Response conformity in recognition testing

Schneider, Dana; Watkins, Michael J.

doi:10.3758/bf03214550

Cited by 95 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, from the recognition performance results we may suspect that participants rely on external sources because it benefits their performance (see also Reysen, 2005;Schneider & Watkins, 1996). We cannot be sure, however, whether 'don't know' responses are used to regulate the accuracy of a memory report in this scenario, because we do not have access to responses participants decided to withhold by answering 'don't know'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If it is assumed that evidence from external cues joins internally-generated memorial evidence in the overall pool of evidence, then in the state of subjective uncertainty, MEMORY, METAMEMORY, AND SOCIAL CUES 10 when little or no internal evidence is available, external evidence may become a dominant basis for memory and metamemory decisions. Indeed, in a few studies that looked directly at confidence in the context of memory conformity, it was found that confidence is indeed affected by cues provided by external sources (Jaeger, Cox, & Dobbins, 2012;Schneider & Watkins, 1996). Given that response withholding is almost invariably related to confidence (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996), this allows for a prediction that conditions inducing memory conformity should also induce metamemory conformity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Zawadzka

Krogulska

Button

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When presented with responses of another person, people incorporate these responses into memory reports: a finding termed memory conformity. Research on memory conformity in recognition reveals that people rely on external social cues to guide their memory responses when their own ability to respond is at chance. In this way, conforming to a reliable source boosts recognition performance but conforming to a random source does not impair it. In the present study we assessed whether people would conform indiscriminately to reliable and unreliable (random) sources when they are given the opportunity to exercise metamemory control over their responding by withholding answers in a recognition test. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found the pattern of memory conformity to reliable and unreliable sources in two variants of a free-report recognition test, yet at the same time the provision of external cues did not affect the rate of response withholding. In Experiment 3, we provided participants with initial feedback on their recognition decisions, facilitating the discrimination between the reliable and unreliable source. This led to the reduction of memory conformity to the unreliable source, and at the same time modulated metamemory decisions concerning response withholding: participants displayed metamemory conformity to the reliable source, volunteering more responses in their memory report, and metamemory resistance to the random source, withholding more responses from the memory report. Together, the results show how metamemory decisions dissociate various types of memory conformity and that memory and metamemory decisions can be independent of each other. Keywords: Memory conformity, Metamemory, Recognition MEMORY, METAMEMORY, AND SOCIAL CUES 3Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance Remembering has long been considered exclusively as a process of encoding, storing and retrieving information from one's memory. This perspective neglects, however, a variety of factors that affect remembering yet do not concern the core memory processes. Two instances of such extra-memorial factors in remembering gained much attention in recent years. First, the social perspective underscores the fact that remembering often does not unfold in social isolation, but rather in the presence and with active participation of other people (Blank, 2009;Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012;Hirst & Rajaram, 2014; Rajaram & PereiraPasarin, 2010). A number of important studies have shown how collaborating with other people affects remembering, often in negative ways, reducing output from memory (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997) or introducing errors (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003;Meade & Roediger, 2002). Second, the metamemory perspective underscores the fact that the process of remembering does not stop when memory is retrieved but continues in the form of metamemory decisions which determine how information retrieved from memory will be used to build a memory report -that is, the overt answer provided to a memory ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Zawadzka

Krogulska

Button

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, pairs of participants are shown stimuli (e.g., pictures, words) and then tested on these together (Schneider & Watkins, 1996). The participants in these studies typically answer between 50 to 100 memory questions, so the number of data points for each participant makes this design powerful.…”

Section: Memory Conformity Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, these studies found that there was a social component in misremembering erroneous details. Schneider and Watkins (1996) Misinformation provided by the first person lowered the hit rate (correcting identifying an old word as old) by 10% and raised the false alarm rate (incorrectly identifying an old word as new) by 20%. The Schneider and Watkins (1996) study inspired other researchers to investigate why this phenomenon occurred.…”

Section: Social Influence On Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schneider and Watkins (1996) Misinformation provided by the first person lowered the hit rate (correcting identifying an old word as old) by 10% and raised the false alarm rate (incorrectly identifying an old word as new) by 20%. The Schneider and Watkins (1996) study inspired other researchers to investigate why this phenomenon occurred. Roediger, Meade and Bergman (2001) published a paper about the social contagion of memory.…”

Section: Social Influence On Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Memory Conformity: Actors and Bystanders

Carlucci¹,

Wright²

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering

Basden

Henry

2000

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

171

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative inhibition, the poorer memory performance of collaborative groups as compared with nominal (noninteracting) groups was measured in the free recall of categorized lists. In Experiment 1, collaborative inhibition was present in four-person groups, but not in pairs of two-person groups, where each was compared with performance in four-person nominal groups. However, on a ®nal individual free recall test, members of two-and fourperson collaborative groups recalled a higher proportion of the list than members of nominal groups. In Experiment 2, recall in three-person collaborative groups was less than in threeperson nominal groups but only on the ®rst of three successive study-test trials. On the ®nal individual free recall test, members of collaborative groups recalled more words than members of nominal groups. Despite inhibiting recall and reminiscence, collaboration bene®ts remembering when collaborators are subsequently tested individually.Collaborative remembering refers to the eorts of two or more individuals working together to produce a common record of their recollections. Although active interest in the memorial consequences of collaboration is fairly recent (e.g. Weldon and Bellinger, 1997;Basden et al., 1997), social psychologists have long been interested in the de®cits associated with collaboration. Their research has focused on the eect of brainstorming on problem solving. The in¯uence of collaboration is determined by comparing the performance of collaborative groups with that of nominal groups. Performance of nominal groups is determined by pooling the output of the same number of people working individually at the same task. In general, nominal groups provide a greater number of unique problem solutions than do collaborative groups (see Clark and Stephenson, 1989, for a review).In like fashion, recent studies of collaborative memory have compared the performance of nominal and collaborative groups. Weldon and Bellinger (1997) found non-redundant recall (the memory equivalent of unique ideas) to be greater for nominal than for collaborative groups and to be greater for collaborative groups than for individuals. The latter result had been expected from prior research on group remembering (e.g. Vollrath et al., 1989). Weldon and Bellinger referred to lower collaborative than nominal group recall as collaborative inhibition.

show abstract

Response conformity in recognition testing

Cited by 95 publications

References 9 publications

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Memory Conformity: Actors and Bystanders

Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About