Thorley Craig, Dewhurst Stephen A
Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK.
Memory. 2009 Jan;17(1):17-25. doi: 10.1080/09658210802484817. Epub 2008 Dec 5.
Participants studied DRM words lists (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) and then completed a recognition test individually or in a collaborative pair, trio, or quartet. The collaborative groups' responses were compared to those of equivalent sized nominal groups. Non-studied critical lure and studied word recognition increased with group size and these increases were greatest for the collaborative groups. The collaborative groups' critical lure and studied word recognition rates were facilitated as they lowered their response criterion thresholds towards all test words semantically related to those in the DRM lists. Prior collaboration also enhanced later individual critical lure and studied word recognition. The group members believed the critical lures and studied words recognised during collaboration were studied, and they therefore repeated these judgements when tested alone.
参与者学习了DRM单词列表（迪斯，1959年；罗德尼格和麦克德莫特，1995年），然后单独或以合作对子、三人组或四人组的形式完成了一项识别测试。将合作小组的反应与同等规模的名义小组的反应进行了比较。未学习的关键诱饵和学习过的单词的识别随着小组规模的增加而提高，并且这些提高在合作小组中最为显著。合作小组对关键诱饵和学习过的单词的识别率得到了促进，因为他们降低了对所有与DRM列表中的单词语义相关的测试单词的反应标准阈值。先前的合作也提高了后来个体对关键诱饵和学习过的单词的识别。小组成员认为在合作期间识别出的关键诱饵和学习过的单词是学过的，因此他们在单独测试时重复了这些判断。
