Collaborative recall in married and unacquainted dyads

Gould, Odette N.; Osborn, C. J.; Krein, Heather; Mortenson, Michelle

doi:10.1080/01650250143000292

Cited by 52 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rönnberg (1995, 1996) demonstrated that collaborative inhibition was obtained among unacquainted pairs but was reduced among pairs of good friends. Johansson et al (2005) found a similar trend in older adult couples, although the difference in collaborative inhibition between older adult married couples and unacquainted pairs did not reach statistical significance (see also Gould, Osborn, Krein, & Mortenson, 2002, for a group-level analysis of partner familiarity in older adults).…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Age differences in collaborative memory: the role of retrieval manipulations

Meade

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

962Collaborative remembering occurs when people work together to remember an event. Such remembering occurs frequently in life, as when a family remembers a vacation, or at alumni reunions when people remember the good old days of college or high school. Prior research has focused almost entirely on collaborative processes in younger adults and, to a lesser extent, similar processes in older adults. However, remarkably little research has examined age differences in collaborative processes between younger and older adults.The purpose of the present study was to explore possible age differences in collaborative memory performance. We examined the effects of prior collaboration on performance in younger and older adults as a function of retrieval condition (type of test and type of instruction). Subjects first took a collaborative test and then, later, a test given in isolation, to ascertain whether any effects of collaboration would be removed when people were tested individually. However, before considering our new research in detail, we next will set the stage by reviewing relevant research conducted on aging and collaborative memory.Prior research on aging and collaboration has revealed contradictory findings, ones that can be partly explained by a difference in whether collaboration is examined at the group level or the individual level (for reviews, see Dixon, 1996;Weldon, 2001). At the group level, the combined output of a collaborative group is compared with the performance of a single individual. Dixon and his colleagues (e.g., Dixon, 1996Dixon, , 1999Gould, Trevithick, & Dixon, 1991) have shown that collaboration, as measured at the group level, benefits older adults' retention for previously studied material, relative to individual performance. That is, groups of older adults perform better than individual older adults in recalling a total set of previously experienced events. Dixon has argued that the items produced by other people can act as retrieval cues, so that collaboration causes veridical performance to increase and errors to decline (Dixon, Gagnon, & Crow, 1998). The group collaborative work is important in highlighting factors related to successful collaboration and demonstrating that older adults can effectively collaborate on a task. However, the group collaborative work does not answer questions concerning the relative impact of collaboration on each individual's performance.Studies that have measured the effect of collaboration on an individual level have shown that individuals' performance is negatively affected by collaboration, a finding contrary to the group work discussed above. Measuring © In two experiments, we examined age differences in collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in pairs of people, relative to pooled individuals) across repeated retrieval attempts. Younger and older adults studied categorized word lists and were then given two consecutive recall tests and a recognition test. On the first recall test, the subjects were given free-report cued recall or forced-report ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Age differences in collaborative memory: the role of retrieval manipulations

Meade

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other research has compared collaborative recall in groups of acquaintances and groups of strangers, with mixed results. Anderson and Ronnberg (1995) reported less collaborative inhibition in groups of friends, while Gould, Osborn, Krein, and Mortenson (2002) reported no difference between married and unacquainted dyads. Most recently, Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst (2006) examined the effects of group dynamics (specifically, a dominant narrator) on the collaborative recall of stories by families.…”

Section: Collaborative Recallmentioning

confidence: 94%

A conceptual and empirical framework for the social distribution of cognition: The case of memory

Barnier

Sutton

Harris

et al. 2008

Cognitive Systems Research

160

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we aim to show that the framework of embedded, distributed, or extended cognition offers new perspectives on social cognition by applying it to one specific domain: the psychology of memory. In making our case, first we specify some key social dimensions of cognitive distribution and some basic distinctions between memory cases, and then describe stronger and weaker versions of distributed remembering in the general distributed cognition framework. Next, we examine studies of social influences on memory in cognitive psychology, and identify the valuable concepts and methods to be extended and embedded in our framework; we focus in particular on three related paradigms: transactive memory, collaborative recall, and social contagion. Finally, we sketch our own early studies of individual and group memory developed within our framework of distributed cognition, on social contagion of autobiographical memories, collaborative flashbulb memories, and memories of high school at a high school reunion. We see two reciprocal benefits of this conceptual and empirical framework to social memory phenomena: that ideas about distributed cognition can be honed against and tested with the help of sophisticated methods in the social-cognitive psychology of memory; and conversely, that a range of social memory phenomena that are as yet poorly understood can be approached afresh with theoretically motivated extensions of existing empirical paradigms.

show abstract

“…Andersson and Rönnberg (1996) found that groups of friends exhibited less collaborative inhibition than groups of strangers. In contrast, Gould, Osborn, Krein, and Mortenson (2002) found no difference in collaborative recall between married and unacquainted dyads (although they did not include a nominal comparison), and Peker and Tekcan (2009) also found similar levels of collaborative inhibition for groups of friends and strangers. Despite these inconclusive findings, Rajaram and Pereira-Pasarin (2010) suggested that collaborative inhibition might be reduced in intimate groups, perhaps due to "transactive memory" (see also Wegner, 1987;Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985), but the effects of relationship on collaborative recall are not yet clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall.

Harris

Barnier

Sutton

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Collaborative recall in married and unacquainted dyads

Cited by 52 publications

References 22 publications

Age differences in collaborative memory: the role of retrieval manipulations

Age differences in collaborative memory: the role of retrieval manipulations

A conceptual and empirical framework for the social distribution of cognition: The case of memory

Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About