A comparison of group and individual remembering: does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?

M. S. Weldon and K. D. Bellinger (1997) showed that people who collaborate on a recall test (collaborative group) perform much more poorly than the same number of people tested individually (nominal group). Four experiments tested the hypothesis that retrieval-strategy disruption underlies this collaborative inhibition when categorized lists are studied. Collaborative groups performed worse than nominal groups when categories were large (Experiment 1) and when category names were provided at recall (Experiment 2). However, collaborative- and nominal-group recall were equivalent when participants retrieved nonoverlapping parts of the list (Experiment 3) and when participants were forced to organize their recall by category (Experiment 4). Clearly, disorganized retrieval can account for collaborative inhibition with the materials and procedures used here.

[1]  H. Perlmutter,et al.  Group learning of nonsense syllables. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  H. Perlmutter.  Group Memory of Meaningful Material , 1953 .

[3]  H. E. Yuker.  Group atmosphere and memory. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  Herbert Solomon,et al.  Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems , 1955 .

[5]  Hoppe Ra.  Memorizing by individuals and groups: a test of the pooling-of-ability model. , 1962 .

[6]  GROUP PERFORMANCE UNDER VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF WORK LOAD AND INFORMATIONAL REDUNDANCY. , 1964, The Journal of general psychology.

[7]  B. Ryack.  A COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP LEARNING OF NONSENSE SYLLABLES. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Individual performance in cooperative and independent groups. , 1965, The Journal of general psychology.

[9]  E. Tulving,et al.  Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words , 1966 .

[10]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  An examination of trace storage in free recall. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[12]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  Sam C. Brown,et al.  Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. , 1971 .

[14]  D. Basden,et al.  Effect of Cueing with List Members in Free Recall as a Function of Number of Categories, Taxonomic Frequency, and Presentation Order. , 1973 .

[15]  R. E. Parker,et al.  Partial category cuing: The accessibility of categories. , 1974 .

[16]  David R. Basden,et al.  Inhibition with Part-List Cuing: Some Tests of the Item Strength Hypothesis. , 1977 .

[17]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Recall as a self-limiting process , 1978 .

[18]  G. S. Sanders,et al.  The Effects of Group Discussion on Eyewitness Accuracy , 1980 .

[19]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[20]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Retrieval blocks in episodic and semantic memory. , 1982 .

[21]  Clive R. Hollin,et al.  Eyewitness Testimony: The Effects of Discussion on Recall Accuracy and Agreement , 1983 .

[22]  R S Nickerson,et al.  Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[23]  D. G. Payne,et al.  Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate/recognize theories , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Timo Mäantylä,et al.  Optimizing Cue Effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 Incidentally Learned Words , 1986 .

[25]  Inhibiting word generation with word presentations. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[27]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  Memory performance by decision-making groups and individuals , 1989 .

[28]  Alan S. Brown,et al.  Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. , 1989 .

[29]  Alan S. Brown,et al.  Cryptomnesia and source memory difficulties , 1991 .

[30]  Sam C. Brown,et al.  Clustering and recall : do high clusterers recall more than low clusterers because of clustering ? , 1991 .

[31]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[32]  Graham J. Hitch,et al.  Are two heads better than one? Experimental investigations of the social facilitation of memory. , 1992 .

[33]  Michael C. Anderson,et al.  Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  G J Hitch,et al.  Collaboration in Recall: Do Pairs of People Cross-cue Each Other to Produce New Memories? , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[35]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Effects of category length and strength on familiarity in recognition. , 1995 .

[36]  K. McDermott,et al.  Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. , 1995 .

[37]  B. Basden,et al.  Some tests of the strategy disruption interpretation of part-list cuing inhibition. , 1995 .

[38]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Recall suffers from collaboration: joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity , 1995 .

[39]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Collaboration and Memory: Effects of Dyadic Retrieval on Different Memory Tasks , 1996 .

[40]  M J Watkins,et al.  Response conformity in recognition testing , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Mary Susan Weldon,et al.  Collective memory: collaborative and individual processes in remembering. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.