Michelle L. Meade’s research while affiliated with Montana State University and other places

Collaboration plays an important role in educational contexts. However, little is known about students’ metacognitive beliefs about collaboration. The present study used an online survey to investigate students’ beliefs toward group study/recall, their studying preferences, strategies they use when studying individually and in groups, and important characteristics of their group members. Results indicate that, although students generally perceive collaboration as beneficial, they prefer individual study, indicating that their beliefs are inconsistent with their learning preferences. Students report social learning as the primary reason for collaborative benefits but prefer to study alone to minimize distraction and increase personal accountability. Further, they use different strategies when studying individually or in a group. When studying individually, students most frequently report re-reading their notes. However, when studying in groups, students most frequently use strategies emphasizing collaboration and interaction, such as quizzing each other. Also, students prefer to work with group members who are focused, motivated, and hard working. Students’ beliefs, preferences, and favored characteristics of group members are related to their frequency of using study groups. Students’ metacognitive beliefs about collaboration have implications for theories of self-regulated learning and better use of collaboration in educational contexts.

In the current study, we investigated how long the effects of one single collaboration session continue to influence individual memory. Participants learned categorized word lists and prose passages individually, and then they were instructed to recall learned materials either collaboratively or individually. Following initial recall, participants completed an individual recall test after a delay of 5 min, 48 h, or 1 week. On the initial recall test, we found that collaboration reduced recall of correct items on both word lists and prose passages (collaborative inhibition), and that collaboration reduced false recall on both word lists and prose passages (error correction). However, on the subsequent individual memory test after a delay, the pattern of post collaborative effects differed across veridical and false recall. For both word lists and prose passages, post collaborative benefits on correct recall lasted 1 week. However, there were no lasting effects of error correction on subsequent false recall. These results suggest that the time course of post collaborative benefits can be long lasting, but they are selective to veridical recall. The results are explained by theories of reexposure and error correction.

Collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative vs. nominal groups) is a robust phenomenon. However, it is possible that not everyone is as susceptible to collaborative inhibition, such as those higher in working memory capacity (WMC). In the current study, we examined the relationship between WMC and collaborative inhibition. Participants completed three shortened span tasks (automated operation span, automated reading span, symmetry span). They then viewed categorized word lists individually and then recalled the word lists alone or with a partner (Test 1), followed by an individual recall (Test 2). For correct recall, collaborative inhibition was greater among lower WMC individuals, and they showed no post collaborative benefits. Only higher WMC individuals benefited from prior collaboration. For false recall, higher WMC individuals had less false recall on Tests 1 and 2, and collaboration reduced errors on Test 1 for both lower- and higher WMC individuals. There were no lasting effects of collaboration on Test 2 errors. Furthermore, partner WMC appeared to influence recall, although this tentative finding is based on a smaller sample size. Specifically, on Test 2, participants had less false recall when their partner was higher in WMC and greater correct recall when both they and their partner were higher in WMC. We conclude that collaboration is relatively more harmful for lower WMC individuals and more beneficial for higher WMC individuals. These results inform theories of collaborative inhibition by identifying attentional control and WMC as mechanisms that moderate the magnitude of the effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Two experiments examined the role of spontaneous relative judgments within the social contagion of memory paradigm (Roediger, Meade, & Bergman, 2001). Participants viewed household scenes (for short or long durations) in collaboration with a confederate (with low, average, or superior memory ability) who falsely recalled incorrect items as having occurred in the scenes. Of interest was whether or not participants would spontaneously evaluate the state of their own memory relative to the state of the confederate's memory when remembering suggested information. Participant responses on a metacognitive questionnaire demonstrated that participants were aware of their own memory ability relative to the memory ability of their partner. Interestingly, this information influenced participants' remember responses on the recall test only when they felt their own memory was relatively poor. Participants make self-initiated, relative judgments of memory when working with others on a memory test, and these judgments are driven by metacognitive differences in remember responses. The results highlight the importance of metacognition in understanding relative judgments in social memory.

We examined the role of working memory capacity (WMC) on collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative groups vs. nominal groups). Participants completed three shortened span tasks and then recalled categorized word lists alone or with a partner (Test 1), followed by an individual recall (Test 2). For correct recall, collaborative inhibition was greater among lower WMC individuals and they showed no post collaborative benefits. Only higher WMC individuals benefitted from prior collaboration. For false recall, collaboration reduced errors on Test 1 for both lower and higher WMC individuals, but there were no lasting effects of collaboration on Test 2 errors. Furthermore, partner WMC influenced recall. On Test 2, participants had less false recall when their partner was higher in WMC, and greater correct recall when both they and their partner were higher in WMC. Collaboration is relatively more harmful for lower WMC individuals and more beneficial for higher WMC individuals.

This study examined the influence of same-age and mixed-age dyads on the collaborative inhibition effect (reduced recall in collaborative groups compared to the combined recall of the same number people who recall individually). Younger (age 18–25) and older (age 65+) adults recalled categorized word lists alone or in collaboration with a same-age or a different-age partner. On an initial recall test, the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for veridical recall was similar across dyads, regardless of age. However, age differences emerged in false recall as older adults were less likely to correct each other’s errors than younger adults in same-age dyads. Older adults in same-age dyads continued to demonstrate greater false recall on a subsequent recall test, but there were no lasting costs of collaboration on subsequent recall or recognition for same-age or mixed-age dyads. Mixed-age dyads were more likely to provide a simple acknowledgment and less likely to remain silent in response to partner suggestions than were same-age partners, however, this did not affect the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. Any lasting effects of collaboration are invariant across same-age and mixed-age partners. The results demonstrate age-invariance of the retrieval strategy disruption theory and highlight collaborative process variables as complementary mechanisms of collaborative inhibition.

Cambridge Core - Cognition - The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Aging - edited by Ayanna K. Thomas

These experiments are the first to investigate the impact of confederate accuracy, age, and age stereotypes in the social contagion of memory paradigm. Across two experiments, younger participants recalled household scenes with an actual (Experiment 1) or virtual (Experiment 2), older or younger confederate who suggested different proportions (0%, 33% or 100%) of false items during collaboration. In Experiment 2, positive and negative age stereotypes were primed by providing bogus background information about our older confederate before collaboration. Across both experiments, if confederates suggested false items participants readily incorporated these into their own memory reports. In Experiment 1, when no age stereotype was primed, participants adopted similar proportions of false items from younger and older confederates. Importantly, in Experiment 2, when our older confederate was presented in terms of negative ageing stereotypes, participants reported less false items and were better able to correctly identify the source of those false items.