Browsing by Author "Whillock, Summer R."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Does collaboration help or hurt recall? The answer depends on working memory capacity.
(American Psychological Association, 2022-08) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Whillock, Summer R.; Meade, Michelle L.; Hutchison, Keith A.
Collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative versus nominal, or individual, groups) is a robust phenomenon. However, it is possible that not everyone is as susceptible to collaborative inhibition, such as those higher in working memory capacity (WMC). In the current study, we examined the relationship between WMC and collaborative inhibition. Participants completed three shortened span tasks (AOSPAN, RSPAN, SSPAN). They then viewed categorized word lists individually and then recalled the word lists alone or with a partner (Test 1), followed by an individual recall (Test 2). For correct recall, collaborative inhibition was greater among lower WMC individuals and they showed no post collaborative benefits. Only higher WMC individuals benefited from prior collaboration. For false recall, higher WMC individuals had less false recall on Test 1 and 2 and collaboration reduced errors on Test 1 for both lower and higher WMC individuals. There were no lasting effects of collaboration on Test 2 errors. Furthermore, partner WMC appeared to influence recall, although this tentative finding is based on a smaller sample size. Specifically, on Test 2, participants had less false recall when their partner was higher in WMC and greater correct recall when both they and their partner were higher in WMC. We conclude that collaboration is relatively more harmful for lower WMC individuals and more beneficial for higher WMC individuals. These results inform theories of collaborative inhibition by identifying attentional control and working memory capacity as mechanisms that moderate the magnitude of the effect.
Unconscious Thought: Biased by Negative Framing?
(Montana State Univeristy, 2017-04) Whillock, Summer R.; Reiter, Lucca
Individuals chose best options from complex information more often if they are distracted from consciously thinking about that information, and have an evaluation goal versus none (Bos et al., 2008). However, people heavily weight negative information, and are risk averse. Thus, this effect might exaggerate when people must choose a worst option, or disappear because the worst-framing serves as an implicit processing goal. Testing these possibilities, participants randomly received a goal to choose the best or worst roommate, then information regarding three potential roommates, the best (worst) associated with mostly positive (negative) traits and the third with balanced traits. Next, participants’ goal was satisfied or not via random assignment before they engaged in a distraction task, then reported their choices. Logistic regression revealed participants with a processing goal during the distraction (vs. not) chose the correct option significantly more often, but only when asked to choose the best roommate.