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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data
The database and the syntax are available at OSF (https://osf.io/e95pd/?view_only=701e843751324d9c9b589fd3b407fbda).
Notes
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).
References
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/s13421-017-0737-9
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/10.1111/1467-9450.00248
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/10.1080/09658210444000557
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-D
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/xlm0000037
Barber, S. J., & Rajaram, S. (2011). Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall. Memory, 19(5), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.584389
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.38.3.255
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.2012.30.1.121
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.2018.02385
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/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1176
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;2-4
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/s12144-997-1001-4
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/10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.215
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.36.1.20
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/10.1080/09658210701804495
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.2014.05.002
Bruder, G. A. (1970). Analysis of differences between free and serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2), 232–237.
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/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
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/10.1037/0278-7393.6.3.319
Ekeocha, J. O., & Brennan, S. E. (2008). Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups. Memory, 16(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701807480
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//0278-7393.26.6.1556
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.2011.06.017
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/a000144
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.2012.30.1.56
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.2012.04.004
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/a0028906
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.2010.541854
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.3228
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/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
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/10.1080/17470218.2014.881405
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/10.1177/1948550617697177
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.
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.36.3.598
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/bul0000071
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.784
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.12348
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/10.1080/09658210802524240
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/10.1177/1745691610388763
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/s00426-015-0725-2
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/psicothema2015.241
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-x
Takahashi, M., & Saito, S. (2004). Does test delay eliminate collaborative inhibition? Memory, 12(6), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000521
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/10.1111/1467-9280.01437
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/10.1080/09541440600872068
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/a0020122
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/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160
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//0278-7393.26.6.1568
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/BF03196740
Yuker, H. E. (1955). Group atmosphere and memory. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046464
Funding
These studies were partly supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal, with a grant awarded to the first author (CEECINST/00089/2021) and by funds awarded by the same foundation to the host institution of the second (Psychology Research Centre – CIPsi/UM, School of Psychology, University of Minho—UIDB/01662/2020) and third authors (Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social – Cis-Iscte – UIDB/03125/2020).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MS and PBA conceptualized the studies. MS collected and analyzed the data. MS, PBA and MVG contributed to the writing of the manuscript; MS, PBA and MVG have read and approved the present version of the manuscript
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Ethical approval
All the procedures in both studies were conducted according to the host institution's ethical standards.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix: List of words presented in both experiments
Appendix: List of words presented in both experiments
Word n1 | Imagery | Concreteness | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
Set A | |||
Screen | 4.92 | 6.30 | 1.71 |
Hammer | 6.50 | 6.80 | 5.75 |
Banana | 6.69 | 6.80 | 5.97 |
Axe | 6.19 | 6.74 | 7.18 |
Blade | 5.90 | 6.64 | 4.45 |
Lock | 5.96 | 6.58 | 2.15 |
Panic | 3.23 | 2.20 | 16.09 |
Attic | 5.46 | 6.12 | 2.60 |
Toaster | 6.42 | 6.82 | 0.29 |
Mailer | 6.42 | 6.58 | 5.21 |
Demon | 3.73 | 2.54 | 6.09 |
Suitcase | 6.08 | 6.66 | 14.10 |
Pliers | 6.06 | 6.62 | 0.54 |
Sofa | 6.56 | 6.62 | 5.80 |
Nun | 5.98 | 5.64 | 5.65 |
Nose | 6.52 | 6.58 | 13.18 |
Slave | 5.02 | 4.76 | 11.76 |
Ark | 5.85 | 6.46 | 3.21 |
Scissors | 6.54 | 6.76 | 2.30 |
Crow | 6.21 | 6.72 | 4.28 |
Sled | 6.08 | 6.60 | 0.99 |
Carrot | 6.56 | 6.86 | 3.25 |
Arc | 5.65 | 5.86 | 16.11 |
Blouse | 6.38 | 6.56 | 1.63 |
Carpet | 6.25 | 6.58 | 10.59 |
Stamps | 6.33 | 6.54 | 12.82 |
Brush | 6.37 | 6.62 | 2.27 |
Hairbrush | 6.19 | 6.56 | 1.50 |
Onion | 6.44 | 6.78 | 6.76 |
Judge | 5.62 | 5.28 | 0.07 |
Mean | 5.94 | 6.17 | 5.81 |
Set B | |||
Goat | 6.46 | 6.70 | 5.66 |
Tomato | 6.73 | 6.76 | 9.60 |
Ice | 5.96 | 6.08 | 13.10 |
Shell | 5.38 | 6.16 | 4.20 |
Lamp | 6.42 | 6.56 | 5.79 |
Yacht | 5.73 | 6.46 | 11.61 |
Comb | 6.58 | 6.74 | 3.04 |
Barrel | 6.08 | 6.66 | 9.87 |
Vase | 6.29 | 6.66 | 6.47 |
Watering can | 6.23 | 6.62 | 0.21 |
Prayer | 3.15 | 2.54 | 12.27 |
Scooter | 5.96 | 6.58 | 0.04 |
Back | 5.38 | 6.06 | 5.05 |
Train | 6.62 | 6.58 | 0.00 |
Noise | 3.33 | 4.14 | 15.01 |
Rocket | 5.92 | 6.44 | 8.71 |
Bookcase | 6.04 | 6.58 | 1.51 |
Pineapple | 6.48 | 6.78 | 1.15 |
Pen | 6.81 | 6.68 | 5.50 |
Asparagus | 5.23 | 6.50 | 0.83 |
Cup | 6.17 | 6.76 | 2.45 |
Devil | 4.54 | 2.10 | 13.74 |
Fire | 6.21 | 5.88 | 12.00 |
Brain | 4.50 | 5.42 | 0.21 |
Wardrobe | 6.06 | 6.54 | 0.45 |
Knife | 6.58 | 6.82 | 12.56 |
Racket | 6.44 | 6.80 | 0.38 |
Basket | 6.12 | 6.56 | 7.27 |
Highchair | 6.13 | 6.24 | 1.23 |
Motorized | 6.10 | 6.58 | 3.84 |
Mean | 5.85 | 6.13 | 5.79 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Saraiva, M., Albuquerque, P.B. & Garrido, M.V. Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method. Psychological Research 87, 2548–2558 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01821-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01821-z