ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Remembering conversation in group settings.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilinguals have better recall for code-switched information.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review on Conversational Memory and Characteristics of Conversations in Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Individuals can take on various roles in conversation. Some roles are more active, with the participant responsible for guiding that conversation in pursuit of the group's goals. Other roles are more passive, like when one is an overhearer. Classic accounts posit that overhearers do not form conversational common ground because they do not actively participate in the communication process. Indeed, empirical findings demonstrate that overhearers do not comprehend conversation as well as active participants. Little is known, however, about long-term memory for conversations in overhearers. Overhearers play an important role in legal settings and dispute resolution, and it is critical to understand how their memory differs in quality and content from active participants in conversation. Here we examine - for the first time - the impact of one's conversational role as a speaker, addressee, or overhearer on subsequent memory for conversation. Data from 60 participants recalling 60 conversations reveal that after a brief delay, overhearers recall significantly less content from conversation compared to both speakers and addressees, and that the content they do recall is less accurately sourced to its actual contributor. Mnemonic similarity is higher between active conversational participants than between active participants and overhearers. These findings provide key support for the hypothesis that the process of forming common ground in interactive conversation shapes and supports memory for that conversation.
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.