The effects of collaboration and punishment on prospective memory performance in a group setting

Altgassen, Mareike; Cohen, Anna‐Lisa; Jansen, Michelle G. · 2020 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1002/acp.3748

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates how social context and motivational framing influence prospective memory (PM) performance, addressing a gap in literature regarding PM in group settings. While individual PM is well-studied, real-world intentions are often shared, yet few studies examine how collaboration or the consequences of one’s behavior affect the ability to remember delayed actions. The researchers specifically tested whether motivation instructions (individual, collaborative, or collaborative with penalty) and group size (dyads vs. triads) impact event-based and time-based PM tasks. The experiment involved 207 participants randomly assigned to one of three motivation conditions and tested in groups of two or three. Participants performed a picture-based two-back working memory task as the ongoing activity. For event-based PM, they had to respond to six specific target pictures. For time-based PM, they had to press a key as closely as possible to each minute mark for six minutes, with the option to check a digital clock. In the individual condition, participants were told their performance was separate. In the collaborative condition, correct responses were merged into a group score (positive frame). In the collaborative plus penalty condition, incorrect responses were subtracted from the group score (negative frame). Results indicated distinct effects based on PM type. For event-based PM, there were no significant differences in accuracy across motivation conditions or group sizes. However, for the ongoing task during event-based PM, participants in the collaborative plus penalty condition performed more accurately but with slower reaction times compared to the collaborative condition. For time-based PM, motivation significantly affected performance. Participants in the individual condition responded less timely (greater deviation from target times) than those in either collaborative condition. There was no difference between the collaborative and collaborative plus penalty conditions for time-based accuracy. Regarding group size, two-person groups checked the clock more frequently than three-person groups, suggesting a marginal effect of social loafing on monitoring behavior, though this did not translate to significant differences in PM accuracy. The findings suggest that social context and motivational framing differentially affect PM strategies. The lack of effect on event-based PM suggests that the cues were sufficiently focal to trigger automatic retrieval regardless of motivation. In contrast, time-based PM, which relies more on strategic monitoring, was enhanced by collaborative motivation. Both positive and negative framing improved timeliness compared to individual testing, indicating that the mere expectation of working as a team increases motivation and attentional allocation. The study concludes that collaborative settings can mitigate the negative effects of social loafing or collaborative inhibition, particularly for tasks requiring active time monitoring.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• prospective memory interruptions