Literature DB >> 19058091

False and veridical collaborative recognition.

Craig Thorley1, Stephen A Dewhurst.   

Abstract

Participants studied DRM words lists (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) and then completed a recognition test individually or in a collaborative pair, trio, or quartet. The collaborative groups' responses were compared to those of equivalent sized nominal groups. Non-studied critical lure and studied word recognition increased with group size and these increases were greatest for the collaborative groups. The collaborative groups' critical lure and studied word recognition rates were facilitated as they lowered their response criterion thresholds towards all test words semantically related to those in the DRM lists. Prior collaboration also enhanced later individual critical lure and studied word recognition. The group members believed the critical lures and studied words recognised during collaboration were studied, and they therefore repeated these judgements when tested alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19058091     DOI: 10.1080/09658210802484817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Memory        ISSN: 0965-8211


  3 in total

1.  The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation.

Authors:  Jessica M Salerno; Shari Seidman Diamond
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-04

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

Authors:  Sarah J Barber; Celia B Harris; Suparna Rajaram
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  The Effect of Item Similarity and Response Competition Manipulations on Collaborative Inhibition in Group Recall.

Authors:  Huan Zhang; Yao Fu; Xingli Zhang; Jiannong Shi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.