Sarah J. Barber

Stereotype Threat Can Both Enhance and Impair Older Adults’ Memory:

Negative stereotypes about aging can impair older adults’ memory via stereotype threat; however, the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are unclear. In two experiments, we tested competing predictions derived from two theoretical accounts of stereotype threat: executive-control interference and regulatory fit. Older adults completed a working memory test either under stereotype threat about age-related memory declines or not under such threat. Monetary incentives were manipulated such that recall led to gains or forgetting led to losses. The executive-control-interference account predicts that stereotype threat decreases the availability of executive-control resources and hence should impair working memory performance. The regulatory-fit account predicts that threat induces a prevention focus, which should impair performance when gains are emphasized but improve performance when losses are emphasized. Results were consistent only with the regulatory-fit account. Although stereotype threat significantly impaired older adults’ working memory performance when remembering led to gains, it significantly improved performance when forgetting led to losses.

When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory.

Humans routinely encode and retrieve experiences in interactive, collaborative contexts. Yet much of what we know about human memory comes from research on individuals working in isolation. Some recent research has examined collaboration during retrieval, but not much is known about how collaboration during encoding affects memory. We examined this issue. Participants created episodes by elaborating on study materials alone or collaboratively, and they later performed a cued-recall task alone, with the study partner, or with a different partner (Experiment 1). Collaborative encoding impaired recall. This counterintuitive outcome was found for both individual and group recall, even when the same partners collaborated across encoding and retrieval. This impairment was significantly reduced, but persisted, when the encoding instructions encouraged free-flowing collaboration (Experiment 2). Thus, the collaborative-encoding deficit is robust in nature and likely occurs because collaborative encoding produces less effective cues for later retrieval.

Fact learning: How information accuracy, delay, and repeated testing change retention and retrieval experience

Previous classroom studies have shown that the phenomenology of studied facts changes over time. However, pedagogical needs preclude both the study of errors and the separation of the effects that delay and repeated testing have on retention and retrieval experience. We addressed these issues together in an experiment where participants read stories containing correct and misleading information and provided Remember, Just Know, and Familiar judgements on immediate and delayed general knowledge tests. After 2 days, information learned from the stories shifted from Remembered to Just Known, but repeated testing attenuated this shift. Interestingly, similar patterns of retrieval and phenomenology were observed for correct and misleading information with one important difference—the shift over time to Just Knowing was significantly greater for correct than for misleading information. Together, these findings show the roles of information accuracy, delay, and testing in determining both retention and the subjective experience of retrieval.

Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory

Although a group of people working together remembers more than any one individual, they recall less than their predicted potential. This finding is known as collaborative inhibition and is generally thought to arise due to retrieval disruption. However, there is growing evidence that is inconsistent with the retrieval disruption account, suggesting that additional mechanisms also contribute to collaborative inhibition. In the current studies, we examined 2 alternate mechanisms: retrieval inhibition and retrieval blocking. To identify the contributions of retrieval disruption, retrieval inhibition, and retrieval blocking, we tested how collaborative recall of entirely unshared information influences subsequent individual recall and individual recognition memory. If collaborative inhibition is due solely to retrieval disruption, then there should be a release from the negative effects of collaboration on subsequent individual recall and recognition tests. If it is due to retrieval inhibition, then the negative effects of collaboration should persist on both individual recall and recognition memory tests. Finally, if it is due to retrieval blocking, then the impairment should persist on subsequent individual free recall, but not recognition, tests. Novel to the current study, results suggest that retrieval inhibition plays a role in the collaborative inhibition effect. The negative effects of collaboration persisted on a subsequent, always-individual, free-recall test (Experiment 1) and also on a subsequent, always-individual, recognition test (Experiment 2). However, consistent with the retrieval disruption account, this deficit was attenuated (Experiment 1). Together, these results suggest that, in addition to retrieval disruption, multiple mechanisms play a role in collaborative inhibition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Forgetting in context: The effects of age, emotion, and social factors on retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that selectively retrieving some information impairs subsequent memory for related but nonretrieved information. This occurs both for the individual doing the remembering (i.e., within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting: WI-RIF), as well as for individuals merely listening to those recollections (i.e., socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting: SS-RIF). In the present study, we examined how the contextual factors of age and emotion independently and interactively affect both WI-RIF and SS-RIF. The results indicated that both WI-RIF and SS-RIF occurred at equivalent levels, both for younger and older adults and for neutral and emotional information. However, we identified a boundary condition to this effect: People only exhibited SS-RIF when the speaker that they were listening to was of the same sex as themselves. Given that participants reported feeling closer to same-sex speakers, this suggests that people co-retrieve more, and therefore exhibit increased SS-RIF, with close others. In everyday life, these RIF effects should influence what information is remembered versus forgotten in individual and collective memories.

Thinking about a limited future enhances the positivity of younger and older adults’ recall: support for socioemotional selectivity theory

Compared with younger adults, older adults have a relative preference to attend to and remember positive over negative information. This is known as the “positivity effect,” and researchers have typically evoked socioemotional selectivity theory to explain it. According to socioemotional selectivity theory, as people get older they begin to perceive their time left in life as more limited. These reduced time horizons prompt older adults to prioritize achieving emotional gratification and thus exhibit increased positivity in attention and recall. Although this is the most commonly cited explanation of the positivity effect, there is currently a lack of clear experimental evidence demonstrating a link between time horizons and positivity. The goal of the current research was to address this issue. In two separate experiments, we asked participants to complete a writing activity, which directed them to think of time as being either limited or expansive (Experiments 1 and 2) or did not orient them to think about time in a particular manner (Experiment 2). Participants were then shown a series of emotional pictures, which they subsequently tried to recall. Results from both studies showed that regardless of chronological age, thinking about a limited future enhanced the relative positivity of participants’ recall. Furthermore, the results of Experiment 2 showed that this effect was not driven by changes in mood. Thus, the fact that older adults’ recall is typically more positive than younger adults’ recall may index naturally shifting time horizons and goals with age.

Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall

When people recall together in a collaborative group they recall less than their potential. This phenomenon of collaborative inhibition is explained in terms of retrieval disruption. However, collaborative recall also re-exposes individuals to items recalled by others that they themselves might otherwise have forgotten. This re-exposure produces post-collaborative benefits in individual recall. The current study examined whether reduced retrieval disruption during group recall is related not only to less collaborative inhibition, but also to greater post-collaborative recall benefits. To test this we devised a paradigm to calculate the extent to which each individual experienced retrieval disruption during group recall. We also included two types of collaborative groups, one of which was expected to experience greater retrieval disruption than the other. Results suggest that the relationship between retrieval disruption and recall performance depends on the level at which retrieval disruption is measured. When retrieval disruption was assessed at the individual level, then minimising retrieval disruption was associated with higher recall (i.e., less collaborative inhibition and greater post-collaborative individual recall). However, when retrieval disruption was assessed at the group level there was no relationship with recall. Furthermore, the findings from this design suggest a role of cross-cueing in modulating group recall levels.

Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: the role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption.

When people are exposed to a subset of previously studied list items they recall fewer of the remaining items compared to a condition where none of the studied items is provided during recall. This occurs both when the subset of items is provided by the experimenter (i.e., the part-set cueing deficit in individual recall) and when they are provided during the course of a collaborative discussion (i.e., the collaborative inhibition effect in group recall). Previous research has identified retrieval disruption as a common mechanism underlying both effects; however, less is known about the factors that may make individuals susceptible to such retrieval disruption. In the current studies we tested one candidate factor: executive control. Using an executive depletion paradigm we directly manipulated an individuals level of executive control during retrieval. Results revealed no direct role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. In contrast, executive control abilities were indirectly related to retrieval disruption through their influence at encoding. Together these results suggest that executive control des not directly affect retrieval disruption at the retrieval stage, and that the role of this putative mechanism may be limited to the encoding stage.

Higher Social Intelligence Can Impair Source Memory

Source monitoring is made difficult when the similarity between candidate sources increases. The current work examines how individual differences in social intelligence and perspective-taking abilities serve to increase source similarity and thus negatively impact source memory. Strangers first engaged in a cooperative storytelling task. On each trial, a single word was shown to both participants, but only 1 participant was designated to add a story sentence, using this assigned word. As predicted, social intelligence negatively predicted performance in a subsequent source-monitoring task. In a 2nd study, preventing participants from being able to anticipate their partners next contribution to the story eliminated the effect.

Self-relevance and wishful thinking: facilitation and distortion in source monitoring.

When making source attributions, people tend to attribute desirable statements to reliable sources and undesirable statements to unreliable sources, a phenomenon known as the wishful thinking effect (Gordon, Franklin, & Beck, 2005). In the present study, we examined the influence of wishful thinking on source monitoring for self-relevant information. On one hand, wishful thinking is expected, because self-relevant desires are presumably strong. However, self-relevance is known to confer a memory advantage and may thus provide protection from desire-based biases. In Experiment 1, source memory for self-relevant information was contrasted against source memory for information relevant to others and for neutral information. Results indicated that self-relevant information was affected by wishful thinking and was remembered more accurately than was other information. Experiment 2 showed that the magnitude of the self-relevant wishful thinking effect did not increase with a delay.