Cited by 500Memory Processes and InfluencesSocial and Intergroup PsychologyCognitive Functions and Memory

Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.

Weldon, Mary Susan, Bellinger, Krystal D.·1997·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

Two experiments compared collaborative and individual recall. In Experiment 1, participants encoded pictures and words with a deep or shallow processing task, then recalled them twice either individually or collaboratively. Collaborative groups recalled more than individuals, but less than nominal groups (pooled individuals), thus exhibiting collaborative inhibition. However, group recall appeared to be more stable over time than individual recall. Groups and individuals both showed a picture-superiority effect, a level-of-processing effect, and hypermnesia. In Experiment 2, participants recalled the story "War of the Ghosts" (from F. C. Bartlett, 1932), and again collaborative groups recalled more than individuals, but less than nominal groups. Both the individual and collaborative recalls were highly organized. There was evidence that the collaborative groups tended to rely on the best individual to a greater extent in story than in list recall. Possible social and cognitive mechanisms are considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks.

    “These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002;Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Meudell et al. 1992;Weld”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
1997-09
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
1160-1175
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W2018734806
Cited by
498
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
collective memory, collaborative recall, collaborative inhibition, picture superiority effect, levels of processing, hypermnesia, story recall, memory organization, social memory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Individuality, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Mental Recall, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Learning, Writing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review