Disrupters as Well as Monitors: Roles of Others During and After Collaborative Remembering in the DRM Procedure

Influence of others on true and inauthentic memory both during and after collaborative remembering have drawn extensive attention in recent years. Collaborative research has recorded three typical effects: collaborative inhibition and error pruning (i.e., nominal groups recall more true information but also bear higher erroneous intrusions than collaborative groups) during collaboration, as well as post-collaborative recall benefit after collaboration. This study introduced Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) lists not only to investigate these phenomena in semantically related information, but also set a course to explore false memory in the collaborative context. Another issue is the sensitivity of these effects to different episodic memory tests (i.e., item memory and source memory tests). In views of these, the current study instructed participants to study several DRM lists and then recall previously studied words (item recall) together with their displayed colors (source retrieval) twice (Recall 1 and 2). Recall 1 was performed either individually or collaboratively, whereas Recall 2 was conducted individually. The cost of collaborative inhibition was obtained, along with three different beneficial effects: error pruning, false memory reduction, and post-collaborative recall benefit. Furthermore, the novel implication of the current study is that it reveals the sensitivity of collaborative inhibition and error pruning in DRM lists to testing conditions and demonstrates that the modulation of collaboration on false memory occurs in the same way both during and after collaboration. These results are discussed in terms of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis and other accounts.