social psychologist, Daniel Wegner, pitched a new approach to the study of individual and group behavior, his theory of transactive memory has inspired rich literatures on the cognitive and social lives of small groups, especially in social and organizational domains. We revisit Wegner’s original conceptualization of transactive memory as a feature of long-standing intimate groups, such as romantic couples and other family and friendship groups. We sketch the spread and success of Wegner’s theory across social, organizational, cognitive, and educational domains, noting particular spaces where a renewed focus on intimate groups could add to our vision of transactive memory systems. We review recent interdisciplinary research on couples as socially distributed cognitive systems, which combines influential philosophical views of distributed cognition and the burgeoning experimental memory literature on collaborative recall. We then discuss two core conceptual and methodological challenges of Wegner’s theorizing revealed by intimate and other groups: navigating between memory units, or levels of analysis, and measuring genuine emergence in transactive memory systems. Finally, we suggest an interdisciplinary framework and recommendations for future research on transactive memory in small groups.

Younger and older adults' collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures.

Although a group of people working together recalls more items than any one individual, they recall fewer unique items than the same number of people working apart whose responses are combined. This is known as collaborative inhibition, and it is a robust effect that occurs for both younger and older adults. However, almost all previous studies documenting collaborative inhibition have used stimuli that were neutral in emotional valence, low in arousal, and studied by all group members. In the current experiments, we tested the impact of picture-stimuli valence, picture-stimuli arousal, and information distribution in modulating the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. We included both younger and older adults because there are age differences in how people remember emotional pictures that could modulate any effects of emotion on collaborative inhibition. Results revealed that when information was shared (i.e., studied by all group members), there were robust collaborative inhibition effects for both neutral and emotional stimuli for both younger and older adults. However, when information was unshared (i.e., studied by only a single group member), these effects were attenuated. Together, these results provide mixed support for the retrieval strategy disruption account of collaborative inhibition. Supporting the retrieval strategy disruption account, unshared study information was less susceptible to collaborative inhibition than shared study information. Contradicting the retrieval strategy disruption account, emotional valence and arousal did not modulate the magnitude of collaborative inhibition despite the fact that participants clustered the emotional, but not neutral, information together in memory.

Clustering Strategy in Intellectually Gifted Children

This study examined three aspects of the clustering strategy used by participants: the differences of clustering strategy between intellectually gifted and average children; the relationship between clustering strategy and recall performance in intellectually gifted and average children; and the differences in recall performance on collaborative recall task of intellectually gifted and average children. Thirty-eight intellectually gifted and 44 intellectually average children were recruited, and their collaborative and individual recall performances were tested. The results showed that intellectually gifted children had better clustering strategy than their peers when adjusted ratio of clustering scores were calculated ( p < .01); clustering strategy positively correlated with recall performance in intellectually average children ( p < .05), while no such correlation was found in intellectually gifted children ( p = .95); there was no collaborative inhibition in the gifted group ( p = .82). These findings partly resolve the conflicts in individual research and expand on the conclusions regarding collaborative memory.

“Going episodic”: collaborative inhibition and facilitation when long-married couples remember together

ABSTRACTTwo complementary approaches to the study of collaborative remembering have produced contrasting results. In the experimental “collaborative recall” approach within cognitive psychology, collaborative remembering typically results in “collaborative inhibition”: laboratory groups recall fewer items than their estimated potential. In the cognitive ageing approach, collaborative remembering with a partner or spouse may provide cueing and support to benefit older adults’ performance on everyday memory tasks. To combine the value of experimental and cognitive ageing approaches, we tested the effects of collaborative remembering in older, long-married couples who recalled a non-personal word list and a personal semantic list of shared trips. We scored amount recalled as well as the kinds of details remembered. We found evidence for collaborative inhibition across both tasks when scored strictly as number of list items recalled. However, we found collaborative facilitation of specific episodic details on the personal semantic list, details which were not strictly required for the completion of the task. In fact, there was a trade-off between recall of specific episodic details and number of trips recalled during collaboration. We discuss these results in terms of the functions of shared remembering and what constitutes memory success, particularly for intimate groups and for older adults.

Collaborative Inhibition and Semantic Recall: Improving Collaboration Through Computer‐mediated Communication

SummaryTwo experiments investigated the recall of nominal and collaborating groups to test the following hypotheses: (i) semantic memory, as well as episodic memory, is disrupted by collaborative recall and (ii) both episodic and semantic recall will be greater in groups collaborating via computer‐mediated communication (CMC) than groups collaborating face to face. Experiment 1 investigated different collaborative constellations (nominal, face to face and parallel CMC) in a series of episodic and semantic word recall tasks. In Experiment 2, collaborative groups (nominal, face to face, parallel CMC and cyclic CMC) completed a Scrabble task in which they were required to generate words from a set of 12 letters. Both experiments demonstrated that collaborative inhibition was present in semantic recall. Parallel CMC improved recall by comparison with face‐to‐face collaboration in both experiments, whereas cyclic CMC did not. The underlying causes of collaborative inhibitory effects and the potential for reducing them with CMC are discussed.Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The hows and whys of "we" (and "I") in groups.

Informed by our interdisciplinary research program on collaborative recall, we argue that Baumeister et al. should consider: (1) group success as a balance between differentiation and integration (not differentiation alone); (2) variation in constellations of people and processes within and across groups; and (3) nuanced measurement of what people bring to, do in, and get out of groups.

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).

Collaboration inflation: Egocentric source monitoring errors following collaborative remembering

Following collaborative remembering, people may adopt their partner's contributions as their own memory. In two studies, we asked people to study partially overlapping lists of words. During collaborative remembering, dyads either worked to include all words no matter who studied them or limited recall to only words studied by both dyad members. This differential focus on source information during collaborative recall impacted performance on a later source memory test. Nonetheless we found frequent source monitoring errors that displayed an egocentric bias. People were more likely to claim their partner's contributions as their own memories than attribute their memories to their partners. In collaborative remembering, people work to construct an agreed upon version of the past that quickly becomes each individual's memory.

Beyond the encyclopedia: Collective memories in Wikipedia

Collective memory processes have been studied from many different perspectives. For example, while psychology has investigated collaborative recall in small groups, other research traditions have focused on flashbulb memories or on the cultural processes involved in the formation of collective memories of entire nations. In this article, considering the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a global memory place, we analyze online commemoration patterns of traumatic events. We extracted 88 articles and talk pages related to traumatic events, and using logistic regression, we analyzed their edit activity comparing it with more than 370,000 other Wikipedia pages. Results show that the relative amount of edits during anniversaries can significantly distinguish between pages related to traumatic events and other pages. The logistic regression results, together with the transcription of a group of messages exchanged by the users during the anniversaries of the September 11 attacks and the Virginia Tech massacre, suggest that commemoration activities take place in Wikipedia, opening the way to the quantitative study of online collective memory building processes on a large scale.

The applied value of collaborative memory research in aging: Behavioral and neural considerations

Our aim in this paper is to bring attention to the applied value of collaborative memory research in aging. At this time, much collaborative memory research focuses on the negative effects of collaboration in younger adults, and is primarily basic in nature. Here, we highlight the positive effects of collaboration that have received less attention, with a particular emphasis on the applied value of these effects in older adults. We first review studies to show that recalling in a group improves later individual recall and reduces memory errors in older adults. We then outline a four-step approach towards bridging laboratory and applied collaborative memory research, which involves: (1) complementing traditional paradigms with more ecologically valid paradigms, (2) evaluating these paradigms in applied settings, (3) adapting these paradigms for use with cognitively intact and cognitively impaired populations, and (4) modifying these paradigms to examine the neural systems that operate during collaborative recall.

Mind the gap: Generations of questions in the early science of collaborative recall

Mind the gap: Generations of questions in the early science of collaborative recall

Multiple causes of collaborative inhibition in memory for categorised word lists

Collaborative inhibition is the finding that collaborative groups recall less information than nominal groups (the combined output of an equal number of individuals). The retrieval strategy disruption explanation of collaborative inhibition argues that individuals' idiosyncratic retrieval strategies are disrupted by hearing the contributions of others. In a series of studies, we investigated the role of retrieval interference and other cognitive explanations of collaborative inhibition. We asked collaborative and nominal dyads to recall lists of categorised words. We found that collaborative inhibition results from retrieval strategy disruption and from other factors. Collaborative dyads displayed more limited exploration than nominal dyads: They sampled from fewer categories and, thus, recalled fewer words. Collaborative dyads have different goals than nominal dyads, particularly limiting errors which may also reduce correct recall. We also found that the time period of recall contributes to collaborative inhibition because collaborative dyads recall fewer words early in the retrieval period but more words later than nominal dyads. In addition, we found instances of collaborative advantages such that collaborative dyads made fewer errors and demonstrated more recall organisation than nominal dyads.

Both young and older adults discount suggestions from older adults on a social memory test

In the present study, we examined the impacts of participant age and confederate age on social memory processes. During a collaborative recall phase, young and older adult participants were exposed to the erroneous memory reports of a young or an older adult confederate. On a subsequent individual recall test, young and older adult participants were equally likely to incorporate the confederates' erroneous suggestions into their memory reports, suggesting that participant age had a minimal effect on social memory processes. However, confederate age did have a marked effect: Young adult participants were less likely to incorporate misleading suggestions from older adult confederates and less likely to report "remembering" items suggested by older adult confederates. Critically, older adult participants were also less likely to incorporate misleading information from fellow older adult confederates. Both young and older adult participants discounted older adult confederates' contributions to a memory test.

Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall.

We often remember in the company of others. In particular, we routinely collaborate with friends, family, or colleagues to remember shared experiences. But surprisingly, in the experimental collaborative recall paradigm, collaborative groups remember less than their potential, an effect termed collaborative inhibition. Rajaram and Pereira-Pasarin (2010) argued that the effects of collaboration on recall are determined by "pre-collaborative" factors. We studied the role of 2 pre-collaborative factors-shared encoding and group relationship-in determining the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. In Experiment 1, we compared groups of strangers who encoded alone versus together, before collaborating to recall. In Experiment 2, we compared groups of friends who encoded alone versus together, before collaborating to recall. We found that shared encoding abolished collaborative inhibition in both Experiments 1 and 2. But prior relationship did not influence collaborative inhibition over and above the effects of shared encoding. Regardless of encoding condition, collaborative group recall contained fewer intrusions than nominal group recall, and these benefits continued in subsequent individual recall. Our findings demonstrate that pre-collaborative factors-specifically shared encoding-have flow-on benefits for group and individual recall amount, but not recall accuracy. We discuss these findings in terms of self- and cross-cuing in collaborative recall.

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.

Enhancing the Comparability Between Part-List Cueing and Collaborative Recall

The effects of part-list cueing and of collaborative recall in memory performance have been recently addressed as parallel phenomena. Notably they both impair recall (and boost frequency estimates) and they have been explained by the same underlying mechanisms. However, the comparability between the two paradigms is hindered by a number of procedural differences. The main contribution of this paper is the introduction of a new paradigm that makes standard part-list cueing and collaborative recall more comparable. In our study we compared free recall and frequency estimates of participants in a non-cueing condition with the same performance in a standard part-list cueing condition and in a condition in which part-list cues were gradually presented during recall (as it occurs in collaborative recall). Results indicate that the effects of part-list cueing continued to be reliable in both cueing conditions. Namely, recall was impaired and frequency estimates were boosted relatively to a non-cueing condition. The results obtained with this new method that enhances the direct comparability of the two paradigms provide further evidence for the parallel between the two effects.

Hard to Recall But Easy to Judge: Retrieval Strategies in Social Information Processing

The present research distinguishes two different retrieval modes: exhaustive and heuristic retrieval. Whereas exhaustive retrieval is elemental and retrieves specific memory traces, the output of heuristic retrieval is a memory composite. different memory tasks depend upon these two retrieval modes in various degrees. using a part-list cueing paradigm, we found a dissociation: providing part-list cues hindered the retrieval of the non-cued behaviors in free recall but boosted frequency estimates. In a second study, using a collaborative recall paradigm, each of three participants recalled one of the previously presented behaviors in turn. We hypothesized that behaviors recalled by other participants would become hyper-accessible, inhibiting the retrieval of non-recalled behaviors but boosting the corresponding frequency estimates relative to non-collaborative recall conditions. The results supported the hypotheses. The parallelism of the results of the two studies suggests that retrieval interference or inhibition is a crucial feature of social memory.

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.

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.