A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution of Cognition: The Case of Memory A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution

A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distri-bution of Cognition: The Case of Memory

소프트웨어 에이전트 2009. 05.22

이승현

L. Marsh, Cognitive Systems Research vol.9, pp. 33-51, 2008

S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV . KOREA

Contents

• Introduction

• Memory for distributed cognition

• Social influences on Memory– Transactive memory– Collaborative recall– Social contagion

• Experiments

• Conclusion

2


Introduction

• Paradigms in human cognition: “embedded”, “distributed”, “ex-tended”

• Human cognitive processing =

brain + nervous system + environment(social, technological re-sources)

• Neural system does not operate in causal isolation from their environments.

• Distributed cognition framework offers new perspectives on so-cial cognition by applying it to one specific domain: the psy-chology of memory

3


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

4


Memory for Distributed Cognition

• Triggering Thesis– Remembering takes place inside individuals– It is initiated at the encoding or the retrieval phase by social phe-

nomena

• 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

5

Three dimensions


Social Influences on Memory

• Studies on social influences on memory from cognitive psychol-ogy

• Three research tradition– Transactive memory

– Collaborative recall

– Social contagion

6



• Transactive memory : “Set of individual memory systems in combination with the commu-

nication 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

7

Transactive 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 com-

pared to strangers– Because pairs are not allowed to use their own structure

8

Transactive Memory



9

Transactive Memory



• Collaborative recall– Measuring effect of collaboration on recall

• Experiments(Basden, Bryber, and Thomas(1997))

10

Collaborative Recall



• Effects– 1st recall (amount of words recalled)

Individual < Collaborative group < Nominal group

collaborative inhibition – 2nd 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 individ-

ual retrieval strategies, making them less efficient

11

Collaborative Recall



• 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

12

Collaborative recall(feature)



• 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

• 1st : Learn material together with a confederate• 2nd: Recall with the confederate• 3rd : 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

13

Social Contagion



• 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

14

Social Contagion



• 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

15

Social Contagion(Feature)


Experiment 1(Collaborative recall)

• Subject– 69 university students from University of New South Wales

• Object– Death of one of Australian celebrity(Steve Irwin)

• Procedure

16


Experiment 1(Collaborative recall)

• Result – Content of recollections

• Group members who recalled collaboratively minimized their own personal emo-tional 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

17


Experiments 2(Social contagion)

• Subject– 48 students from University of New South Wales(28 female, 18 male)

• Object– Significant autobiographical events

ex) 19th 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”

18


Experiments 2(Social contagion)

• Result – Contagion effect for memories

• 30% of participants included in their final recall at least one social conta-gion idea unit for at least one event

• ex1) including exact piece of information which was given by confeder-ates

• 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

19


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 col-

laborative memory than who has not

20


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

21


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

22

Thank you for your attention

Documents

A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution of Cognition: The Case of Memory A Conceptual and Empirical Framework for the Social Distribution