Learning and Remembering with Others: The Key Role of Retrieval in Shaping Group Recall and Collective Memory

Collaborative Recall and the Construction of Collective Memory Organization: The Impact of Group Structure

Collaborative recall synchronizes downstream individual retrieval processes, giving rise to collective organization. However, little is known about whether particular stimulus features (e.g., semantic relatedness) are necessary for constructing collective organization and how group dynamics (e.g., reconfiguration) moderates it. We leveraged novel quantitative measures and a rich dataset reported in recent articles to address, (a) whether collective organization emerges even for semantically unrelated material and (b) how group reconfiguration-changing partners from one recall to the next-influences collective organization. Participants studied unrelated words and completed three consecutive recalls in one of three conditions: Always recalling individually (III), collaborating with the same partners twice before recalling alone (CCI), or collaborating with different group members during two initial recalls, before recalling alone (CRI). Collective organization increased significantly following any collaboration (CCI or CRI), relative to "groups" who never collaborated (III). Interestingly, collaborating repeatedly with the same partners (CCI) did not increase collective organization compared to reconfigured groups, irrespective of the reference group structure (from Recall 1 or 2). Individuals, however, did tend to base their final individual retrieval on the most recent group recall. We discuss how the fundamental processes that underlie dynamic social interactions align the cognitive processes of many, laying the foundation for other collective phenomena, including shared biases, attitudes, and beliefs.

Collaborative encoding with a new categorization task: a contribution to collaborative memory research

Collaborative memory research has focused primarily on the effects of collaboration at recall with collaboration during encoding receiving less attention. In the present study, collaboration was investigated both at encoding and at retrieval to determine its effects and possible interactions. The aim was to clarify whether the collaborative inhibition effect depended on whether the encoding was with the same or with a different partner. A total of 320 participants (160 Italian and 160 Spanish undergraduate students) were administered a modified version of the collaborative memory paradigm with a new categorization task of verbal affective stimuli at encoding. Specifically, they were asked to classify 90 printed words into 6 categories, so as to have 15 words in each category and then did two recall tasks. Participants were assigned to one of five possible conditions according to encoding (collaborative, individual) and recall (collaborative with the same partner, with another partner, and individual). Results show a collaborative encoding deficit and the classic collaborative inhibition effect independently of whether the encoding was collaborative or individual and even in a collaborative recall group that showed a degree of recall output organization comparable to that of the individual recall group. These results are not wholly consistent with a retrieval disruption explanation and are discussed according to divided attention during collaborative recall and how it may contribute to the collaborative inhibition effect.

Empirical factors affecting memory in collaborative versus nominal groups

When individuals collaborate to try to retrieve some encoded information, not surprisingly, the collaborative group typically remembers more than does any individual. When the non-redundant output from the individuals is combined, however, this nominal group often, surprisingly, remembers more than does the collaborative group. This finding is known as collaborative inhibition. The finding of collaborative inhibition, that collaborative groups remember less would be predicted given the summed non-redundant memories of an equal number of individuals remembering alone, indicates that there is something about remembering in a collaborative group that impairs the performance of the individuals in that group. Research directed toward what that something is has focused on both social and cognitive factors, with the consensus being that cognitive factors play the more important role. An extensive body of work on this topic has accumulated over the past 25+ years, with researchers proposing theoretical explanations and generating empirical data revealing the conditions under which this collaborative inhibition is more versus less likely to occur. The purpose of this review is to summarize those empirical factors to provide a resource for researchers interested in pursuing this work.

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

It is well established that the recall of collaborative groups is lower than the pooled recall of an equal number of lone individuals-the collaborative inhibition effect (Weldon and Bellinger, J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1160-1175, 1997). This is arguably the case because group members have conflicting retrieval strategies that disrupt each other's recall-the retrieval strategies disruption hypothesis (Basden et al., J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 23(5):1176-1191, 1997). In two experiments, we further examined this hypothesis by testing whether the memory task (free recall vs. serial recall) and the recall method (turn-taking vs. unconstraint) moderate collaborative inhibition. Experiment 1 compared the performance of collaborative and nominal groups in a free recall and a serial recall task. Results revealed collaborative inhibition in free recall, but this effect was reduced in serial recall. In Experiment 2, collaborative and nominal performance was compared in the same tasks with collaborative but also nominal groups, using the turn-taking method. The collaborative inhibition effect was still observed in free recall, although to a lesser extent when participants in nominal groups used the turn-taking method. In the serial recall task, the collaborative inhibition effect was eliminated. Taken together, these results further support retrieval strategies disruption as an explanation for the collaborative inhibition effect.

Collective memory: between individual systems of consciousness and social systems

Following a long period of neglect, research on different facets of collective memory is now developing apace in the human and social sciences, as well as at their interface with psychology and neuroscience. This resolutely multidisciplinary renewal of interest in memory sciences has given rise to a plethora of concepts with diverse meanings (e.g., social frameworks of memory, collective, shared, collaborative, social memory). The purpose of the present study was to provide a conceptual overview from a historical perspective, and above all to clarify concepts that are often used interchangeably, even though they refer to very different realities. Based on recent research in psychology and neuroscience, we use the concept of collective memory to refer to the operations of individual systems of consciousness. Collective memory is not the memory of a collective, but that of its individual members, either as members of social groups (shared memory) or as participants in social interactions (collaborative memory). Drawing on the contributions of contemporary sociology, we show that social memory is not collective memory, as it refers not to individual systems of consciousness, but to social systems. More specifically, it is the outcome of communication operations which, through redundancy and repetition, perform a continuous and selective re-imprinting of meaning that can be used for communication. Writing, printing and the new communication technologies constitute the three historical stages in the formation and development of an autonomous social memory, independent of living memories and social interactions. In the modern era, mass media fulfill an essential function of social memory, by sorting between forgetting and remembering on a planetary scale. When thinking about the articulation between collective memory and social memory, the concept of structural coupling allows us to identify two mechanisms by which individual systems of consciousness and social systems can interact and be mutually sensitized: schemas and scripts, and social roles. Transdisciplinary approach spearheads major methodological and conceptual advances and is particularly promising for clinical practice, as it should result in a better understanding of memory pathologies, including PTSD, but also cognitive disorders in cancer (chemobrain) or in neurodegenerative diseases.

Joint contributions of collaborative facilitation and social contagion to the development of shared memories in social groups

Social interactions can shape our memories. Here, we examined two well-established effects of collaborative remembering on individual memory: collaborative facilitation for initially studied and social contagion with initially unstudied information. Participants were tested in groups of three. After an individual study phase, they completed a first interpolated test either alone or collaboratively with the other group members. Our goal was to explore how prior collaboration affected memory performance on a final critical test, which was taken individually by all participants. Experiments 1a and 1b used additive information as study materials, whereas Experiment 2 introduced contradictory information. All experiments provided evidence of collaborative facilitation and social contagion on the final critical test, which affected individual memory simultaneously. In addition, we also examined memory at the group level on this final critical test, by analyzing the overlap in identical remembered contents across group members. Here, the experiments showed that both collaborative facilitation for studied information and social contagion with unstudied information contributed to the development of shared memories across group members. The presence of contradictory information reduced rates of mnemonic overlap, confirming that changes in individual remembering have repercussions for the development of shared memories at the group level. We discuss what cognitive mechanisms may mediate the effects of social interactions on individual remembering and how they may serve social information transmission and the formation of socially shared memories.

The fading popularity of a local ecological calendar from Brunei Darussalam, Borneo

BACKGROUND

Local ecological calendars are ecocultural frameworks that link temporal and spatial scales, contributing to resilience and adaptive management of natural resources and landscapes. They also facilitate management, access and withdrawal of provisioning ecosystem services. In this article, we describe how the ecological calendar of the Kedayan people of Brunei Darussalam links skyscape and biodiversity with sociocultural aspirations to foster adaptive management of landscape, and provide an understanding of the transmission of calendric knowledge in the community.

METHODS

In 2018, we collaborated with sixteen purposively sampled knowledge keepers from the Kedayan community of Brunei Darussalam to document the Kedayan local ecological calendar, and develop a calendrical pictogram. Using a structured questionnaire, we then interviewed 107 randomly selected community members, to understand the contemporary relevance and popularity of the Kedayan calendar, and the transmission of calendric knowledge in the community.

RESULTS

Our findings reveal that very few respondents (n = 27, 25.3%) are aware of the existence of Kedayan ecological calendar; majority (n = 80, 74.7%) were not aware of its existence. There is no statistically significant correlation between consulting healers, knowledge on appropriate time requisite to consult healers, and awareness and self-professed knowledge of Kedayan calendar. Only 14 (13.1%) of the respondents reported to have received some form of calendric knowledge, while the majority (86.9%; n = 93) never received any calendric knowledge. Only a negligible 1.9% reported to have transmitted calendric knowledge to others indicating a breakdown in transmission of calendric knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The calendric pictogram would help the community in revitalizing their calendar. However, the community will have to invest on enhancing transmission of calendric knowledge.

How do we remember public events? Pioneering a new area of everyday memory research

Although most of us consume news reports about public events day by day, little is known about how memories of public events are remembered in everyday life. Across three studies, we examined voluntary (deliberately retrieved) and involuntary (spontaneously arising) public event memories by directly comparing them with voluntary and involuntary personal event memories. In particular, we examined the relative frequency of public event memories, correlations with individual differences measures, the emotional tone of remembered public events, phenomenological characteristics associated with remembering, and functions of public event memories. Against a background of replications of well-established findings from the autobiographical memory literature, several novel findings on public event memories emerged: Public event memories arose both deliberately and spontaneously in daily life, but they were less frequent and less positive than memories of personal events. Similar to personal memories, frequency estimates for involuntary public event memories correlated significantly with individual differences measures of daydreaming as well as depressive and PTSD symptoms. The phenomenological characteristics of public event memories showed large differences to personal event memories. For example, they were judged to be more emotionally negative, less specific, less vivid and to come with a lower sense of reliving. Moreover, public event memories seemed to predominantly serve a social function. The results suggest that deliberate and involuntary memory retrieval of public events in daily life may support the formation and maintenance of collective memories.

Disrupters as Well as Monitors: Roles of Others During and After Collaborative Remembering in the DRM Procedure

Influence of others on true and inauthentic memory both during and after collaborative remembering have drawn extensive attention in recent years. Collaborative research has recorded three typical effects: collaborative inhibition and error pruning (i.e., nominal groups recall more true information but also bear higher erroneous intrusions than collaborative groups) during collaboration, as well as post-collaborative recall benefit after collaboration. This study introduced Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) lists not only to investigate these phenomena in semantically related information, but also set a course to explore false memory in the collaborative context. Another issue is the sensitivity of these effects to different episodic memory tests (i.e., item memory and source memory tests). In views of these, the current study instructed participants to study several DRM lists and then recall previously studied words (item recall) together with their displayed colors (source retrieval) twice (Recall 1 and 2). Recall 1 was performed either individually or collaboratively, whereas Recall 2 was conducted individually. The cost of collaborative inhibition was obtained, along with three different beneficial effects: error pruning, false memory reduction, and post-collaborative recall benefit. Furthermore, the novel implication of the current study is that it reveals the sensitivity of collaborative inhibition and error pruning in DRM lists to testing conditions and demonstrates that the modulation of collaboration on false memory occurs in the same way both during and after collaboration. These results are discussed in terms of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis and other accounts.

Inhibitory Process of Collaborative Inhibition: Assessment Using an Emotional Stroop Task

This study investigated the inhibitory process of collaborative inhibition. An emotional Stroop task was manipulated three times after a group-recall task across three experiments. The results showed that, when participants performed an emotional Stroop task immediately after a group-recall task (Experiment 1) or between two subsequent individual-recall tasks after a group-recall task (Experiment 3), they were able to discriminate color information relating to studied but nonrecalled emotional stimuli more rapidly in the collaborative-recall condition than in the nominal-recall condition. This indicated that participants experienced a stronger inhibition effect in the former condition. However, when the emotional Stroop task was performed after the final individual-recall task (Experiment 2), there were no differences in discrimination between the conditions. These results suggest that the inhibition effect occurs immediately after the group-recall phase and lasts until the final individual-recall task is completed (4 minutes or longer in Experiment 3). It is therefore possible to discuss retrieval inhibition as an underlying mechanism of collaborative inhibition.

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

Although a group of people working together recalls more items than any one individual, they recall fewer unique items than the same number of people working apart whose responses are combined. This is known as collaborative inhibition, and it is a robust effect that occurs for both younger and older adults. However, almost all previous studies documenting collaborative inhibition have used stimuli that were neutral in emotional valence, low in arousal, and studied by all group members. In the current experiments, we tested the impact of picture-stimuli valence, picture-stimuli arousal, and information distribution in modulating the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. We included both younger and older adults because there are age differences in how people remember emotional pictures that could modulate any effects of emotion on collaborative inhibition. Results revealed that when information was shared (i.e., studied by all group members), there were robust collaborative inhibition effects for both neutral and emotional stimuli for both younger and older adults. However, when information was unshared (i.e., studied by only a single group member), these effects were attenuated. Together, these results provide mixed support for the retrieval strategy disruption account of collaborative inhibition. Supporting the retrieval strategy disruption account, unshared study information was less susceptible to collaborative inhibition than shared study information. Contradicting the retrieval strategy disruption account, emotional valence and arousal did not modulate the magnitude of collaborative inhibition despite the fact that participants clustered the emotional, but not neutral, information together in memory.

Building a collective memory: the case for collective forgetting

The shared reality of a community rests in part on the collective memories held by members of that community. Surprisingly, psychologists have only recently begun to study collective memories, an area of interest in the social sciences for several decades. The present paper adopts the perspective that remembering is often an act of communication. One consequence of communicative acts of remembering is that speaker and listeners can come to share the same memories, thereby providing a foundation on which to build a collective memory. Another consequence is that the selectivity of communicative acts of remembering can induce collective selective forgetting, clearly one component of any collective memory. The phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting is discussed in the context of dyadic conversational exchanges of unrelated individuals and conversational exchanges between ingroup and outgroup members. In addition, the paper reviews work demonstrating that what occurs at the dyadic level can shape global outcomes of complex social networks, including convergence of memories across a network. The bottom-up approach described in this paper can help us understand how individual memories can come to be shared across a community.

Comorbidities confounding the outcomes of surgery for third window syndrome: Outlier analysis

Objective

Patients with third window syndrome and superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD) symptoms whose surgical outcomes placed them as outliers were systematically studied to determine comorbidities that were responsible for their poor outcomes due to these confounding factors.

Study Design

Observational analytic case-control study in a tertiary referral center.

Methods

Twelve adult patients with clinical SSCD syndrome underwent surgical management and had outcomes that did not resolve all of their subjective symptoms. In addition to one of the neurotologists, 2 neurologists (one specializing in migraine and the other a neuro-ophthalmologist), and a psychologist clinician-investigator completed comprehensive evaluations. Neuropsychology test batteries included: the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic; Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7); Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale; the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, including the 3 domains of verbal memory, visual memory, and attention/concentration; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; and the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. The control cohort was comprised of 17 participants who previously underwent surgery for third window syndrome that resulted in the expected outcomes of resolution of their third window syndrome symptoms and cognitive dysfunction.

Results

There was a high rate of psychological comorbidity (n = 6) in the outlier cohort; multiple traumatic brain injuries were also a confounding element (n = 10). One patient had elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure requiring ventriculoperitoneal shunting to control the recurrence of dehiscence and one patient with a drug-induced Parkinson-like syndrome and idiopathic progressive neurological degenerative process.

Conclusions

Components of the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 results suggest that these instruments would be useful as screening tools preoperatively to identify psychological comorbidities that could confound outcomes. The identification of these comorbid psychological as well as other neurological degenerative disease processes led to alternate clinical management pathways for these patients.

Level of Evidence

2b.

Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory

Although a group of people working together remembers more than any one individual, they recall less than their predicted potential. This finding is known as collaborative inhibition and is generally thought to arise due to retrieval disruption. However, there is growing evidence that is inconsistent with the retrieval disruption account, suggesting that additional mechanisms also contribute to collaborative inhibition. In the current studies, we examined 2 alternate mechanisms: retrieval inhibition and retrieval blocking. To identify the contributions of retrieval disruption, retrieval inhibition, and retrieval blocking, we tested how collaborative recall of entirely unshared information influences subsequent individual recall and individual recognition memory. If collaborative inhibition is due solely to retrieval disruption, then there should be a release from the negative effects of collaboration on subsequent individual recall and recognition tests. If it is due to retrieval inhibition, then the negative effects of collaboration should persist on both individual recall and recognition memory tests. Finally, if it is due to retrieval blocking, then the impairment should persist on subsequent individual free recall, but not recognition, tests. Novel to the current study, results suggest that retrieval inhibition plays a role in the collaborative inhibition effect. The negative effects of collaboration persisted on a subsequent, always-individual, free-recall test (Experiment 1) and also on a subsequent, always-individual, recognition test (Experiment 2). However, consistent with the retrieval disruption account, this deficit was attenuated (Experiment 1). Together, these results suggest that, in addition to retrieval disruption, multiple mechanisms play a role in collaborative inhibition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Explicit mentalizing mechanisms and their adaptive role in memory conformity

Memory conformity occurs when an individual endorses what other individuals remember about past events. Research on memory conformity is currently dominated by a 'forensic' perspective, which views the phenomenon as inherently undesirable. This is because conformity not only distorts the accuracy of an individual's memory, but also produces false corroboration between individuals, effects that act to undermine criminal justice systems. There is growing awareness, however, that memory conformity may be interpreted more generally as an adaptive social behavior regulated by explicit mentalizing mechanisms. Here, we provide novel evidence in support of this emerging alternative theoretical perspective. We carried out a memory conformity experiment which revealed that explicit belief-simulation (i.e. using one's own beliefs to model what other people believe) systematically biases conformity towards like-minded individuals, even when there is no objective evidence that they have a more accurate memory than dissimilar individuals. We suggest that this bias is functional, i.e. adaptive, to the extent that it fosters trust, and hence cooperation, between in-group versus out-group individuals. We conclude that memory conformity is, in more fundamental terms, a highly desirable product of explicit mentalizing mechanisms that promote adaptive forms of social learning and cooperation.

The Collaborative Encoding Deficit is Attenuated with Specific Warnings

Individuals learning together do so less effectively than individuals learning alone, an effect known as the collaborative encoding deficit (Barber, Rajaram, & Aron, 2010). In the present studies we examined whether providing participants with a warning about the collaborative encoding deficit would increase their encoding task performance, and reduce subsequent memory deficits. Across two experiments, specific warnings were beneficial for memory. Collaborating participants who were told about the collaborative encoding deficit, and who received suggestions for how to complete the encoding task, had superior memory than participants who received no warning. This benefit was not due to qualitative changes in encoding task performance, was unrelated to the type of collaboration utilized, was absent when a more general warning was utilized, and was unrelated to self-reported task motivation. Rather, specific warnings appear to protect against the collaborative encoding deficit by increasing time spent on, and attention directed to, the encoding task.

Forgetting in context: the effects of age, emotion, and social factors on retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that selectively retrieving some information impairs subsequent memory for related but nonretrieved information. This occurs both for the individual doing the remembering (i.e., within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting: WI-RIF), as well as for individuals merely listening to those recollections (i.e., socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting: SS-RIF). In the present study, we examined how the contextual factors of age and emotion independently and interactively affect both WI-RIF and SS-RIF. The results indicated that both WI-RIF and SS-RIF occurred at equivalent levels, both for younger and older adults and for neutral and emotional information. However, we identified a boundary condition to this effect: People only exhibited SS-RIF when the speaker that they were listening to was of the same sex as themselves. Given that participants reported feeling closer to same-sex speakers, this suggests that people co-retrieve more, and therefore exhibit increased SS-RIF, with close others. In everyday life, these RIF effects should influence what information is remembered versus forgotten in individual and collective memories.