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.
AndersonM. C.BjorkR. A.BjorkE. L. (1994).
Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
20(5), 1063–1087.
2.
AslanA.BäumlK. H.GrundgeigerT. (2007).
The role of inhibitory processes in part-list cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
33, 335–341.
3.
Barber, S. J. (2010). Collaborative Memory and Part-set Cuing Impairments: The Role of Executive Control. Doctoral Dissertation. Stony Brook University.
4.
BarberS. J.CastrellonJ. J.OpitzP.MatherM. (2017).
Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures. Memory & Cognition,
45, 716–730.
5.
BarberS. J.HarrisC. B.RajaramS. (2015).
Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: Multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
41(2), 559–566.
6.
BarberS. J.RajaramS. (2011a).
Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: The role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. Memory,
19(4), 378–397.
7.
BarberS. J.RajaramS. (2011b).
Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall. Memory,
19(5), 462–469.
8.
BarberS. J.RajaramS.AronA. (2010).
When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory & Cognition,
38(3), 255–264.
9.
BarberS. J.RajaramS.FoxE. B. (2012).
Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition,
30, 121–132.
10.
BasdenB. H.BasdenD. R.BrynerS.ThomasR. L. (1997).
A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
23(5), 1176–1191.
11.
BasdenB. H.BasdenD. R.HenryS. (2000).
Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
14(6), 497–507.
12.
BaumeisterR. F.HeathertonT. F. (1996).
Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry,
7, 1–15.
13.
BäumlK. H. (2007).
Making memories unavailable: The inhibitory power.of Retrieval. Journal of Psychology,
215, 4–11.
14.
BäumlK. H. (2008). Inhibitory processes. In RoedigerH. L. III (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Vol. 2 of learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 195–220).
Oxford, England:
Elsevier.
15.
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.
16.
BäumlK. H.HartingerA. (2002).
On the role of item similarity in retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory,
10, 215–224.
17.
BäumlK. H.KuhbandnerC. (2003).
Retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cueing in associatively structured lists. Memory & Cognition,
31, 1188–1197.
18.
BlumenH. M.RajaramS. (2008).
Influence of re-exposure and retrieval disruption during group collaboration on later individual recall. Memory,
16(3), 231–244.
19.
BlumenH. M.RajaramS.HenkelL. (2013).
The applied value of collaborative memory research in aging: Behavioral and neural considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
2, 107–117.
20.
ChoiH. Y.BlumenH. M.CongletonA. R.RajaramS. (2014).
The role of group configuration in the social transmission of memory: Evidence from identical and reconfigured groups. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
26(1), 65–80.
21.
ComanA.ManierD.HirstW. (2009).
Forgetting the unforgettable through conversation: Socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting of September 11 memories. Psychological Science,
20, 627–633.
22.
CongletonA. R.RajaramS. (2011).
The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
140(4), 535–551.
23.
CongletonA. R.RajaramS. (2014).
Collaboration changes both the content and the structure of memory: Building the architecture of shared representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
143, 1570–1584.
24.
CrescentiniC.ShalliceT.DelM. F.MacalusoE. (2010).
Neural correlates of episodic retrieval: An fMRI study of the part-list cueing effect. NeuroImage,
50(2), 678–692.
25.
CucA.KoppelJ.HirstW. (2007).
Silence is not golden: A case for socially-shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science,
18(9), 727–733.
26.
DahlströmÖ.DanielssonH.EmilssonM.AnderssonJ. (2011).
Does retrieval strategy disruption cause general and specific collaborative inhibition?.Memory,
19(2), 140–154.
27.
FinlayF.HitchG. J.MeudellP. R. (2000).
Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
26(6), 1556–1567.
28.
Garcia-MarquesL.GarridoM. V.HamiltonD. L.FerreiraM. B. (2012).
Effects of correspondence between encoding and retrieval organization in social memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 200–206.
29.
GummerumM.LemanP. J.HollinsT. S. (2013).
Children’s collaborative recall of shared and unshared information. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
31, 302–317.
30.
GuoJ. J.DuY. P.ChenY. X.PengD. L. (2011).
The modulation mechanism of emotional words on neutral stimuli’s preference. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
43(4), 364–372.
31.
HenkelL. A.RajaramS. (2011).
Collaborative remembering in older adults: Age-invariant outcomes in the context of episodic recall deficits. Psychological Aging,
26(3), 532–545.
32.
KarpickeJ. D.RoedigerH. L. (2008).
The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science,
319, 966–968.
33.
Labouvie-ViefG. (2003).
Dynamic integration: Affect, cognition, and the self in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
12, 201–206.
34.
LamersM. J.RoelofsA. (2011).
Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
64(6), 1056–1081.
35.
LuhmannC. C.RajaramS. (2015).
Memory transmission in small groups and large networks: An agent-based model. Psychological Science,
26(12), 1909–1917.
36.
MeadeM. L.GigoneD. (2011).
The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition. Memory,
19, 417–428.
37.
MetcalfeJ.MischelW. (1999).
A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review,
106, 3–19.
38.
PastötterB.SchickerS.NiedernhuberJ.BäumlK.-H. (2011).
Retrieval during learning facilitates subsequent memory encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
37, 287–297.
39.
PaulhusD. L. (1993). Bypassing the will: The automatization of affirmations. In WegnerD.PennebakerJ. W. (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 573–587).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
40.
Pereira-PasarinL. P.RajaramS. (2011).
Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Memory & Cognition,
39, 968–976.
41.
PessoaL. (2008).
On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
9(2), 148–158.
42.
RajaramS.Pereira-PasarinL. P. (2010).
Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Psychological Science,
5(6), 649–663.
43.
ScullinM. K.EinsteinG. O.McdanielM. A. (2009).
Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories. Memory & Cognition,
37(4), 425–433.
44.
StoneC. B.BarnierA. J.SuttonJ.HirstW. (2010).
Building consensus about the past: Schema consistency and convergence in socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory,
18(2), 170–184.
45.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis (pp. 1–56).
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
46.
WangY. N.ZhouL. M.LuoY. J. (2008).
The pilot establishment and evaluation of Chinese affective words system. Chinese Mental Health Journal,
22(8), 608–612.
47.
WeldonM. S.BellingerK. D. (1997).
Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
23(5), 1160–1175.
48.
WesselI.ZandstraA. R. E.HengeveldH. M.MouldsM. L. (2015).
Collaborative recall of details of an emotional film. Memory,
23, 437–444.
49.
WurmL. H.Labouvie-ViefG.AycockJ.RebucalK. A.KochH. E. (2004).
Performance in auditory and visual emotional Stroop tasks: A comparison of older and younger adults. Psychological Aging,
19(3), 523–535.
50.
Yaron-AntarA.NachsonI. (2010).
Collaborative remembering of emotional events: The case of Rabin’s assassination. Memory,
14, 46–56.
51.
ZellnerM.BäumlK. H. (2005).
Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall. Memory & Cognition,
33, 396–404.
52.
ZhangH.FuY.ZhangX.ShiJ. (2017).
The effect of item similarity and response competition manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Scientific Reports,
7, 11946.
53.
ZhangH.ZhangX.HeY.ShiJ. (2017).
Clustering strategy in intellectually gifted children: Assessment using a collaborative recall task. Gifted Child Quarterly,
61(2), 133–142.
54.
ZhuJ. (2010). Program variables in the emotional Stroop task (Unpublished master’s thesis). Inner Mongolia Normal University, China.
