Introduction
Thorley, C. (2018). Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall.Memory, 26(8), 1128–1139. Web.
The present paper discusses the scholarly article “Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall”, critically reviewing its primary elements. The chosen research is an empirical study in the psychology of eyewitness memory. Previous theoretical and experimental data suggest that eyewitnesses are typically more accurate in reporting circumstances when interrogated alone, as this precaution excludes knowledge contamination (Abel & Bäuml, 2017). Nevertheless, a more current body of research uses a different approach to this phenomenon, presenting category clustering recall to manifest that collaborative data recollection might be more effective (Vredeveldt et al., 2016). In this regard, the analyzed study attempts to clarify the distinction between individual and group descriptions of events, aiming to establish the benefits and limitations of these knowledge retrieval methods.
Background and Rationale
The advantages and disadvantages of collaborative eyewitness memory have been the focus of scientific explorations for a significant amount of time. As such, it has been established that collaboration between the individuals improves the quality of the information described, accounting for the remembrance of additional details (Paulo et al., 2021). However, questioning multiple eyewitnesses may result in the collaborative inhibition effect, which leads to the presentation of incorrect or incomplete data (Andersson & Rönnberg, 1995). Following this evidence, it is still unclear whether group collaboration during information reports is beneficial or harmful for the investigation.
A small cluster of recent studies has uncovered additional data regarding group inhibition, claiming that category clustering recall might be used to reduce the impact of this effect. According to this research, allowing the individuals to freely describe the event circumstances and then facilitating remembering by asking category-specific questions can induce recollection and aid in retrieving additional data (Vredeveldt et al., 2016, 2017). Considering the positive results of research utilizing category clustering recall and the reported benefits of group memory, a question arises whether the use of category clustering recall might diminish the negative effects of group inhibition. Furthermore, it is significant to establish whether individual remembrance is more efficient than group recollection. The discussed article clearly contributes to the understanding of category clustering recall and its implementation for improving the quality of information retrieval during individual and group evidence recollection.
Method and Design
The research method utilized by the authors is an experimental investigation of individual and collaborative memory. The participants were presented with a video depicting a crime event, after which they were asked to remember the details of the scene. The demonstrated recall completeness was assessed based on the number of correctly reported situation elements and the overall number of recall errors made during the recollection. Using a between-subjects design and six conditions, the scholars created four participant groups that differed based on group type and recall type. The participants watched the video individually or together with another participant and recalled the information using their personal strategy or category clustering recall according to their group’s condition.
Overall, the design and methods used in this research appear to appropriately fit the subject under investigation. The decision to distinguish between groups of individuals who viewed the event alone and together has already been implemented in previous research (Abel & Bäuml, 2017). However, the inclusion of nominal groups is a novel addition to the study of eyewitness memory recollection, significantly contributing to the strength of this article. As a result, additional data regarding the collaboration between people who did not previously work together was uncovered.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the process of questioning is a crucial element during police interviews which should also have been considered during the research. The formality of police questioning and the distinction between different stages might considerably impact the memory recollection procedure, resulting in the discrepancy between the amount of information remembered in a formal and informal environment (Sharps et al., 2016). As such, the surroundings of the study could have improved the quality of data recalled, while, during police questioning, this quality would have been decreased. From this perspective, although the utilized methodology is useful for ascertaining the differences between individual and collaborative recollection, its results cannot be applied to police interviewing. Therefore, the practical implementations of the retrieved evidence are significantly reduced.
Another issue with the generalization possibilities becomes evident upon a close examination of the participant sample. The chosen individuals mostly adhere to the same social group, being the students of the same university, and the predominant majority of the respondents are females of young adult age. Considering that only a specific demographic was included in this research, the study sample becomes highly homogeneous (Guest et al., 2017). Sample homogeneity is a crucial problem for future generalization of attained results, and further explorations will be needed to examine how people with various social backgrounds and economic standing might perform under the same conditions.
Findings and Discussion
Based on the attained data, the researchers outline several empirical outcomes of the conducted study. First of all, it is concluded that collaborative groups are generally more efficient in recollecting information, while lone individuals make memory retrieval errors more frequently. However, nominal groups were the most productive in presenting the details of the observed scene. After that, participants who engaged in category cluster recall were always able to describe correct and detailed information in comparison with individuals using free recall. The authors also report that individual or collective participation is nonsignificant in this instance, suggesting that category cluster recall is a highly efficient evidence recollection strategy when contrasted with free recall.
Another essential finding concerns the emergence of collaborative inhibition, which occurs in all collaborative groups. Given this data, the authors suggest that utilizing category clustering recall does not allow for avoiding the negative effects of the mentioned phenomenon. Furthermore, individual recall appears to be less efficient as it requires extra time for interviewing each eyewitness separately. From the data analysis patterns, it is clear that such outcomes are justified by the data. Finally, it is concluded that individual recollection is beneficial for receiving a complete account of the events, while collaborative questioning is advantageous in terms of saving time.
Nevertheless, an alternative explanation for the described outcomes could be based on the concept of social bonding. The authors establish that nominal groups, where individuals observed the events independently, are most productive in recalling the data. From the perspective of social interaction, people tend to bond with others while completing a task together, which leads to the creation of social relationships but changes the overall communication patterns (Rechdan et al., 2018). As such, participants who have been working together from the start might feel uncomfortable correcting their partner, attempting to maintain a positive relationship (Rechdan et al., 2018). Thus, respondents from nominal groups are more likely to highlight each others’ mistakes and improve knowledge accuracy.
After that, the authors only used one video material to facilitate the conditions of observing a crime scene. Although this strategy is generally acceptable for inducing the necessary environment, it is preferable to evaluate the effects of the video and establish whether different stimuli might have induced other results (Paulo et al., 2021). Another complication is the contrast between observing a real-life crime scene and a digital portrayal of one. Encountering a crime in a real-life event could produce different memorization and recollection effects, altering the article’s conclusions (Rechdan et al., 2018). In this regard, it is unclear whether the current study results could be applied to real-life scenarios, meaning that only general recollection patterns have been uncovered.
It should also be noted that the authors fully discuss the limitations and practical implications of the study, carefully delineating the possible issues. Although the problems connected to the impact of stress and video assessment are not outlined, other complications pertaining to the study sample and police questioning strategies are clearly described. Nonetheless, in addition to the suggested practical applications, namely selecting an individual or collaborative interviewing according to the required evidence, it is possible to offer additional implementations. For instance, the attained evidence could be used for examining the processes that decrease the quality of data recollected by collaborative pairs in comparison with nominal pairs (Vredeveldt et al., 2016). Additionally, it becomes possible to evaluate how the police questioning procedure might impact the data recall.
Conclusion
To conclude, the article “Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall” has been critically reviewed in this paper, outlining the major ideas of the research and discussing its disadvantages. The analyzed study clarifies the differences between individual and group descriptions of events, highlighting the benefits and limitations of these knowledge retrieval methods. Overall, it is reported that individual recollection is less time-efficient, while collaborative recall offers less credible knowledge; in comparison, reporting evidence with previously unmet individuals improves information quality. However, such limitations as distinctions between police and study questioning, the lack of video assessment, and the absence of social bonding recognition decrease the practicality of the study.
References
Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2017). Collaborative remembering revisited: Study context access modulates collaborative inhibition and later benefits for individual memory.Memory & Cognition, 45(8), 1319–1334. Web.
Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 199–211. Web.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2017). How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes.Field Methods, 29(1), 3–22. Web.
Paulo, R. M., Jones, E., & Mendes, R. (2021). Testing two retrieval strategies to enhance eyewitness memory: Category and location clustering recall.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(1), 140–149. Web.
Rechdan, J., Hope, L., Sauer, J. D., Sauerland, M., Ost, J., & Merckelbach, H. (2018). The effects of co-witness discussion on confidence and precision in eyewitness memory reports.Memory, 26(7), 904–912. Web.
Sharps, M. J., Mcrae, K., Partovi, M., Power, J., & Newton, A. (2016). Eyewitness memory for firearms: Narrative accounts and specific questioning in the elucidation of accurate information.Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(4), 288–294. Web.
Thorley, C. (2018). Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall.Memory, 26(8), 1128–1139. Web.
Vredeveldt, A., Groen, R. N., Ampt, J. E., & van Koppen, P. J. (2017). When discussion between eyewitnesses helps memory.Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(2), 242–259. Web.
Vredeveldt, A., Hildebrandt, A., & van Koppen, P. J. (2016). Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more.Memory, 24(5), 669–682. Web.