A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution of Cognition: The Case of Memory A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution of Cognition: The Case of Memory 소프트웨어 에이전트 이승현 33-51, 2008 L. Marsh, Cognitive Systems Research vol.9, pp , 2008

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Contents Introduction Memory for distributed cognition Social influences on Memory –Transactive memory –Collaborative recall –Social contagion Experiments Conclusion 1

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Introduction Paradigms in human cognition: “embedded”, “distributed”, “extended” Human cognitive processing = brain + nervous system + environment(social, technological resources) Neural system does not operate in causal isolation from their environments. Distributed cognition framework offers new perspectives on social cognition by applying it to one specific domain: the psychology of memory 2

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Memory for Distributed Cognition Autobiographical memory –Content of ongoing activities of remembering which we have sculpted(self conceptions) ex) decision making, choices, values, etc. –This is not simply recalling episodes from one’s past –It is affected by our broader ongoing cognitive lives Triggering for and influencing on the memory process Disrupting or contaminating influence on individual memory Experiences –Shared experiences Accidentally shared Shared because acted together –Unshared experiences Retrieval –Isolated remembering / collaborative remembering 3

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Memory for Distributed Cognition Triggering Thesis –Remembering takes place inside individuals –It is initiated at the encoding or the retrieval phase by social phenomena Social Manifestation Thesis –Remembering takes place inside individuals –It can only be manifested or realized when individuals engaged in part of social group Group Mind Thesis –Remembering is cognitive process when group themselves engaged in 4 Three dimensions

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Studies on social influences on memory from cognitive psychology Three research tradition –Transactive memory –Collaborative recall –Social contagion 5

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Transactive memory : “Set of individual memory systems in combination with the communication that takes place between individuals’’ (Wegner, 1987, p.186). Definition –Memory = individual memory system + communication –Shared memory system Example “A couple discussing a shared party experience” Limitation –Applied with non-autobiographical stimuli 6 Transactive Memory

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Features –Recalled memory > Sum of individual memory –Possible with strangers ex) casual acquaintances, people thrown together by chance –More efficient amongst people who repeatedly remember together(The more communication, chances are the more memory) ex) couples, families, or colleagues Successful relationship –Differentiation of information: more information –Integration of information: new information Experiments(Wegner, 1991) –People in long-term relationships perform better –Collaboration during learning impairs the recall of couples compared to strangers –Because pairs are not allowed to use their own structure 7 Transactive Memory

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory 8 Transactive Memory

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Collaborative recall –Measuring effect of collaboration on recall Experiments(Basden, Bryber, and Thomas(1997)) 9 Collaborative Recall

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Effects –1 st recall (amount of words recalled) Individual < Collaborative group < Nominal group  collaborative inhibition –2 nd recall Recalled individually < Recalled in a group (items that were introduced by another group member) Result –Recalling information in a group setting interrupts people’s individual retrieval strategies, making them less efficient 10 Collaborative Recall

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Nature of group –Type of collaboration Turn-taking (Basden, 2000) vs More interactive collaboration(Finlay et al., 2000) –Way of make-up Groups of acquaintances vs Group of strangers(Anderson, 1995) Married dyads vs Unacquainted dyads(Cue et al., 2006) –Roles adopted by group members Dominant narrator vs Egalitarian conversation 11 Collaborative recall(feature)

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Social contagion paradigm –Measuring impact on an individual’s memory of recalling the same event with one or more other people Experiment(Mead et al., 2002; Roediger et al., 2001) –Procedure 1 st : Learn material together with a confederate 2 nd : Recall with the confederate 3 rd : Recall again individually –Variation A slightly different version of the same material –Measurement Focuses on the amount of correct information that is forgotten and the amount of incorrect information that is remembered 12 Social Contagion

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Effect –People came to falsely remember items when they were suggested by a confederate during collaborative recall Result –Participants incorporated both correct and incorrect information into their recall following group collaboration Source Monitoring Framework(Johnson et al., 1993) –People are often not aware of where information has come from, and may wrongly attribute information provided by someone else to the original event 13 Social Contagion

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Social Influences on Memory Way of presenting(Meade and Roediger, 2002) –Real confederates > Written summary Presence of dissenters(Walther et al., 2002) –Weakened social contagion effect when there is a dissenter in a group Type of confederates(French et al., 2006) –Romantic partner > stranger 14 Social Contagion(Feature)

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiment 1(Collaborative recall) Subject –69 university students from University of New South Wales Object –Death of one of Australian celebrity(Steve Irwin) Procedure 15

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiment 1(Collaborative recall) Result –Content of recollections Group members who recalled collaboratively minimized their own personal emotional reaction Group members who recalled collaboratively minimized the significance of the event –Way of reevaluating their reaction Participants who discussed the event had even further reduced their ratings of how shocked they had been when they heard the news –Confidence level Participants who collaborated were more confident about the semantic details of the event than participants who collaborated individually Conclusion –Collaborative recall can influence people’s memory –This can be extended to more complex and personally relevant memories 16

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiments 2(Social contagion) Subject –48 students from University of New South Wales(28 female, 18 male) Object –Significant autobiographical events ex) 19 th birthday party, HSC exam, school graduation dance, first day of university Procedure –Subjects describe their own significant event –Confederates describe described the event they have listened –Subjects describe their event again Variation –Confederates put contagion item ex) “You thought that this was a big turning point in your life” 17

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiments 2(Social contagion) Result –Contagion effect for memories 30% of participants included in their final recall at least one social contagion idea unit for at least one event ex1) including exact piece of information which was given by confederates ex2) subtle change: 30 people  70 people Conclusion –Collaboration with a virtual stranger is sufficient to slightly alter the later remembering of participants’ private experiences 18

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiments 3(Collaborative Recall) Subject –Former students of Sydney high school at 20 year school reunion Object –Memorable events from high school –ex) a football match, a school musical, etc. Assumption –Student who has kept contacting to other students much more collaborative memory than who has not 19

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Experiments 3(Collaborative Recall) Result –Student who occasionally contacted : Lack of details in remembering –Student who regularly contacted(married one of classmates) : Described many events in great detail –Student who regularly contacted(had friends in the football team) : Described the football match in great detail Conclusion –Former students had different experiences at the time and different memory styles now –Sharing of experiencing and the sharing of remembering seemed to flavor the quantity and quality of their recollections of school events 20

S FT YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Conclusion Remembering is not just internal process by individuals Learning and reconceiving our memory is integrated process which is affected by social environment such as people around us. Application? –MAS system –Conversational system 21

Thank you for your attention