Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

Date of Degree

9-2025

Document Type

Doctoral Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Psychology

Advisor

Jennifer A. Mangels

Committee Members

Elizabeth F. Chua

Virginia Vallian

Suparna Rajaram

Subject Categories

Cognitive Psychology | Social and Behavioral Sciences | Social Psychology

Keywords

collaborative memory, decision-making, social conformity

Abstract

Collaborative memory studies have typically explored the cognitive mechanisms that underlie differences between collaborative and individual memory performance. Despite the social nature of collaboration, few studies have examined the impact of social motivations on collaborative memory. When retrieving information with groups, people may not only be motivated by a desire to be accurate (i.e., informational motivations), but may also be guided by social norms (i.e., normative motivations), such as prioritizing agreeability or alignment with group members (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Similarly, retrieving information with others may also prompt individuals to reflect more on their own memory processes. However, few studies have examined the impact of collaboration on metacognitive accuracy. To address these gaps, this dissertation examines how informational and normative motivations influence collaborative memory and metamemory across two socio-cognitive experiments.

Using a collaborative recognition memory paradigm that structured the collaboration process as a hybrid of turn-taking and consensus-seeking methods, I examined how feedback from group members influenced collaborative decision making, as well as subsequent memory for those decisions on an individual test. Whereas Experiment 1 focused on the potential of normative motivations to conform to feedback while indirectly testing for informational motives, Experiment 2 utilized confederates to manipulate both normative and informational cues, enabling a direct comparison of these two motivational influences. Specifically, in Experiment 1, normative motivations were manipulated through requiring public or private disclosure of post-feedback decisions. In Experiment 2, normative motives were tested through identity distinctions (in-group, out-group), whereas informational motives were manipulated through perceived competence (high, low, or middle). Across both experiments, participants were sensitive to informational motivations in seeking accurate responses, but their prioritization of group cooperation and stability also guided their decision-making. In achieving consensus within a collaborative environment, participants tended to be inclusive of groupmate responses regardless of perceived competence or identity. Collaboration also improved metacognitive sensitivity, with participants adjusting their response confidence and decisions based on feedback (disagreement/agreement). However, this effect was contingent on whether participants found their members’ responses to be metacognitively accurate and thus, reliable. Taken together, these findings demonstrated that even when differences between group members’ identity and competence are made apparent, participants seek to maintain group cohesion. Given that collaboration is a central aspect of both corporate and academic environments, these findings provide important insights into how diversity in opinions and identities can shape the memory and metamemory of group members.

Download

Share

COinS