Nominal Pairs Research Articles

The «Livonian Rhymed Chronicle» as a Transitional Text: Formulaic Language in Middle High German Verse History

This essay investigates the transitional character of the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle (German: Livländische Reimchronik), a Middle High German verse history composed around 1290, which describes the conquest of the eastern Baltic lands by German crusaders and military-religious orders during the thirteenth century. Although it was first composed as a written text, the chronicle shows numerous features characteristic of oral-formulaic poetry: stock epithets, fixed nominal pairs, repeated discourse markers, and syntactic formulas used to introduce persons and places. The analysis is followed by an investigation of the probable audience and performance situation of the work. It is argued that the highly formulaic features of the work were designed to aid comprehension by listeners who were not necessarily familiar with the language variety in which the chronicle was composed.

Relation classification via knowledge graph enhanced transformer encoder

Relation classification is an important task in natural language processing fields. The goal is to predict predefined relations for the marked nominal pairs in given sentences. State-of-the-art works usually focus on using deep neural networks as classifier to conduct the relation prediction. The rich semantic information of relationships in the triples of existing knowledge graph (KG) can be used as additional supervision for relation classification. However, these relationships were simply used as labels to specify the class of sentences in previous works, and their semantic information was completely ignored. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed for relation classification, which jointly uses information from textual sentences and knowledge graphs. To this end, we introduce a Transformer encoder to measure the semantic similarity between sentences and relation types. Besides, we connect the semantic information of marked nominals in sentences with that of the corresponding entities in knowledge graph to generate the semantic matching information between textual relations and KG relations. The matching information can provide additional supervision for relation classification. Since the words and entities are used interactively with each other in our work, we propose an embedding translating strategy to handle the semantic gap problem between word embeddings and entity embeddings. Experimental results on two widely used datasets, SemEval-2010 Task 8 and TACRED, show that our approach is able to efficiently use the semantic information from the knowledge graph to enhance the performance of the Transformer encoder for relation classification.

Long-lasting positive effects of collaborative remembering on false assents to misleading questions

Previous studies showed that collaborative remembering can reduce false memories through a process of mutual error checking, although conclusions were limited by the nature of the memory tasks (very few errors). The present experiments extend these findings to eyewitness memory by using a paradigm designed to increase the frequency of memory errors. Collaborative and nominal pairs viewed a video-clip illustrating a bank robbery, provided an immediate free recall, were forced to confabulate answers to false-event questions, and, after a short- (1 h: Experiment 1) or a long-term delay (1 week: Experiment 2), were administered a yes/no recognition task in which the misleading statements either matched the questions presented in the confabulation phase (answered questions) or not (control questions). Collaborative pairs recalled fewer correct details in the immediate free recall task, replicating the negative effects of collaborative inhibition. Most importantly, in the final recognition test, collaborative pairs were less likely to provide false assents to misleading statements, regardless of whether they had provided a response to the related false-event questions 1 h or 1 week earlier. Our results suggest that collaboration can increase the eyewitnesses' tendency to check the accuracy of others' responses and reject false memories through discussion.

Collaborative remembering reduces suggestibility: A study with the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale

ABSTRACTCollaboration during the retrieval phase can have both negative and positive effects (referred to as collaborative inhibition and error pruning, respectively) on emotional and eyewitness memory. To further elucidate these issues, the present experiment used the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale to investigate the question of whether collaborative remembering reduced post-event suggestibility. Collaborative and nominal pairs listened to the GSS2, provided immediate and delayed (after 30 min) free recalls, and answered a series of leading questions before or after receiving a negative feedback about their performance. We found no evidence of collaborative inhibition in the immediate and delayed free recall tasks. Importantly, however, collaborative pairs produced less confabulated elements in the free recall tasks, were considerably less prone to give in to leading questions (both before and after receiving the negative feedback), and exhibited lower levels of Total Suggestibility, compared to both nominal and individual dyads. Taken together, these results support the conclusion that collaboration can have a beneficial influence on eyewitnesses’ accuracy, by strengthening their resistance to post-event suggestibility.

Silence is golden: The effect of verbalization on group performance.

Contrary to the popular belief that collaboration brings better problem solutions, empirical studies have revealed that interacting groups often performed worse than noninteracting "nominal" groups. Past studies mainly examined how overhearing others' ideas impacts group performance. This study investigated the impact of another essential but overlooked group communicative process-verbalizing ideas to others-on group performance. Participants (N = 156) solved 20 verbal puzzles either alone quietly, alone thinking-aloud, or in verbalizing pairs. Participants in the same working-alone condition were randomly paired to form nominal pairs and their pooled performance was treated as nominal group performance. Relative to the quiet nominal group, the performance of the thinking-aloud nominal and interacting groups were impaired to similar extents. These two groups also demonstrated a similar limited capacity to expand the search scope. The equivalency of the interacting and thinking-aloud nominal group results suggest that verbalization is a key factor in groups' inferior performance. (PsycINFO Database Record

Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall

ABSTRACTMost 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.

When discussion between eyewitnesses helps memory

PurposePolice interviewers are typically instructed to prevent eyewitnesses from talking to each other, because witnesses can contaminate each other's memory. Previous research has not fully examined, however, how discussion between witnesses affects correct and incorrect recall of witnessed events. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore the influence of co‐witness discussion in more detail.MethodsWitnesses were interviewed individually or in pairs about a videotaped violent event. We conducted individual interviews prior to collaboration (to obtain an independent record of what individuals remembered) and after collaboration (to assess whether collaboration subsequently triggered new memories).ResultsPairs that were interviewed together (collaborative pairs) remembered just as much correct information overall as pairs interviewed individually (nominal pairs), but collaborative pairs made significantly fewer errors. We found evidence of retrieval disruption during the discussion (i.e., collaborative pairs omitted significantly more old information during the second interview than nominal pairs) but also of a delayed cross‐cuing effect (i.e., collaborative pairs reported significantly more new information in the final interview than nominal pairs). Pairs who used more content‐focused retrieval strategies during the discussion (acknowledgements, repetitions, restatements, and elaborations) reported significantly more information.ConclusionsThe current findings suggest that, under certain conditions, discussion between eyewitnesses can help rather than hurt memory. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed.

Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more

Crimes are often observed by multiple witnesses. Research shows that witnesses can contaminate each other's memory, but potential benefits of co-witness discussion have not yet been investigated. We examined whether witnesses can help each other remember, or prune each other's errors. In a research design with high ecological validity, attendees of a theatre play were interviewed approximately one week later about a violent scene in the play. The couples that signed up for our study had known each other for 31 years on average. Participants were first interviewed individually and then took part in a collaborative interview. We also included a control condition in which participants took part in two individual interviews. Collaboration did not help witnesses to remember more about the scene, but collaborative pairs made significantly fewer errors than nominal pairs. Further, quantitative and qualitative analyses of retrieval strategies during the discussion revealed that couples who actively acknowledged, repeated, rephrased, and elaborated upon each other's statements remembered significantly more information overall. Taken together, our findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, discussion between witnesses is not such a bad idea after all.

Collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval

Collaborative inhibition refers to the finding that pairs of people working together to retrieve information from memory-a collaborative group-often retrieve fewer unique items than do nominal pairs, who retrieve individually but whose performance is pooled. Two experiments were designed to explore whether collaborative inhibition, which has heretofore been studied using traditional memory stimuli such as word lists, also characterizes spatial memory retrieval. In the present study, participants learned a layout of objects and then reconstructed the layout from memory, either individually or in pairs. The layouts created by collaborative pairs were more accurate than those created by individuals, but less accurate than those of nominal pairs, providing evidence for collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval. Collaborative inhibition occurred when participants were allowed to dictate the order of object placement during reconstruction (Exp. 1), and also when object order was imposed by the experimenter (Exp. 2), which was intended to disrupt the retrieval processes of pairs as well as of individuals. Individual tests of perspective taking indicated that the underlying representations of pair members were no different than those of individuals; in all cases, spatial memories were organized around a reference frame aligned with the studied perspective. These results suggest that inhibition is caused by the product of group recall (i.e., seeing a partner's object placement), not by the process of group recall (i.e., taking turns choosing an object to place). The present study has implications for how group performance on a collaborative spatial memory task may be optimized.

Distributed Cognition in Software Design: An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Design Patterns and Collaboration

Software design is a knowledge intensive task that constitutes a critical part of the software development process. Using a controlled experiment involving software practitioners, this research examines two potentially useful mechanisms for improving the

The role of co-explanation and self-explanation in learning from design examples of PowerPoint presentation slides

The current study investigated how people learn design principles from examples of PowerPoint presentation slides through self-explanation and co-explanation. This study also explored a strategy to improve the effectiveness of co-explanation by integrating it with a collaborative design activity. Preservice teachers (n = 120) studied the design examples of PowerPoint presentation slides in four research conditions: co-explanation with design, co-explanation, self-explanation, and no prompt (control). Pairs of learners in the co-explanation condition explained fewer strengths and weaknesses of the design examples than nominal pairs in the self-explanation condition. Moreover, co-explanation was not more effective than self-explanation when it came to individual learning outcomes. In contrast, pairs in the co-explanation with design condition were more actively engaged in co-explaining design examples than pairs in the co-explanation condition. This study shows that co-explanation with design is more beneficial for constructing and sharing knowledge of design principles than co-explanation only. This study discussed a trade-off between constructive/interactive learning effects and transactional activity costs in co-explaining design examples.

When 2 is Better Than 1 + 1

Little is known about older spousal dyads’ collaborative problem solving. Although typically collaborating dyads perform worse than nominal dyads in other dyadic cognition tasks, we assumed that older couples might profit from collaboration in a highly demanding problem-solving task requiring the sequential and complementary use of spatial memory and reasoning abilities. In this paper, we examine whether older couples profit from the dyadic situation on a computer-based problem-solving task that can most likely be optimally solved when dyads manage to distribute responsibilities between the spatial memory demands and the reasoning demands of the task. In 50 married couples consisting of N = 100 older individuals (M = 67.3 years, SD = 4.9), we tested the hypothesis that compared to their own individual performance, compared to repeated individual performance of a control group (N = 41, M = 66.0 years, SD = 3.8), and compared to nominal pairs (same 100 participants as in the experimental group), older couples would show the best performance on the task. The comparison of individual versus dyadic problem-solving performance demonstrates that dyads consisting of old spouses outperform old individuals as well as nominal pairs on the problem-solving task. Our results suggest that older familiar dyads are expert collaborators whose collaborative expertise might be able to overcome individual deficits in problem-solving skills through dyadic cognition.

Collaboration during visual search

Two experiments examine how collaboration influences visual search performance. Working with a partner or on their own, participants reported whether a target was present or absent in briefly presented search displays. We compared the search performance of individuals working together (collaborative pairs) with the pooled responses of the individuals working alone (nominal pairs). Collaborative pairs were less likely than nominal pairs to correctly detect a target and they were less likely to make false alarms. Signal detection analyses revealed that collaborative pairs were more sensitive to the presence of the target and had a more conservative response bias than the nominal pairs. This pattern was observed even when the presence of another individual was matched across pairs. The results are discussed in the context of task-sharing, social loafing and current theories of visual search.

A NEW MODEL OF THE LEARNING PROCESS FOR INNOVATION TEAMS: NETWORKED NOMINAL PAIRS

This paper examines how to structure resource-constrained innovation teams in order to maximise learning and creativity within organisations. Past research suggest that nominal groups (based on independent operations by individuals) outperform interactive groups. The results of this study suggest hybrid group structures based on independent operating pairs can be as effective as nominal groups. The study segmented 672 business managers and university post-graduate students into nominal, hybrid and interactive groups of six members. Three groups (one of each structural type) were pitted against each other to solve 4 related puzzles as quickly as possible. The results of these 28 problem-solving task races were aggregated to determine which group structure was most productive. Overall, the results confirmed that nominal groups of six significantly outperform interactive groups of the same size. More importantly, however, the results showed no significant difference between the productivity of nominal groups of six and hybrid groups comprised of three interactive pairs, where each pair operated separately to complete the same puzzle in parallel with the rest of the group. This suggests that structuring innovation teams into networked, nominal pairs may be just as productive as purely nominal group structures. This significantly extends the existing research on nominal groups versus interactive groups as it suggests that completely eliminating interactivity is not the optimal management approach.

Are two heads better than one for software development? the productivity paradox of pair programming

Extreme programming is currently gaining popularity as an alternate software development methodology. Pair programming, a core practice of this methodology, involves two programmers working collaboratively to develop software. This study examined the efficacy of pair programming by comparing the performance effectiveness and affective responses of collaborating pairs with those of individual programmers treated as nominal pairs. In a controlled laboratory experiment involving student subjects, proxies for entry level programmers working on entry level tasks, two factors were manipulated: programming setting (collaborative pair versus individuals) and programming task complexity (high versus low). Participants who worked in the individual condition were randomly combined into nominal pairs. The performance and affective responses of the collaborating pairs were then compared with those of the best performers and the second best performers of each nominal pair. Results indicated that programming pairs performed at the level above the second best performers and at the level of the best performers in each nominal pair. This relationship was found to be consistent across both levels of task complexity. Consequently, there was no evidence of an assembly bonus effect, where the performance of a collaborating pair exceeds the performance of its best member working alone. While this finding may appear counterintuitive due to the general perception of two heads being better than one, it is consistent with the findings in small group research. When affective responses were considered, programming pairs reported higher levels of satisfaction than those of the best and second-best performing members in nominal pairs. They also showed higher levels of confidence in their performance compared to those of the second-best members. But the confidence levels of pairs were no different from those of the best performing members in nominal pairs. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are presented.

Are Two Heads Better than One for Software Development? The Productivity Paradox of Pair Programming

Extreme programming is currently gaining popularity as an alternate software development methodology. Pair programming, a core practice of this methodology, involves two programmers working collaboratively to develop software. This study examined the efficacy of pair programming by comparing the performance effectiveness and affective responses of collaborating pairs with those of individual programmers treated as nominal pairs. In a controlled laboratory experiment involving student subjects, proxies for entry level programmers working on entry level tasks, two factors were manipulated: programming setting (collaborative pair versus individuals) and programming task complexity (high versus low). Participants who worked in the individual condition were randomly combined into nominal pairs. The performance and affective responses of the collaborating pairs were then compared with those of the best performers and the second best performers of each nominal pair. Results indicated that programming pairs performed at the level above the second best performers and at the level of the best performers in each nominal pair. This relationship was found to be consistent across both levels of task complexity. Consequently, there was no evidence of an "assembly bonus effect," where the performance of a collaborating pair exceeds the performance of its best member working alone. While this finding may appear counterintuitive due to the general perception of two heads being better than one, it is consistent with the findings in small group research. When affective responses were considered, programming pairs reported higher levels of satisfaction than those of the best and second-best performing members in nominal pairs. They also showed higher levels of confidence in their performance compared to those of the second-best members. But the confidence levels of pairs were no different from those of the best performing members in nominal pairs. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are presented.

Collaborative everyday problem solving among same-gender friends in early and later adulthood.

To investigate potential age-related differences in performance gains (compensation and optimization) and losses (failure to actualize potential) of collaboration with a familiar partner, the authors compared pairs of older (N = 75; 69% women) and younger (N = 75; 52% women) age-homogeneous same-gender friends who interacted or worked alone to generate strategies for solving interpersonal and instrumental problems. Two indexes of strategy fluency (total and unique number of strategies) and 2 indexes of strategy type (content of strategy repertoires and strategy selected as most effective by older and younger adults) were examined. Strategies generated by interacting pairs were compared with nominal pair scores. Nominal pair scores indexed dyadic potential and were created by pooling the performance of 2 individuals who worked alone. Age differences in strategy fluency and type were largely similar to prior research based on individual problem solvers. Interacting pairs produced fewer strategies than nominal pairs, but there were no differences in strategy type. For interpersonal problems, older adults were relatively more likely to actualize their dyadic potential.

Collaboration during visual search

Two experiments examine how collaboration influences visual search performance. Working with a partner or on their own, participants reported whether a target was present or absent in briefly presented search displays. We compared the search performance of individuals working together (collaborative pairs) with the pooled responses of the individuals working alone (nominal pairs). Collaborative pairs were less likely than nominal pairs to correctly detect a target and they were less likely to make false alarms. Signal detection analyses revealed that collaborative pairs were more sensitive to the presence of the target and had a more conservative response bias than the nominal pairs. This pattern was observed even when the presence of another individual was matched across pairs. The results are discussed in the context of task-sharing, social loafing and current theories of visual search.

Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning

This paper operationalized the notion of knowledge convergence and assessed quantitatively how much knowledge convergence occurred during collaborative learning. Knowledge convergence was defined as an increase in common knowledge where common knowledge referred to the knowledge that all collaborating partners had. Twenty pairs of college students collaborated to learn a science text about the human circulatory system. Comparisons of individual pre-test and post-test performance revealed that students shared more knowledge pieces and mental models after collaboration. Although the amount of convergence was modest, analyses showed that collaborative interaction was responsible for the increase in common knowledge. The increase in common knowledge was observed in knowledge that was never stated in the learning text as well as in knowledge that was explicitly presented in the text. The amount of convergence was related to interaction such that real pairs shared more knowledge than nominal pairs, and more interactive pairs shared more inferred knowledge than less interactive pairs. Collaborative dialogues and learning artifacts (e.g., drawings) also indicated that common knowledge was constructed during collaboration. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between the impression of strong convergence assumed in the literature and the results of this study are discussed along with the need to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the notion that includes its process, outcome, and sources of convergence.

Compensating strategies in collaborative remembering in very old couples

This study investigates collaborative memory performance in very old married couples working in two types of participant constellations, and with two types of memory tasks, i.e. working as couples, or as individuals in episodic or semantic memory tasks. Sixty-two old married couples were a priori classified as high or low on two dimensions suggested to be important for successful collaboration, i.e. responsibility (how division of responsibility was organized) and agreement (how they mutually agreed on each other's view). The episodic memory task was immediate recall of short stories. The semantic memory tasks were to answer questions about names, places, and concepts. The results suggested that: (1) groups outperformed a single individual, but (2) groups in general suffered from collaboration relative to the predicted potential in episodic tasks only, thus replicating earlier results. Nevertheless, (3) the couples scoring high on division of responsibility achieved the same productivity as nominal pairs (i.e. the predicted potential); (4) the couples scoring high on the agreement dimension showed that they were not as affected by collaboration, but then performed less well in "absolute" performance. Finally, the results were discussed in terms of optimal compensation strategies, especially for elderly couples.