Collaborative Inhibition and Semantic Recall: Improving Collaboration Through Computer‐mediated Communication

Hinds, Joanne; Payne, Stephen J.

doi:10.1002/acp.3228

Cited by 13 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants who had cooperated in the two previous recalls showed a higher individual recall at the third trial than those who had always individually recalled in the three trials. In contrast to study 1 [2], study 2 found no difference between recall in FtF and parallel CMC groups, so the latter did not benefit collaborative recall. However, similarly to study 1 [2] and Ekeocha and Brennan's study [19], a difference had emerged between the FtF and parallel CMC approaches to recall (i.e., attention to the contributions of others and organisation).…”

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationcontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…In contrast to study 1 [2], study 2 found no difference between recall in FtF and parallel CMC groups, so the latter did not benefit collaborative recall. However, similarly to study 1 [2] and Ekeocha and Brennan's study [19], a difference had emerged between the FtF and parallel CMC approaches to recall (i.e., attention to the contributions of others and organisation).…”

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationcontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…About study 1 [2], results showed that collaboration may inhibit semantic recall, in addition to episodic recall, and that collaborative inhibition may be mitigated by parallel CMC, which could decrease retrieval strategy disruption. Similar to the results of the study by Ekeocha and Brennan [19], study 1 [2] found a different approach to recall tasks for FtF groups (tendency to coordinate recall-clustering) and parallel CMC groups (tendency to participate less in each other's contributions-repetitions). In study 2, Hinds and Payne [1] identified a collaborative inhibition of semantic recall in both FtF and parallel CMC groups compared to nominal groups.…”

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…More recently, Hinds and Payne conducted two studies (study 1 [2] and study 2 [1]) that aimed to assess whether the semantic recall is sensitive to collaborative inhibition, to test whether CMC may enhance collaborative recall (study 1 and study 2), and to verify whether a subsequent individual semantic recall may be increased by a previous collaboration FtF or via CMC (study 2). About study 1 [2], results showed that collaboration may inhibit semantic recall, in addition to episodic recall, and that collaborative inhibition may be mitigated by parallel CMC, which could decrease retrieval strategy disruption. Similar to the results of the study by Ekeocha and Brennan [19], study 1 [2] found a different approach to recall tasks for FtF groups (tendency to coordinate recall-clustering) and parallel CMC groups (tendency to participate less in each other's contributions-repetitions).…”

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many activities or tasks that take place in both organizational and social contexts require collaboratively recalling information [1]. This collaborative process may be influenced by the medium (face-to-face-FtF communication vs. computer-mediated communication-CMC) used to interact and communicate information [2]. All over the world organizations have already changed their procedures in a disruptive way due to the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Collaborative Facilitation and Collaborative Inhibition in Virtual Environments

Guazzini

Guidi

Cecchini³

et al. 2020

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, organizations and small and medium-sized enterprises have already disruptively changed in many ways their physiological inner mechanisms, because of information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution. Nevertheless, the still ongoing COVID-19 worldwide emergency definitely promoted a wide adoption of teleworking modalities for many people around the world, making it more relevant than before to understand the real impact of virtual environments (VEs) on teamwork dynamics. From a psychological point of view, a critical question about teleworking modalities is how the social and cognitive dynamics of collaborative facilitation and collaborative inhibition would affect teamwork within VEs. This study analyzed the impact of a virtual environment (VE) on the recall of individuals and members of nominal and collaborative groups. The research assessed costs and benefits for collaborative retrieval by testing the effect of experimental conditions, stimulus materials, group size, experimental conditions order, anxiety state, personality traits, gender group composition and social interactions. A total of 144 participants were engaged in a virtual Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) classical paradigm, which involved remembering word lists across two successive sessions, in one of four protocols: I-individual/nominal, I I - nominal/individual, I I I - nominal/collaborative, I V - collaborative/nominal. Results suggested, in general, a reduced collaborative inhibition effect in the collaborative condition than the nominal and individual condition. A combined effect between experimental condition and difficulty of the task appears to explain the presence of collaborative inhibition or facilitation. Nominal groups appeared to enhance the collaborative groups’ performance when virtual nominal groups come before collaborative groups. Variables such as personality traits, gender and social interactions may have a contribution to collaborative retrieval. In conclusion, this study indicated how VEs could maintain those peculiar social dynamics characterizing the participants’ engagement in a task, both working together and individually, and could affect their intrinsic motivation as well as performances. These results could be exploited in order to design brand new and evidenced-based practices, to improve teleworking procedures and workers well-being, as well as teleworking teamwork effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationcontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationcontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Collaborative Inhibition and Collaborative Facilitation In Computer-mediated Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Collaborative Facilitation and Collaborative Inhibition in Virtual Environments

Guazzini

Guidi

Cecchini³

et al. 2020

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method

Saraiva

Albuquerque

Garrido

2023

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive and negative effects of collaboration on suggestibility and false memory in online groups

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies demonstrated the positive and negative effects of collaboration on memory (both veridical and false recall) and suggestibility in face-to-face contexts. However, it remains unclear whether the same results can be observed in a virtual context. To clarify this issue, the present study examined the performance of 10 nominal triads and 10 collaborative triads in a fully online setting. Participants interacted live, in videoconference and were tested with the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) and the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) task. For the GSS, the results replicated the in-person pattern of results, with collaborative triads showing the standard inhibition effect in the immediate and delayed (after 24 h) recall tasks; in addition, collaborative triads were less suggestible than nominal triads. For the DRM, we likewise found that collaboration decreased the recall and recognition of both studied items (the standard inhibitory effect) and critical lures (the error-pruning effect). We therefore conclude that remembering in a virtual context exhibits the same general properties as its in-person counterpart, at least when using a videoconference setting.

show abstract

Collaborative Inhibition and Semantic Recall: Improving Collaboration Through Computer‐mediated Communication

Abstract: which has been published in final form at 10.1002/acp.3228. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

Cited by 13 publications

References 43 publications

Collaborative Facilitation and Collaborative Inhibition in Virtual Environments

Collaborative Facilitation and Collaborative Inhibition in Virtual Environments

Collaborative inhibition effect: the role of memory task and retrieval method

Positive and negative effects of collaboration on suggestibility and false memory in online groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About