Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： In collaborative memory, the memory performances of collaborative and equal-sized nominal groups were measured by the number of correctly recalled items. By comparing the correct recall results between the two groups, collaboration during the retrieval phase is seen to possibly result in collaborative inhibition and collaborative facilitation. However, recall error items were also essential indicators of collaboration. Several studies have considered error recall items as indicators to show that collaboration is beneficial in reducing errors. The phenomenon of collaborative groups recording significantly fewer recall errors than nominal groups is referred to as the “error pruning effect.” The mechanisms and moderators of the collaborative inhibition effect have been explored in several previous studies, but evidence on the mechanism of the “error pruning effect” is scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the robustness of error pruning in collaborative memory and to examine the potential mechanisms and moderators. Studies were identified with several keywords, including “collaborative memory”, “collaborative recall”, “collaborative inhibition”, and “collaborative facilitation”. English language databases, including Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, and ProQuest, as well as the Chinese language database CNKI, were searched. From 38 empirical studies (from a total sample N = 6225), 64 independent samples were included. We chose the random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using CMA 3.3. The 64 independent samples showed considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, no substantial publication bias was found in the studies, which was confirmed by the funnel plot, fail-safe number, and trim and fill methods. Standardized mean differences measured by Hedges’ g were used as the effect size index in the meta-analysis. The main effect showed a large and robust error pruning effect and collaborative inhibition effect in the results. Moreover, the results indicated that the collaborative inhibition effect commonly accompanies the error pruning effect. Further analysis revealed that collaborative approaches and interpersonal relationships moderate the error pruning effect. In particular, collaboration of free-flowing and consensus building enhanced the error pruning effect, while collaboration had no significant effect on the inhibition effect. The type of material had no significant effect on error pruning, while story material increased collaborative inhibition. Familiar relationships increased the error pruning effect, but they weakened collaborative inhibition. Overall, the study results demonstrated the effect of collaborative recall on inhibiting error and improving accuracy. Collaboration and interpersonal relationships may act as important moderating variables in the process. Although error pruning resulted from a feeling of knowing through recall from collaborative partners, it required a relatively low level of processing. Lastly, efficient error correction could be easily achieved through sufficient communication.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2023-07-17
Abstract： In collaborative memory, the memory performances of collaborative and equal-sized nominal groups were measured by the number of correctly recalled items. By comparing the correct recall results between the two groups, collaboration during the retrieval phase is seen to possibly result in collaborative inhibition and collaborative facilitation. However, recall error items were also essential indicators of collaboration. Several studies have considered error recall items as indicators to show that collaboration is beneficial in reducing errors. The phenomenon of collaborative groups recording significantly fewer recall errors than nominal groups is referred to as the “error pruning effect.” The mechanisms and moderators of the collaborative inhibition effect have been explored in several previous studies, but evidence on the mechanism of the “error pruning effect” is scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the robustness of error pruning in collaborative memory and to examine the potential mechanisms and moderators.
Studies were identified with several keywords, including “collaborative memory,” “collaborative recall,” “collaborative inhibition,” and “collaborative facilitation.” English language databases, including Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, and ProQuest, as well as the Chinese language database CNKI, were searched. From 38 empirical studies (from a total sample N = 6225), 64 independent samples were included. We chose the random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using CMA3.3. The 64 independent samples showed considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, no substantial publication bias was found in the studies, which was confirmed by the funnel plot, fail-safe number, and trim and fill methods.
Standardized mean differences measured by Hedges’ g were used as the effect size index in the meta-analysis. The main effect showed a large and robust error pruning effect and collaborative inhibition effect in the results. Moreover, the results indicated that the collaborative inhibition effect commonly accompanies the error pruning effect. Further analysis revealed that collaborative approaches and interpersonal relationships moderate the error pruning effect. In particular, collaboration of free-flowing and consensus building enhanced the error pruning effect, while collaboration had no significant effect on the inhibition effect. The type of material had no significant effect on error pruning, while story material increased collaborative inhibition. Familiar relationships increased the error pruning effect, but they weakened collaborative inhibition.
Overall, the study results demonstrated the effect of collaborative recall on inhibiting error and improving accuracy. Collaboration and interpersonal relationships may act as important moderating variables in the process. Although error pruning resulted from a feeling of knowing through recall from collaborative partners, it required a relatively low level of processing. Lastly, efficient error correction could be easily achieved through sufficient communication.
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment