Why collaboration reduces suggestibility: The role of source-monitoring processes and retrieval strategies

Abstract

Previous research found that collaboration reduces the tendency to yield to misleading questions. Here, the aim was to determine whether this occurs because collaboration induces a conservative change in response criterion or because it promotes more efficient error-checking strategies. To this purpose, we compared the performance of collaborative and nominal triads in the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Critically, we recorded conversations during retrieval, allowing us to compute inclusive scores and analyze retrieval strategies. Confirming previous evidence, results showed that collaborative groups yielded less to leading questions; however, the differences between collaborative and nominal groups in yield 1 were canceled when we took into account questions to which at least one participant in the collaborative group gave in but was corrected by collaborators during the discussion (the so-called inclusive scores). This was not the case for yield 2 and total suggestibility scores. Also, the analysis of retrieval strategies indicated that collaborative groups who used process-focused strategies (such as correction and cross-cueing) to a greater extent were less likely to change their responses after receiving the negative feedback and were less suggestible. We conclude that, while the use of error-checking and process-focused strategies played a role in reducing suggestibility in collaborative groups, the administration of negative feedback induced members of collaborative groups to adopt a more conservative response criterion. These results contribute to the understanding of the conditions that maximize the positive effects of collaborative retrieval. They have implications for policymakers and police practitioners, specifying when and how collaboration might be allowed.

The Role of Coping Strategies in Children’s Repeated Suggestive Interviews

“…These results are in line with other studies that have demonstrated how reasoning and focusing strategies, such as task-oriented, allow us to detect and reject misleading information [38,42].…”

“…The effect of social pressure given by negative criticism also affects the Failure 2 score, which increases the levels of uncertainty that do not seem to be well managed by avoidance coping. According to Gilbert and colleagues [38], managing negative feedback requires more monitoring and self-control skills, which may not be guaranteed by avoidance and/or inactive coping strategies [41,42].…”

“…It is likely that avoidance is not associated with effective source monitoring, which is the ability that best allows us to discriminate misleading information [26,43,44]. Rossi-Arnaud and colleagues [41,42] found that process-focused and collaboration reduce the interrogative suggestibility. The authors also demonstrated that explanation and restatement strategies reduce suggestive vulnerability.…”

Collaborative Memory: What Happens With Remote Communication?

“…Results showed that individuals who interacted in presence and individuals who interacted via computer had comparable memory performance when communication was enriched with verbal and nonverbal cues. Results are in line with those reported in the study by Rossi-Arnaud et al (2023), according to which remembering in a virtual context exhibits the same general properties as its in-person counterpart, at least when using a videoconference setting. This is important because the technological revolution and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, have forced individuals to communicate via video calls and video conferencing, enhancing physical distance.…”

“…Only a few studies (Abel & Bäuml, 2023;Ekeocha & Brennan, 2008;Guazzini et al, 2020;Hinds & Payne, 2016;Rossi-Arnaud et al, 2023) have attempted to investigate the effects of Internet and computer-mediated collaboration on memory. For example, Ekeocha and Brennan (2008) compared in-person interactions with computermediated ones, via chat.…”