ArticleScientific reports2017
The Effect of Item Similarity and Response Competition Manipulations on Collaborative Inhibition in Group Recall.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Which Group Dynamics Matter: Social Predictors of Student Achievement in Team-Based Undergraduate Science Classrooms.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaborative inhibition refers to when people working together remember less than their predicted potential. The most common explanation for this effect is the retrieval-disruption hypothesis during collaborative recall. However, several recent studies have obtained conflicting results concerning this hypothesis. In the current study, item similarity was manipulated in Experiment 1 by requiring participants to study overlapping or non-overlapping unrelated wordlists. The unstructured instructions were then manipulated during a turn-taking recall task between conditions. The results showed that collaborative inhibition occurred for both overlapping and non-overlapping conditions. Subsequently, response competition during collaborative recall, in addition to item similarity, was manipulated in Experiment 2, and the results showed that when collaborative group members were instructed to recall in turn and monitor their partner's recall (the medium- and high-response-competition conditions), collaborative inhibition occurred. However, no such effect was shown when collaborative group members were instructed not to communicate with each other, but to simply recall in turn while in a group (low-response-competition condition). Together, these results suggest that the conflicts between the findings of the aforementioned studies were probably caused by differing instructions, which induced response competition in collaborative settings. Aside from retrieval-disruption, other possible mechanisms underlying collaborative inhibition were also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.