The present study was designed to examine the effects of retrieval cues on memory performance for both individuals and collaborating pairs. Participants worked either alone or together in the presence or absence of part-set cues to recall list items in Experiments 1 and 2 and to reconstruct the order of a list items in Experiment 3. The detrimental effects of collaborative inhibition were observed across all three experiments. In contrast, part-set cueing inhibition was found following free recall, whereas part-set cueing facilitation was observed on reconstruction tasks. Taken together, the results of the present experiments suggest that the effects of collaborative inhibition and part-set cueing may operate independently of one another.
AnderssonJ., HelstrupT., & RönnbergJ. (2007). Collaborative memory: How is our ability to remember affected by interaction with others? InMagnussenS. & HelstrupT. (Eds.), Everyday memory (pp. 135–156). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
2.
AnderssonJ., HitchG., & MeudellP. (2006). Effects of the timing and identity of retrieval cues in individual recall: An attempt to mimic cross-cueing in collaborative recall. Memory, 14(1), 94–103.
3.
Aslan, A., Bäuml, K.-H., & Grundgeiger, T. (2007). The role of inhibitory processes in part-list cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 335–341.
4.
BasdenB. H., BasdenD. R., BrynerS., & ThomasR. L.III (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1176–1189.
5.
Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Church, B. A., & Beaupre, P. (1991). Setting boundary conditions on the part–set cuing effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 213–216.
6.
BasdenB. H., BasdenD. R., & HenryS. (2000). Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 497–507.
7.
BasdenD. R., & BasdenB. H. (1995). Part-list cuing inhibition as retrieval strategy disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1659–1672.
8.
BasdenD. R., BasdenB. H., & GallowayB. C. (1977). Inhibition with part-list cuing: Some tests of the item strength hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(1), 100–108.
9.
BäumlK.-H., & AslanA. (2006). Part-list cuing can be transient and lasting: The role of encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 33–43.
10.
BäumlK.-H., & SameniehA. (2012). Influences of part-list cuing on different forms of episodic forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 366–375.
11.
HarrisC. B., PatersonH. M., & KempR. I. (2008). Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together?Memory, 16, 213–230.
12.
KelleyM. R., & BoveeJ. C. (2007). Part-set cuing and memory for order. In ColumbusA. (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 51, pp. 133–148). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
13.
KelleyM. R., & WrightD. B. (2010). Obtaining representative nominal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 36–41.
14.
LindseyC. D., & KrishnenH. S. (2007). Retrieval disruption in collaborative groups due to brand cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 470–478.
15.
MeadeM. L., NokesT. J., & MorrowD. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 39–48.
16.
NickersonR. S. (1984). Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 531–552.
17.
OverscheldeJ. P., RawsonK. A., & DunloskyJ. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 289–335.
18.
PaivioA., YuilleJ. C., & MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 76, 1–25.
19.
RaaijmakersJ. G. W., & PhafR. H. (1999). Part-list cuing revisited: Testing the sampling-bais hypothesis. In IzawaC. (Ed.), On memory: Evolution, progress and reflection on the 30th anniversary of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model (pp. 87–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
RaaijmakersJ. G. W., & ShiffrinR. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.
21.
RajaramS., & Pereira-PasarinL. P. (2007). Collaboration can improve individual recognition memory: Evidence from immediate and delayed tests. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 95–100.
22.
ReysenM. B., & NairneJ. S. (2002). Part-set cuing of false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 389–393.
23.
RoedigerH. L., & NeelyJ. H. (1982). Retrieval blocks in episodic and semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 231–242.
24.
SerraM., & NairneJ. S. (2000). Part-set cuing of order information: Implications for associative theories of serial order memory. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), 847–855.
25.
SlameckaN. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4), 504–513.
26.
SlomanS. A., BowerG. H., & RohrerD. (1991). Congruency effects in part-list cuing inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(5), 974–982.
27.
ThompsonR. (2008). Collaborative and social remembering. In CohenG. & ConwayM. A. (Eds.), Memory in the real world (pp. 249–267). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
28.
WeldonM. S., & BellingerK. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.
