Persistence of false memories and emergence of collective false memory: collaborative recall of DRM word lists

Maswood, Raeya; Luhmann, Christian C.; Rajaram, Suparna

doi:10.1080/09658211.2021.1928222

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the DRM, our results confirmed the coexistence of the positive and negative effects of collaboration previously reported, among the others, by Maki et al ( 2008 ), Maswood et al ( 2022 ), Saraiva et al ( 2017 ) and Weigold et al ( 2014 ). In fact, the analyses showed that nominal groups recalled more list (studied) words than collaborative groups – again replicating the standard collaborative inhibition effect; however, a similar increase was observed for the recall of critical lures, suggesting that the beneficial effects of collaboration generalized to the DRM paradigm.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Most of the studies examining the effects of collaboration in the DRM task used however a modified procedure in which participants were first presented with all the semantically related lists and then performed a single recall task, either individually or collaboratively (i.e., the final recognition task was not administered). Overall, these experiments reached consistent conclusions, by showing that nominal groups recalled more studied words and more critical lures than collaborative groups (Maki et al, 2008 ; Maswood et al, 2022 ; Nie et al, 2022 ; Saraiva et al, 2017 ; Weigold et al, 2014 ; but see Thorley & Dewhurst 2009 , for different conclusions): thus, collaboration inhibited the recall of correct (studied) items but simultaneously reduced the recall of incorrect (lure) items.…”

Section: Positive and Negative Effects Of Collaboration On Veridical ...supporting

confidence: 53%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Positive and Negative Effects Of Collaboration On Veridical ...supporting

confidence: 53%

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

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaborative memory is operationally defined as the memory for experiences previously encountered individually or collaboratively but retrieved collaboratively (Abel & Bäuml, 2020;Browning et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2017;Ke et al, 2017;Maswood et al, 2019;Nie et al, 2019Nie et al, , 2022Nie et al, , 2021bNumbers et al, 2014). Information learned in collaboration can be incorporated into a partner's memory and is also subject to reconstruction, elaboration, or even distortion (Bays et al, 2017;Hinds & Payne, 2018;Maswood et al, 2021;Nie & Deng, 2023;Nie et al, 2019Nie et al, , 2022Nie et al, , 2021b.…”

Section: Collaborative Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and Detriments of Social Collaborative Memory in Turn-Taking and Directed Forgetting

Nie

Guo

2023

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative recall by groups of people can evoke both memory detriments (e.g., collaborative inhibition) and benefits (e.g., error pruning and post-collaborative memory benefit). Yet, it remains indeterminate whether these effects are due to the emotional valence of stimuli and/or the specific subtypes of episodic memory tested (i.e., item memory and source memory), and whether they are related to the research procedure of directed forgetting (DF). We introduced item-method DF into collaborative memory research using a turn-taking procedure. The to-be-recalled words were studied in different emotional valences and were followed by either an R or F cue, which, respectively, instructed participants to remember or forget the words presented. We conducted two recall sessions (Recall 1 and Recall 2) that included the two subtypes of episodic memory. Recall 1 was performed either individually or collaboratively, while Recall 2 was always performed individually. We observed three major findings: (a) a collaborative memory decrement - collaborative inhibition - was minimally affected in both item memory and source memory tasks by either the emotional valence of the stimuli or the DF cue; (b) a collaborative memory benefit - error pruning of item memory - persisted within both ongoing and post-collaboration, while error pruning of source memory only presented in ongoing collaboration, thus demonstrating the relevance of dual-process models that differentiate automatic familiarity and effortful recollection processes; and (c) there was no post-collaborative memory benefit, indicating the importance of the type of collaborative procedure. We discuss these results in terms of various theories, including the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis (RSDH) which asserts that memory strategies tend to be disrupted in collaboration but are facilitated within post-collaboration. Also, we describe the implications of these results and directions for exploring other influential factors in future research.

show abstract

“…; 而依据线索回忆或再认的提取方式较少依赖自身的组织策略, 协作抑制会减弱 (Clark et al, 2000;Finlay et al, 2000) (Nie et al, 2021;Maswood et al, 2022;Vredeveldt et al, 2019), 并将其命名为错误修剪(error pruning)。有研究者认为, 错误修剪通过减少错误记忆, 能抵消协作导致的提取数量的损失 (Harris et al, 2012)。一些研究还发现, 协作组的提取同时表现出协作抑制和错误修剪 (Nie et al, 2021;, 然而也有一些研究并未发现两者共存 (Harris et al, 2013;Vredeveldt et al, 2017;Whillock et al, 2020)…”

unclassified

How collaboration reduces memory errors: A meta-analysis review

Yaru,

Zejun,

Yajie

et al. 2023

Acta Psychologica Sinica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistence of false memories and emergence of collective false memory: collaborative recall of DRM word lists

Cited by 13 publications

References 76 publications

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

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

Benefits and Detriments of Social Collaborative Memory in Turn-Taking and Directed Forgetting

How collaboration reduces memory errors: A meta-analysis review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About