Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups.

Justina Ohaeri Ekeocha1, Susan E Brennan

  • 1Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA. ekeochaj@wpunj.edu

Memory (Hove, England)
|March 8, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is Exposure to the Memories of Others a Necessary Precondition for Collaborative Inhibition?

Advances in cognitive psychology·2024
Same author

What is retained about common ground? Distinct effects of linguistic and visual co-presence.

Cognition·2021
Same author

Brains in dialogue: decoding neural preparation of speaking to a conversational partner.

Social cognitive and affective neuroscience·2017
Same author

The Role of Metarepresentation in the Production and Resolution of Referring Expressions.

Frontiers in psychology·2016
Same author

Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.

Topics in cognitive science·2014
Same author

Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2012
Same journal

Episodic and semantic memory contributions to imagination and creativity.

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
Same journal

What is the relationship between stress and prospective memory in everyday environments?

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
Same journal

Revisiting the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: a metacognitive perspective.

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
Same journal

Beliefs about child witnesses: a survey of Danish legal professionals, social workers and psychologists.

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
Same journal

Potto-biographical memory ≈ autobiographical memory: on the retrieval and organisation of fictional- and personal-event memories.

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
Same journal

Conceptual and perceptual chunking of real-world objects in visual working memory.

Memory (Hove, England)·2026
See all related articles

Group memory recall is often less than individual recall due to information filtering. This study reveals how self-filtering and group-filtering impact collaborative memory, with face-to-face interaction aiding later individual recall.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Human Memory

Background:

  • Collaborative recall often yields less information than aggregating individual memories.
  • Reduced group productivity in memory tasks may stem from content filtering processes.
  • Content filtering includes information omission due to retrieval failure, withholding, or group rejection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the mechanisms of reduced group memory productivity.
  • To differentiate between self-filtering and group-filtering in collaborative recall.
  • To examine the effects of face-to-face versus electronic group recall on subsequent individual memory.

Main Methods:

  • Three-person groups watched a movie clip and recalled it individually.
  • Groups then recalled the clip collaboratively in either face-to-face or electronic settings.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Participants recalled the clip individually again after the group session.

    • Main Results:

    • Both face-to-face and electronic groups recalled equivalent amounts of information.
    • Group-filtering was more prevalent in face-to-face interactions.
    • Self-filtering was more common in electronic group interactions.
    • Face-to-face group interaction enhanced subsequent individual recall.

    Conclusions:

    • Reduced group memory productivity results from both intrapersonal factors (cognitive interference) and interpersonal factors (coordination costs).
    • The modality of group interaction influences the type of filtering that occurs.
    • Face-to-face interaction offers benefits for individual memory consolidation post-collaboration.