The effects of social pressure on group recall

Reysen, Matthew B.

doi:10.3758/bf03195799

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, there is still little data on this issue and valid conclusions therefore seem premature but it is noteworthy, that the pattern of results was in our and in Peker and Tekcan's (2009) study-descriptively-even opposite to our expectations. Consequently, the findings so far do not speak for greater costs of disagreeing in the social situation (e.g., Reysen, 2003), which is consistent with the overall picture regarding the underlying mechanisms. After all, we did not find any support for the notion that participants adopted their cowitness' responses in order to simply avoid disagreement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Will your words become mine? Underlying processes and cowitness intimacy in the memory conformity paradigm.

Oeberst¹,

Seidemann²

2014

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitness reports become less accurate after exposure to inconsistent information. When such phenomenon of diminishing accuracy occurs among cowitnesses, it is termed memory conformity or the social contagion effect. The present study set out to provide a rigorous test of the underlying mechanisms with particular emphasis on investigating whether genuine false memory is involved. To this end, we conducted an earwitness experiment in which some participants were exposed to discrepant cowitness information and provided their recollections repeatedly and under different conditions. Additionally, we examined the impact of cowitness intimacy by using a random assignment procedure, an aspect that has not been previously studied. With regard to the underlying processes, our findings clearly argue that informational rather than normative influence plays a dominant role. Moreover, highly accurate source attributions indicated that participants were aware of drawing on the recollection of their counterparts. Consequently, we did not obtain any evidence for false memory. With regard to cowitness intimacy, the results were inconsistent and call for further research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Will your words become mine? Underlying processes and cowitness intimacy in the memory conformity paradigm.

Oeberst¹,

Seidemann²

2014

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although social loafing does not explain collaborative inhibition (Weldon, Blair, & Huebsch, 2000), other social and motivational factors-such as whether interaction is face to face or electronic and the perceived output level and pressure in the group-do influence the amount remembered (Ekeocha & Brennan, 2008;Reysen, 2003, Thorley & Dewhurst, 2007. Moreover, recent research suggests that collaboration between expert pilots, who are skilled at communicating in order to perform tasks together, results in facilitation rather than inhibition (Meade, Nokes, & Morrow, 2009).…”

Section: Recall Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Collaboration Enhances Group and Individual Recall Accuracy

Harris

Barnier

Sutton

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Recently, a number of studies have demonstrated a range of situations in which such effects have been observed (e.g., Bless, Strack, & Walther, 2001;Reysen, 2003;Schneider & Watkins, 1996). The majority of these studies have employed either a collaborative inhibition paradigm (e.g., Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997;Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) or a social contagion paradigm (e.g., Roediger, Meade, & Bergman, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%