协作如何减少记忆错误：一项元分析研究

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01780

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究协作记忆中错误修剪效应的稳定性和影响因素, 经文献检索和筛选, 对38项协作记忆研究的64个独立样本(总样本量N = 6225)进行元分析。结果发现, 协作记忆中的错误修剪和协作抑制均稳定出现; 调节效应分析表明, 协作方式能调节错误修剪, 但不影响协作抑制效应; 材料类型对错误修剪效应无显著影响, 但情景材料有更高水平的协作抑制; 熟悉关系增强错误修剪效应并削弱协作抑制。以上结果表明, 协作能稳定地抑制错误数量, 提升协作记忆的正确率, 但在一定程度上受到协作方式和关系类型等因素的调节。

关键词: 协作记忆, 元分析, 错误修剪, 协作抑制, 调节效应

Abstract:

In collaborative memory, the memory performances of collaborative and equal-sized nominal groups were measured by the number of correctly recalled items. By comparing the correct recall results between the two groups, collaboration during the retrieval phase is seen to possibly result in collaborative inhibition and collaborative facilitation. However, recall error items were also essential indicators of collaboration. Several studies have considered error recall items as indicators to show that collaboration is beneficial in reducing errors. The phenomenon of collaborative groups recording significantly fewer recall errors than nominal groups is referred to as the “error pruning effect.” The mechanisms and moderators of the collaborative inhibition effect have been explored in several previous studies, but evidence on the mechanism of the “error pruning effect” is scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the robustness of error pruning in collaborative memory and to examine the potential mechanisms and moderators.
Studies were identified with several keywords, including “collaborative memory”, “collaborative recall”, “collaborative inhibition”, and “collaborative facilitation”. English language databases, including Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, and ProQuest, as well as the Chinese language database CNKI, were searched. From 38 empirical studies (from a total sample N = 6225), 64 independent samples were included. We chose the random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using CMA 3.3. The 64 independent samples showed considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, no substantial publication bias was found in the studies, which was confirmed by the funnel plot, fail-safe number, and trim and fill methods.
Standardized mean differences measured by Hedges’ g were used as the effect size index in the meta-analysis. The main effect showed a large and robust error pruning effect and collaborative inhibition effect in the results. Moreover, the results indicated that the collaborative inhibition effect commonly accompanies the error pruning effect. Further analysis revealed that collaborative approaches and interpersonal relationships moderate the error pruning effect. In particular, collaboration of free-flowing and consensus building enhanced the error pruning effect, while collaboration had no significant effect on the inhibition effect. The type of material had no significant effect on error pruning, while story material increased collaborative inhibition. Familiar relationships increased the error pruning effect, but they weakened collaborative inhibition.
Overall, the study results demonstrated the effect of collaborative recall on inhibiting error and improving accuracy. Collaboration and interpersonal relationships may act as important moderating variables in the process. Although error pruning resulted from a feeling of knowing through recall from collaborative partners, it required a relatively low level of processing. Lastly, efficient error correction could be easily achieved through sufficient communication.

Key words: collaborative memory, meta-analysis, error pruning, collaborative inhibition, moderating effect

中图分类号:

B842

孙亚茹, 刘泽军, 段亚杰, 陈宁, 刘伟. (2023). 协作如何减少记忆错误：一项元分析研究. 心理学报, 55(11), 1780-1792.

SUN Yaru, LIU Zejun, DUAN Yajie, CHEN Ning, LIU Wei. (2023). How collaboration reduces memory errors: A meta-analysis review. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(11), 1780-1792.

图/表 9

参考文献 73

	(*为纳入元分析文献)
[1]	Andrews J., & Rapp D. N. (2015). Benefits, costs, and challenges of collaboration for learning and memory. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 182−191.
[2]	Barber S. J., Harris C. B., & Rajaram S. (2015). Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 559−566.
[3]	* Barber S. J., & Rajaram S. (2011). Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: The role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. Memory, 19(4), 378−397.
[4]	* Barber S. J., Rajaram S., & Aron A. (2010). When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 255−264.
[5]	* Barber S. J., Rajaram S., & Fox E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121−132.
[6]	Barnier A. J., Harris C. B., Morris T., & Savage G. (2018). Collaborative facilitation in older couples: Successful joint remembering across memory tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2385. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02385 pmid: 30564169
[7]	* Bärthel G. A., Wessel I., Huntjens R. J., & Verwoerd J. (2017). Collaboration enhances later individual memory for emotional material. Memory, 25(5), 636−646.
[8]	* Basden B. H., Basden D. R., Bryner S., & Thomas R. L. III. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23( 5), 1176−1191.
[9]	Blumen H. M., & Rajaram S. (2008). Influence of re-exposure and retrieval disruption during group collaboration on later individual recall. Memory, 16(3), 231−244.
[10]	Blumen H. M., Young K. E., & Rajaram S. (2014). Optimizing group collaboration to improve later retention. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(4), 244−251.
[11]	Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., & Rothstein H. R. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3.3) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
[12]	Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., & Rothstein H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[13]	Browning C. A., Harris C. B., van Bergen P., Barnier A. J., & Rendell P. G. (2018). Collaboration and prospective memory: Comparing nominal and collaborative group performance in strangers and couples. Memory, 26(9), 1206−1219.
[14]	Clark S. E., Hori A., & Putnam A. (2000). Group collaboration in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1578−1588.
[15]	Cohen J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98−101.
[16]	Coman A., Manier D., & Hirst W. (2009). Forgetting the unforgettable through conversation: Socially shared retrieval- induced forgetting of September 11 memories. Psychological Science, 20(5), 627−633.
[17]	* Congleton A. R., & Rajaram S. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535−551.
[18]	Deng C. (2021). The effects of collaboration and retrieval tasks on memory for emotional words: Insight from the emotional carryover effect (Unpublished master’s thesis). Zhejiang University, China.
	[邓灿. (2021). 合作和提取任务对情绪词记忆的影响——基于情绪遗留效应角度 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学.]
[19]	Duval S., & Tweedie R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455−463.
[20]	Ekeocha J. O., & Brennan S. E. (2008). Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups. Memory, 16(3), 245− 261.
[21]	* Finlay F., Hitch G. J., & Meudell P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval- based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556−1557.
[22]	Goulden K. J. (2006). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(5), 419−420.
[23]	Guo B. Y. (2019). Does directed forgetting moderate collaborative memory? The effects of emotional valence and group interaction (Unpublished master’s thesis). Zhejiang University, China.
	[郭冰燕. (2019). 定向遗忘调节合作记忆吗?——情绪效价与合作方式的作用 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学.]
[24]	* Harris C. B., Barnier A. J., & Sutton J. (2012). Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 179−194.
[25]	* Harris C. B., Barnier A. J., & Sutton J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39( 1), 183−195.
[26]	Harris C. B., Barnier A. J., Sutton J., Keil P. G., & Dixon R. A. (2017). “Going episodic”: Collaborative inhibition and facilitation when long-married couples remember together. Memory, 25(8), 1148−1159.
[27]	Higgins J. P., Thompson S. G., Deeks J. J., & Altman D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557−560.
[28]	* Hyman I. E.,Jr., Cardwell B. A., & Roy R. A. (2013). Multiple causes of collaborative inhibition in memory for categorised word lists. Memory, 21(7), 875−890.
[29]	Isingrini M., Sacher M., Perrotin A., Taconnat L., Souchay C., Stoehr H., & Bouazzaoui B. (2016). Episodic feeling-of-knowing relies on noncriterial recollection and familiarity: Evidence using an online remember-know procedure. Consciousness and Cognition, 41, 31−40.
[30]	Johnson M. K., Hashtroudi S., & Lindsay D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3−28.
[31]	Ke C. C. (2017). Costs and benefits of collaborative memory: Research based on recall tasks (Unpublished master’s thesis). Zhejiang University, China.
	[柯淳淳. (2017). 合作对记忆的抑制与促进——基于回忆任务的研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学.]
[32]	Ke C. C.,Nie A. Q., & Zhang R. Q. (2017). The modulation of recall task on collaborative inhibition and error pruning: The influence of emotional valence and level of processing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(6), 733−744.
	[柯淳淳, 聂爱情, 张瑞卿. (2017). 回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节——情绪效价和编码水平的影响. 心理学报, 49(6), 733−744.]
[33]	Li M. M. (2019). The influence of collaborative encoding combined with collaborative recall on memory (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tianjin Normal University, China.
	[李明旻. (2019). 协作编码结合协作提取对记忆的影响 (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.]
[34]	Light R. J., & Pillemer D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[35]	Liu S. (2021). Beneficial and detrimental effects of collaborative frequency and collaborative order on memory performance (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tianjin Normal University, China.
	[刘斯. (2021). 合作频率和合作顺序对记忆绩效的促进和抑制 (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.]
[36]	Marion S. B., & Thorley C. (2016). A meta-analytic review of collaborative inhibition and postcollaborative memory: Testing the predictions of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1141−1164.
[37]	Maswood R., Luhmann C. C., & Rajaram S. (2022). Persistence of false memories and emergence of collective false memory: Collaborative recall of DRM word lists. Memory, 30(4), 465−479.
[38]	Meade M. L., & Roediger H. L. (2009). Age differences in collaborative memory: The role of retrieval manipulations. Memory and Cognition, 37(7), 962−975.
[39]	* Nie A., & Deng C. (2023). Detrimental and beneficial effects in ongoing and lasting collaborative memory: Insight from the emotional timeout procedure. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 59−79.
[40]	* Nie A., & Guo B. (2023). Benefits and detriments of social collaborative memory in turn-taking and directed forgetting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 130(3), 1040−1076.
[41]	* Nie A., Ke C., Guo B., Li M., & Xiao Y. (2021). Collaborative memory for categorized lists: Ongoing and lasting effects are sensitive to episodic memory tasks. Current Psychology, 42, 3870−3887.
[42]	Nie A., Ke C., Li M., & Guo B. (2019). Disrupters as well as monitors: Roles of others during and after collaborative remembering in the DRM procedure. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 276−289.
[43]	* Peker M., & Tekcan A. I. (2009). The role of familiarity among group members in collaborative inhibition and social contagion. Social Psychology, 40(3), 111−118.
[44]	Pepe N. W., Wang Q., & Rajaram S. (2021). Collaborative remembering in ethnically uniform and diverse group settings. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 95−103.
[45]	* Pereira-Pasarin L. P., & Rajaram S. (2011). Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Memory and Cognition, 39(6), 968−976.
[46]	Rajaram S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A cognitive perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 76−81.
[47]	Rajaram S., & Pereira-Pasarin L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649−663.
[48]	* Rivardo M. G., Rutledge A. T., Chelecki C., Stayer B. E., Quarles M., & Kline A. (2013). Collaborative recall of eyewitness event increases misinformation effect at 1 week. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 495−495.
[49]	* Ross M., Spencer S. J., Blatz C. W., & Restorick E. (2008). Collaboration reduces the frequency of false memories in older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 85−92.
[50]	* Ross M., Spencer S. J., Linardatos L., Lam K. C., & Perunovic M. (2004). Going shopping and identifying landmarks: Does collaboration improve older people's memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 683−696.
[51]	* Rossi-Arnaud C., Spataro P., Bhatia D., & Cestari V. (2019). Collaborative remembering reduces suggestibility: A study with the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Memory, 27(5), 603−611.
[52]	* Rossi-Arnaud C., Spataro P., Bhatia D., Doricchi F., Mastroberardino S., & Cestari V. (2020). Long-lasting positive effects of collaborative remembering on false assents to misleading questions. Acta Psychologica, 203, 102986. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102986 URL
[53]	Rothstein H. R., Sutton A. J., & Borenstein M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in metaanalysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp.1-7). Chichester: John Wliley & Sons, Ltd.
[54]	Saraiva M., Albuquerque P. B., & Arantes J. (2017). Production of false memories in collaborative memory tasks using the DRM paradigm. Psicologica, 38(2), 209−229.
[55]	* Saraiva M., Albuquerque P. B., & Garrido M. V. (2023). Collaborative inhibition effect: The role of memory task and retrieval method. Psychological Research. 87, 2548-2558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01821-z doi: 10.1007/s00426-023-01821-z URL
[56]	Selwood A., Harris C. B., Barnier A. J., & Sutton J. (2020). Effects of collaboration on the qualities of autobiographical recall in strangers, friends, and siblings: Both remembering partner and communication processes matter. Memory, 28(3), 399−416.
[57]	Takahashi M. (2007). Does collaborative remembering reduce false memories? British Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 1−13.
[58]	* Thorley C. (2018). Enhancing individual and collaborative eyewitness memory with category clustering recall. Memory, 26(8), 1128−1139.
[59]	Thorley C., & Dewhurst S. A. (2007). Collaborative false recall in the DRM procedure: Effects of group size and group pressure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 867−881.
[60]	* Vredeveldt A., & van Koppen P. J. (2018). Recounting a common experience: On the effectiveness of instructing eyewitness pairs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 284. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00284 pmid: 29593599
[61]	* 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.
[62]	* 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.
[63]	* Vredeveldt A., Kesteloo L., & van Koppen P. J. (2018). Writing alone or together: Police officers’ collaborative reports of an incident. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(7), 1071−1092.
[64]	* Vredeveldt A., van Deuren S., & van Koppen P. J. (2019). Remembering with a friend or a stranger: Comparing acquainted and unacquainted pairs in collaborative eyewitness interviews. Memory, 27(10), 1390−1403.
[65]	Wegner D. M. (1987). Transactive memory:A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185−208). Springer, New York, NY.
[66]	Weldon M. S., Blair C., & Huebsch P. D. (2000). Group remembering: Does social loafing underlie collaborative inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1568−1577.
[67]	* Wessel I., Zandstra A. R. E., Hengeveld H. M., & Moulds M. L. (2015). Collaborative recall of details of an emotional film. Memory, 23(3), 437−444.
[68]	* Whillock S. R., Meade M. L., Hutchison K. A., & Tsosie M. D. (2020). Collaborative inhibition in same-age and mixed-age dyads. Psychology and Aging, 35(7), 963−973.
[69]	Wilson D. B., & Lipsey M. W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta- analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 413−429.
[70]	Yin J. L. (2020). Effects of emotional state and emotional words on collaboration inhibition of college students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tianjin Normal University, China.
	[殷吉利. (2020). 情绪状态和情绪材料对大学生协作抑制的影响 (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.]
[71]	Zhang H., Wang X., Liu Y. B., Cao X. C., & Wu J. (2021). The influence of members’ relationship on collaborative remembering. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(5), 481−493.
	[张环, 王欣, 刘一贝, 曹贤才, 吴捷. (2021). 成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响. 心理学报, 53(5), 481−493.]
[72]	* Zhang H., Fu Y., Zhang X., & Shi J. (2017). The effect of item similarity and response competition manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 11946. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12177-x pmid: 28931904
[73]	Zhang Y. L., Li S., & Yu G. L. (2019). The relationship between self-esteem and social anxiety: A meta-analysis with Chinese students. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(6), 1005− 1018.
	[张亚利, 李森, 俞国良. (2019). 自尊与社交焦虑的关系:基于中国学生群体的元分析. 心理科学进展, 27(6), 1005− 1018.]

作者+年份	样本量	材料类型	协作方式	关系类型	发表类型	错误修剪效应量 (Hedges’s g)	协作提取效应量 (Hedges’s g)
Barber, 2010	240	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.49	−0.08
Barber, 2011	192	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.93	−0.83
Barber, 2012	180	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.68	−1.14
Bärthel, 2017	120	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.43	−2.50
Basden, 1997	177	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.51	−0.81
Basden, 1997	192	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.51	−1.05
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.65	−0.13
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.15	−0.57
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.84	−0.80
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.90	−2.18
Finlay, 2000	90	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.41	−0.90
Harris, 2012	135	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.06	−0.98
Harris, 2012	135	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.90	−1.92
Harris, 2013	129	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.86	−0.27
Harris, 2013	120	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.49	0.00
Hyman, 2013	134	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.74	−0.71
Hyman, 2013	218	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.65	−0.71
Hyman, 2013	178	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.59	−0.02
Nie, 2021	60	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.57	−1.29
Nie & Deng, 2023	80	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.22	−0.35
Nie & Guo, 2023	78	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.79	−0.62
Peker, 2009	87	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.23	−0.87
Peker, 2009	84	分类	轮流回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	0.02	−1.24
Pereira-Pasarin, 2011	96	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.31	−1.06
Pereira-Pasarin, 2011	192	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.21	−0.81
Rivardo, 2013	161	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	0.26	0.21
Ross, 2004	120	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.19	−0.81
Ross, 2008	132	分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.11	−0.55
Rossi-Arnaud, 2019	52	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.10	−0.21
Rossi-Arnaud, 2019	52	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.29	−0.29
Rossi-Arnaud, 2020	60	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.75	−2.54
Rossi-Arnaud, 2020	52	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.56	−1.96
Saraiva, 2023	152	不分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.51	−0.72
Thorley, 2018	100	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.61	−0.62
Thorley, 2018	100	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.31	−1.21
Vredeveldt, 2016	53	情景材料	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.07	−0.12
Vredeveldt, 2017	80	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	1.16	−0.37
Vredeveldt, Van Koppen, 2018	100	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.95	−0.80
Vredeveldt, Van Koppen, 2018	100	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.07	−1.22
Vredeveldt, Kesteloo, 2018	86	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	−0.27	−1.00
Vredeveldt, 2019	84	情景材料	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.18	−1.25
Vredeveldt, 2019	86	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.12	−1.38
Wessel, 2015	111	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.93	−2.58
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.14	−0.41
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.53	−0.86
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.37	−0.90
Zhang, 2017	56	不分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.11	−0.47
邓灿, 2021_Exp 2	80	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	2.31	−0.55
郭冰燕, 2019_Exp 1	78	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	0.97	−0.58
柯淳淳, 聂爱情等, 2017	48	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	CSSCI	0.12	−0.75
柯淳淳, 聂爱情等, 2017	48	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	CSSCI	0.75	−0.54
柯淳淳, 2017	60	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.74	−1.29
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.85	0.04
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.60	−0.12
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	0.98	0.41
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	1.19	0.32
李明旻, 2019	112	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	学位	1.00	−0.28
李明旻, 2019	240	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	学位	0.61	−0.21
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.49	−0.36
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.37	−0.43
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.38	−0.06
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.39	−0.44
殷吉利, 2020	120	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.57	−0.61
殷吉利, 2020	240	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.94	−0.71

作者+年份	样本量	材料类型	协作方式	关系类型	发表类型	错误修剪效应量 (Hedges’s g)	协作提取效应量 (Hedges’s g)
Barber, 2010	240	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.49	−0.08
Barber, 2011	192	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.93	−0.83
Barber, 2012	180	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.68	−1.14
Bärthel, 2017	120	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.43	−2.50
Basden, 1997	177	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.51	−0.81
Basden, 1997	192	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.51	−1.05
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.65	−0.13
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.15	−0.57
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.84	−0.80
Congleton, 2011	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.90	−2.18
Finlay, 2000	90	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.41	−0.90
Harris, 2012	135	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.06	−0.98
Harris, 2012	135	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.90	−1.92
Harris, 2013	129	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.86	−0.27
Harris, 2013	120	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.49	0.00
Hyman, 2013	134	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.74	−0.71
Hyman, 2013	218	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.65	−0.71
Hyman, 2013	178	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.59	−0.02
Nie, 2021	60	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.57	−1.29
Nie & Deng, 2023	80	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.22	−0.35
Nie & Guo, 2023	78	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.79	−0.62
Peker, 2009	87	分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.23	−0.87
Peker, 2009	84	分类	轮流回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	0.02	−1.24
Pereira-Pasarin, 2011	96	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.31	−1.06
Pereira-Pasarin, 2011	192	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.21	−0.81
Rivardo, 2013	161	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	0.26	0.21
Ross, 2004	120	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.19	−0.81
Ross, 2008	132	分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.11	−0.55
Rossi-Arnaud, 2019	52	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.10	−0.21
Rossi-Arnaud, 2019	52	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	1.29	−0.29
Rossi-Arnaud, 2020	60	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.75	−2.54
Rossi-Arnaud, 2020	52	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.56	−1.96
Saraiva, 2023	152	不分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.51	−0.72
Thorley, 2018	100	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.61	−0.62
Thorley, 2018	100	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.31	−1.21
Vredeveldt, 2016	53	情景材料	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.07	−0.12
Vredeveldt, 2017	80	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	1.16	−0.37
Vredeveldt, Van Koppen, 2018	100	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.95	−0.80
Vredeveldt, Van Koppen, 2018	100	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.07	−1.22
Vredeveldt, Kesteloo, 2018	86	情景材料	自由回忆	混合	SSCI	−0.27	−1.00
Vredeveldt, 2019	84	情景材料	自由回忆	熟悉关系	SSCI	1.18	−1.25
Vredeveldt, 2019	86	情景材料	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.12	−1.38
Wessel, 2015	111	情景材料	达成共识	陌生关系	SSCI	0.93	−2.58
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	−0.14	−0.41
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.53	−0.86
Whillock, 2020	72	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	1.37	−0.90
Zhang, 2017	56	不分类	轮流回忆	陌生关系	SSCI	0.11	−0.47
邓灿, 2021_Exp 2	80	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	2.31	−0.55
郭冰燕, 2019_Exp 1	78	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	0.97	−0.58
柯淳淳, 聂爱情等, 2017	48	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	CSSCI	0.12	−0.75
柯淳淳, 聂爱情等, 2017	48	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	CSSCI	0.75	−0.54
柯淳淳, 2017	60	分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.74	−1.29
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.85	0.04
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.60	−0.12
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	0.98	0.41
李明旻, 2019	80	分类	达成共识	陌生关系	学位	1.19	0.32
李明旻, 2019	112	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	学位	1.00	−0.28
李明旻, 2019	240	不分类	自由回忆	熟悉关系	学位	0.61	−0.21
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.49	−0.36
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.37	−0.43
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.38	−0.06
刘斯, 2021	80	不分类	自由回忆	陌生关系	学位	0.39	−0.44
殷吉利, 2020	120	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.57	−0.61
殷吉利, 2020	240	分类	达成共识	熟悉关系	学位	0.94	−0.71

结果变量	k	效应值及95%置信区间			双尾检验
结果变量	k	Hedges’s g	下限	上限	Z	p
错误修剪	64	0.74	0.62	0.87	11.89	< 0.001
协作提取	64	−0.71	−0.84	−0.57	−10.11	< 0.001

结果变量	k	效应值及95%置信区间			双尾检验
结果变量	k	Hedges’s g	下限	上限	Z	p
错误修剪	64	0.74	0.62	0.87	11.89	< 0.001
协作提取	64	−0.71	−0.84	−0.57	−10.11	< 0.001

调节变量	异质性检验			类别	k	Hedges’s g	95%置信区间		双尾检验
调节变量	Q_B	df	p	类别	k	Hedges’s g	下限	上限	Z	p
协作方式	45.00	2	< 0.001	达成共识	16	0.90	0.75	1.06	11.39	< 0.001
				自由回忆	40	0.77	0.67	0.86	16.14	< 0.001
				轮流回忆	8	0.07	−0.14	0.27	0.65	0.519
材料类型	3.89	2	0.143	分类项目	36	0.73	0.63	0.83	14.13	< 0.001
				不分类项目	12	0.58	0.43	0.73	7.61	< 0.001
				情景材料	16	0.79	0.63	0.95	9.65	< 0.001
关系类型	3.37	1	0.067	熟悉关系	12	0.85	0.70	1.01	10.74	< 0.001
关系类型	3.37	1	0.067	陌生关系	49	0.68	0.60	0.77	15.34	< 0.001