Collaboration enhances later individual memory for emotional material

Abstract

Research on collaborative remembering suggests that collaboration hampers group memory (i.e., collaborative inhibition), yet enhances later individual memory. Studies examining collaborative effects on memory for emotional stimuli are scarce, especially concerning later individual memory. In the present study, female undergraduates watched an emotional movie and recalled it either collaboratively (n = 60) or individually (n = 60), followed by an individual free recall test and a recognition test. We replicated the standard collaborative inhibition effect. Further, in line with the literature, the collaborative condition displayed better post-collaborative individual memory. More importantly, in post-collaborative free recall, the centrality of the information to the movie plot did not play an important role. Recognition rendered slightly different results. Although collaboration rendered more correct recognition for more central details, it did not enhance recognition of background details. Secondly, the collaborative and individual conditions did not differ with respect to overlap of unique correct items in free recall. Yet, during recognition former collaborators more unanimously endorsed correct answers, as well as errors. Finally, extraversion, neuroticism, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms did not moderate the influence of collaboration on memory. Implications for the fields of forensic and clinical psychology are discussed.

Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

“…Yaron-Antar and Nachson (2010) found collaborative inhibition when groups of Israeli students were tested on their memory of the details concerning the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin. Similarly, collaborative inhibition has been observed in female undergraduates’ memory for a film clip depicting a fatal car accident (Bärthel, Wessel, Huntjens, & Verwoerd, in press; Wessel, Zandstra, Hengeveld, & Moulds, 2015). In contrast to these findings, a recent study found no evidence of collaborative inhibition when examining couples’ memory for the emotional scene of a play depicting rape and murder (Vredeveldt, Hildebrandt, & von Koppen, 2016).…”

Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall

“…The degree of RSD experienced by a collaborative group is mediated by a number of factors including its size and the social relationship of its members (Marion & Thorley, 2016). Importantly, those collaborative eyewitness memory studies that observed CI (Bärthel et al, 2017;Wessel et al, 2015) and those that did not (Vredeveldt et al, 2016; differed with respect to both factors. Group size matters, as larger groups are more prone to CI (e.g., Marion & Thorley, 2016;Thorley & Dewhurst, 2007).…”

“…A third, non-RSD related, difference between those collaborative eyewitness memory studies that observed CI and those that did not, that may have contributed to their conflicting findings, was their study-test delays. The two studies that found evidence of CI had a 5-min study-test delay only (Bärthel et al, 2017;Wessel et al, 2015) whereas those that found no evidence of CI had study-test delays exceeding 15 min (Vredeveldt et al, 2016(Vredeveldt et al, , 2017. This is important as it has been demonstrated that CI is present during experiments that have study-test delays of up to 15 min (Takahashi & Saito, 2004) but disappears in experiments with longer study-test delays of 2 hrs (Congleton & Rajaram, 2011), 24 hours (Abel & Bäuml, 2017), and 1 week (Takahashi & Saito, 2004).…”

“…They provide a measure of a collaborative group's potential output if collaboration neither inhibits nor facilitates recall. To date, two studies have found that collaborative groups recall COLLABORATIVE EYEWITNESS MEMORY 4 less correct information about crimes than nominal groups (Bärthel, Wessel, Huntjens, & Verwoerd, 2017;Wessel et al, 2015). This decrement is known as collaborative inhibition (or CI;Weldon & Bellinger, 1997).…”

“…Several studies have also found that some collaborative groups of close acquaintances (e.g., married couples) have supportive communication styles that facilitate their recall and make them less prone to CI (e.g., Harris, Keil, Sutton, Barnier, & McIlwain, 2011;Vredeveldt et al, 2016). Importantly, those past collaborative eyewitness memory studies that observed CI tested collaborative pairs of strangers (Bärthel et al, 2017;Wessel et al, 2015), whereas those that did not observe CI tested collaborative trios where all members (Vredeveldt et al, 2016) or most members (Vredeveldt et al, 2017) were close acquaintances. Thus, the larger group sizes/lack of social relationship between group COLLABORATIVE EYEWITNESS MEMORY 6 members in Bärthel et al (2017) and Wessel et al's (2015) studies meant their collaborative groups likely experienced greater RSD, resulting in CI.…”