The influence of cooperation and competition on true and false recognition

The influence of cooperation and competition on true and false recognition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The influence of cooperation and competition on true and false recognition Yansong Li, Xi Chen, Andrew J. Elliot This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Recent research has revealed that individuals’ true and false recognition is susceptible to social influence arising from competition. Although cooperation and competition represent two fundamental, opposing forms of social interaction, no work to date has examined how memory processes may be distorted by social influence arising from cooperation and whether these two interactive modes may exert similar or differential influences. To address these issues, participants randomly assigned to a competition, cooperation, or control group performed a pictorial variant of the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm. We found that both the cooperation and competition groups showed significant false recognition reduction compared to the control group, while only the competition group showed true recognition reduction relative to the control group. Our signal-detection analysis further revealed that false recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition is due to a combination of both a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures and an increase in memory monitoring as evidenced by decreased sensitivity ( d' ) and elevated response bias ( C ); competition-driven true recognition reduction, however, is due to enhanced monitoring as indexed by increased C . These results provide compelling evidence that cooperation and competition suppress participants’ false recognition by impairing relational encoding and by enhancing retrieval-based monitoring, while competition reduces participants’ true recognition by increasing retrieval-based monitoring. Collectively, these findings lay the foundation for deepening our understanding of how memory is susceptible to social influence arising from interactive contexts. competition cooperation true recognition false recognition Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Human memory is fragile and potentially unreliable. It is widely recognized to be a dynamic and reconstructive process that is prone to distortions mainly in the form of false memory (Loftus, 1996 ; Roediger & McDermott, 2000 ; Schacter et al., 2011 ). Over the past two decades, the topic of human memory fallibility has generated an increasing volume of literature aimed at investigating the role that social influence factors play in modulating individuals’ memory performance (Echterhoff & Hirst, 2009 ; Maswood & Rajaram, 2019 ; Roediger et al., 2001b ; Weldon, 2000 ; Zhu et al., 2010 ). In this research area, given that individuals typically encode and retrieve information in interactive contexts, there has been an increased effort to examine how memory processes can be distorted by social influence arising from social contact or social interaction with others (Echterhoff & Hirst, 2009 ). A few studies have reported that the mere presence of a confederate – without communication of misinformation or even memory of social interaction – is capable of simultaneously enhancing and distorting memories (Reysen, 2007 ; Straube et al., 2011 ; Wagner et al., 2022 ). In addition, a body of literature has emerged showing that collaboration at retrieval has both negative and positive effects on true and false memory (Abel & Bäuml, 2020 ; Rajaram, 2011 ; Rajaram et al., 2020 ; Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010 ; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997 ). Despite such advances, some major gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact of social influence on true and false memories. For instance, competition and cooperation are two fundamental, opposing forms of social interaction (Deutsch, 1949 , 2011 , 2012 ). When competing, interacting individuals have opposite goals, and one individual's win is tied to the other's loss; when cooperating, on the other hand, interacting individuals have a common goal and win and lose together. Despite the extensive impact of social influence arising from these two basic interactive modes on a wide range of human behavior (Chevalier et al., 2019 ; Li et al., 2023 ; Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004 ), surprisingly, the extent to which an individual’s true and false memories might be modulated by those forms of social influence has received little empirical attention. A recent study by Liu et al. ( 2021 ) provides insight on how competition influences individuals’ true and false recognition. In this study, participants randomly assigned to either a competition or control group performed a typical Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) task in which they studied a series of word lists composed of associates that semantically related to non-studied critical lures; later they were tested on the recognition of studied words, lure words, and new words (Deese, 1959 ; Gallo, 2010 ; Roediger & McDermott, 1995 ). The results revealed that the competition (vs. control) group reported significant true and false recognition reductions. The researchers further assessed the locus of the effect by evaluating the contributions of encoding and retrieval processes through a signal-detection analysis. They found that the competition (vs. control) group a) encoded less information about critical lures as indexed by reduced sensitivity ( d' ) for critical lures, a pattern consistent with an impoverished relational encoding account, and b) performed more memory monitoring at retrieval as evidenced by elevated response bias ( C ) for critical lures and targets, a pattern consistent with a retrieval-based distinctiveness heuristic. In other words, competition suppresses individuals' false recognition by impairing relational encoding and also enhancing diagnostic monitoring at retrieval, while competition reduces true recognition only by increasing diagnostic monitoring at retrieval. Despite such promising findings, there are still several unsolved issues to be addressed. In particular, little attention has been allocated to studying how cooperation may influence individuals’ true and false memories and whether cooperation and competition exert similar or differential influences on individuals’ true and false memories. The present study was designed to address these issues by evaluating how competition and cooperation influence individuals’ true and false memories in an interpersonal context. We employed a pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm to assess true and false recognition for colored pictures of objects, which is similar to that used in previous research (Gong et al., 2016 ; Koutstaal & Schacter, 1997 ). Participants randomly assigned to a competition, cooperation, or control group were required to learn a study list comprised of a set of colored pictures of objects drawn from various object categories; later they were asked to recognize items on a test list comprised of targets (presented exemplars taken from the studied categories), critical lures (nonpresented exemplars taken from the studied categories), and unrelated (noncategorized) distractors. Drawing on (Liu et al., 2021 ), one can expect that the competition (vs. control) group would show significantly reduced true and false recognition. Regarding the underlying mechanism, one can also expect that both encoding and retrieval factors shape competition-driven false recognition suppression and only the retrieval factor contributes to true recognition suppression driven by competition. With regard to cooperation, achieving a common goal is dependent on whether the combined performance of cooperatively interacting individuals exceeds a fixed standard. This is different from competition where achieving the goal depends on whether participants attain higher performance than their opponents. The commonality between them, however, is that improved recognition performance is beneficial for achieving goals in each of these interactive contexts. Given that improved recognition performance has been demonstrated to take the form of reduced false recognition during competition, it seems logical to posit that both cooperation and competition exert a similar influence on participants’ false recognition. However, because the manner in which participants achieve goals in these two interactive modes is different, participants tend to be more error-tolerant during cooperation than during competition. For this reason, it seems reasonable to anticipate that cooperation and competition may have a differential effect on participants' true recognition. Method Participants We performed an a priori power analysis to determine sample size using G*Power Version 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). Based on the recent study by Liu et al. (2021) focusing on the influence of competition on individuals’ true and false recognition, medium effect size estimates may be used in this area of research. Our power analysis showed that at least 27 participants in each group would provide greater than 80% power (with α = .05) to detect an effect of medium size ( η 2 p = .25) in our experimental design. We recruited 47 participants per group to enhance the robustness of the experiment. Therefore, a total of 141 participants (73 women, mean age = 21.79 years, SD = 2.70) completed the study. Each participant received a basic payment of ¥20, plus an additional bonus of ¥15 depending on task performance. All participants provided informed consent at the beginning of the experiment. The study was approved by the Nanjing University Institutional Review Board (approval number: NJUPSY202003002). We report all manipulations and measures in the experiment, as well as all data exclusions. Procedure Pre-competition/cooperation measures At the beginning of this study, we had participants complete the Chinese version of the Cooperative and Competitive Orientation Scale (C-CCO; (Chen et al., 2011)) in order to test for potential individual differences in the inclination to compete and cooperate between the competition, cooperation, and control groups. The pictorial version of the DRM paradigm We employed a pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm to measure true and false recognition for colored pictures of objects, similar to previous studies (Gong et al., 2016; Koutstaal & Schacter, 1997). The pictures were drawn from the Hemera Photo-Objects Collections (Hemera Technologies, Inc., Canada), following the same procedure described in prior research (Gong et al., 2016). The pictures belong to various object categories (e.g., boats, balls, cats, watches, shoes); there were a total of ninety-six categories, each of which was comprised of 8 exemplars. The task is divided into three successive phases – the learning, distractor, and test phases. First, in the learning phase, participants learned a study list comprised of 360 items – 6 exemplars from 60 categories. These pictures were consecutively presented on a computer screen at a rate of one word every 2 seconds. To engage and maintain interest in each stimulus, participants were instructed to answer the question “Is this object animate?”by pressing either a key marked “Yes” or one marked “No” on the keyboard after viewing each picture. Moreover, 3 filler pictures were added at the beginning and end of the learning phase to control for potential primacy and recency effects. Then, during the distractor phase, participants engaged in 5-minute buffer activities in which participants were asked to solve simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 3 × 4 + 5 = ?). Finally, during the test phase, participants performed a recognition memory test in which they were required to classify each test item as Old or New. The test list was comprised of 312 pictures belonging to 3 types of test items: 120 targets (2 exemplars randomly taken from each of 60 previously studied categories), 120 critical lures (the remaining 2 unstudied exemplars taken from each of 60 previously studied categories), and 72 unrelated distractors (2 exemplars randomly taken from each of remaining 36 unstudied categories). This 312 item test list was presented at a rate of one word every 2 seconds in random order. To familiarize participants with the task, the experiment was preceded by a short practice block. The interpersonal cooperation and competition manipulation Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the cooperation group, the competition group, or the control group. Before the experimental manipulation, pairs of participants were seated in two separate rooms. The competition manipulation used in the present study was similar to that described in a recent study (Liu et al., 2021). Participants were instructed to compete against the person in the separate room on the pictorial version of the DRM paradigm via two linked computers. They were informed about the “winner takes all principle”, thereby emphasizing the importance of striving for an oppositional goal. More precisely, they were told that if they could outperform their opponent in the memory task, they would receive a ¥15 bonus and their opponent would receive no bonus money. Similarly, if their opponent could outperform them, their opponent would receive a ¥15 bonus and they would receive no bonus money. Unlike competition, where only winners are rewarded, cooperation refers to an interactive mode where each participant gets half of what both achieve when a performance standard has been met. Specifically, in the cooperation group, participants were instructed to perform the DRM paradigm together with the person in the separate room via two linked computers. Both of the participants were informed that only if their combined performance was above the fixed standard of the experiment, each of them would receive half the amount of bonus that they both earned (¥30, so, ¥15 each). Otherwise, both of them would receive no bonus money. Thus, this manipulation emphasized working as a team for a common goal. Finally, in the control group, participants were instructed to complete the DRM paradigm with the other person independently; no competition or cooperation would occur between them. They were also asked to perform the task as well as possible and told that if their performance exceeded a predetermined standard, they would receive a bonus payment of ¥15. To verify that the competition and cooperation manipulations were successful, after the memory task, participants were required to provide a self-reported rating of perceived competition and perceived cooperation on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Statistical analysis Two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted to assess between-group differences in competitive orientation scores and cooperative orientation scores, with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor 1 . As a manipulation check, between-group differences in subjective ratings of perceived competition (competition vs. control) and perceived cooperation (cooperation vs. control) were analyzed using independent sample t-tests. To examine the effects of competition and cooperation on recognition responses, recognition proportions of “old” responses were analyzed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor and test item type (targets vs. critical lures vs. unrelated distractors) as a within-subject factor. Finally, signal detection analysis was used to separate sensitivity ( d' ) from response bias ( C ) for true and false recognition. Following the procedure described in previous studies (Liu et al., 2021; Macmillan & Creelman, 2004; Wickens, 2001), these two measures for true recognition can be expressed as d' = Z H(targets) -Z FA(unrelated distractors) and C = − 0.5×(Z H(targets) +Z FA(unrelated distractors) ), while those for false recognition can be calculated with the following equations: d' = Z FA(critical lures) -Z FA(unrelated distractors) and C = − 0.5×(Z FA(critical lures) +Z FA(unrelated distractors) ). To investigate the effects of competition and cooperation on the sensitivity ( d' ) for true and false recognition, two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor. Likewise, to examine the effects of competition and cooperation on response bias ( C ) for true and false recognition, two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor. We set p < .05 as the significance level for our analyses, with Greenhouse–Geisser correction when violations of sphericity occurred. Effect sizes for reliable and marginal ANOVA effects ( η2 p ) and t-tests (Cohen’s d ) were also provided. Results Manipulation check An independent t-test revealed that the competition group ( M = 5.21, SE = 0.24) perceived greater interpersonal competition than the control group ( M = 2.70, SE = 0.24) ( t (92) = 7.478, p < .001, d = 1.543). Similarly, the cooperation group ( M = 4.38, SE = 0.26) perceived greater interpersonal cooperation than the control group ( M = 1.94, SE = 0.21) ( t (92) = 7.503, p < .001, d = 1.548). These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the cooperation and competition manipulations in this study. Effects of competition and cooperation on recognition responses An ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group ( F (2,138) = 6.255, p < .005, η2 p = 0.083). Post hoc comparisons (using Bonferroni correction here and throughout the analyses) showed that both the competition (M = 0.346, SE = 0.015, p < .005, d = 0.665) and cooperation groups (M = 0.348, SE = 0.015, p < .005, d = 0.623) exhibited a significant reduction in classifying test items as “old” compared to the control group (M = 0.411, SE = 0.015); there was no differences in classifying test items as “old” between the cooperation and competition groups ( p > .05, d = 0.018). There was also a significant main effect of test item type ( F (2,269) = 1410.815, p < .001, η2 p = 0.911). Post hoc comparisons showed that hit rates for targets (M = 0.604, SE = 0.012) were significantly higher than false alarm rates for both critical lures (M = 0.430, SE = 0.013, p < .001, d = 1.168) and unrelated distractors (M = 0.071, SE = 0.006, p < .001, d = 4.782). False alarm rates for critical lures were also higher compared to those for unrelated distractors ( p < 0.001, d = 2.946). More importantly, there was a significant interaction between group and test item type ( F (4, 276) = 5.697, p < .001, η2 p = 0.076 ) (Fig. 1 ). An analysis of simple effects revealed that hit rates for targets were significantly lower in the competition group ( M = 0.564, SE = 0.02) than in the control group ( M = 0.655, SE = 0.02, p = .005, d = 0.676). Moreover, false alarm rates for critical lures were significantly lower in the competition ( M = 0.408, SE = 0.022, p < .01, d = 0.618) and cooperation groups ( M = 0.382, SE = 0.022, p < .01, d = 0.797) than in the control group ( M = 0.500, SE = 0.022). No other significant effects were found. These findings demonstrate that both the cooperation and competition groups falsely recognized fewer critical lures than the control group, while the competition group falsely recognized more targets than the cooperation and control groups. Effects of competition and cooperation on signal detection indices To determine the processes giving rise to the above effects, we examined the contributions of encoding and retrieval processes as measured by signal detection indices ( d' and C ) as a function of group. Regarding true recognition, a one-way ANOVA did not reveal an effect of group on d' ( F (2,138) = 1.382, p = 0.255, η2 p = 0.02) (Fig. 2 A), showing comparable sensitivity for targets across groups. However, a significant effect of group on C was found ( F (2,138) = 4.064, p < .05, η2 p = 0.056) (Fig. 2 B). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the response bias toward recognizing targets was significantly more conservative in the competition group ( M = 0.732, SE = 0.052) than in the control group ( M = 0.543, SE = 0.052, p .05, d = 0.482). Turning to false recognition, a one-way ANOVA showed an effect of group on d' ( F (2,138) = 4.416, p < .05, η2 p = 0.06) (Fig. 2 A). Post hoc comparisons revealed that sensitivity for critical lures was significantly lower in the competition ( M = 1.399, SE = 0.063) than in the control group ( M = 1.622, SE = 0.063, p < .05, d = 0.479), a pattern that was similarly found between the cooperation ( M = 1.385, SE = 0.063) and control groups ( p < .05, d = 0.571). For C , a significant effect of group was also found ( F (2,138) = 5.716, p = .004, η2 p = 0.076) (Fig. 2 B). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the response bias toward recognizing critical lures was significantly more conservative in the competition group ( M = 0.954, SE = 0.061) than in the control group ( M = 0.739, SE = 0.061, p < .05, d = 0.542). Likewise, the response bias toward recognizing critical lures was also greater in the cooperation group ( M = 1.015, SE = 0.061) than in the control group ( p < .05, d = 0.644). Discussion To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine how cooperation and competition exert an influence on individuals’ true and false recognition through the pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm. Our results showed that both the cooperation and competition groups falsely recognized fewer critical lures than the control group, while only the competition group falsely recognized more targets than the control group. Our signal-detection analysis revealed that both the competition and cooperation groups not only showed a decreased sensitivity for recognizing critical lures but also were more conservatively biased in their responses than the control group. However, only the competition group was more conservatively biased in their recognition of targets than the control group. These findings demonstrate that both cooperation and competition suppressed false recognition of critical lures through both encoding-based and decision-based mechanisms, while only competition reduced the correct recognition of targets via the decision-based mechanism. Below, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for advancing our understanding of the susceptibility of memory to social influence that occurs in interactive contexts. False recognition suppression during cooperation and competition As noted above, we found that fewer critical lures were falsely recognized in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. We then assessed the mechanisms underlying such a false-recognition suppression effect by evaluating the contributions of encoding (study-based) and retrieval (test-based) processes through signal-detection analysis. Our results indicated significantly lower sensitivity ( d' ) for recognizing critical lures in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. Since memory sensitivity provides an index of the amount of encoded information (Macmillan & Creelman, 2004 ; Wickens, 2001 ), our finding demonstrates that cooperation and competition decreased encoded memory information for critical lures, but did not influence memorial information for targets at study. As the nonstudied lure is related to many studied items, reduced memory for relational or associative information should decrease the availability or likelihood of critical lures coming to mind at retrieval by reducing the spread of semantic activation from the studied items to critical lures (Roediger et al., 2001a ; Roediger III et al., 2001 ) or by reducing gist representations (Brainerd et al., 2002 ). This pattern is consistent with the predictions of the impoverished relational-encoding account, which interprets false memory reduction in terms of disrupting encoding of implicit activation of critical lures at study. Thus, our finding that cooperation and competition reduced d' for critical lures suggests that cooperation and competition suppressed false recognition of critical lures through the impoverished encoding of relational or associative information. Furthermore, our results also revealed a significantly higher response bias ( C) to critical lures in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. In other words, both the cooperation and competition groups were more conservatively biased in their recognition of critical lures than the control group. Given that more conservative responses have been suggested to be indicative of an increase in strategic memory monitoring at retrieval (Gunter et al., 2007 ; Huff & Bodner, 2013 ), our finding suggests that both the cooperation and competition groups performed more memory monitoring for critical lures at test than the control group. Such a global diagnostic monitoring strategy at retrieval refers to a decision rule whereby recollection of expected memorial information at test provides diagnostic evidence that an item was studied, and the absence of that information is taken as diagnostic of an item’s nonoccurrence. This pattern fits the predictions of the distinctiveness heuristic account. Thus, our observation that both cooperation and competition lead to an increase in C suggests that cooperation and competition lead participants to use the retrieval-based distinctiveness heuristic to withhold reporting critical lures as studied items based on the absence of sufficient memorial information. Taken together, the false-recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition reflected a bifurcated pattern: a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures and an increase in memory monitoring. In other words, cooperation and competition suppressed participants’ false recognition via interfering with or impairing the encoding of relational or associative information, and also enhancing diagnostic monitoring at test. Thus, impoverished encoding of relational information and strategic retrieval processes such as the distinctiveness heuristic operated in concert as a two-stage process, giving rise to the reduction in false-recognition rates to the critical lures in cooperative and competitive settings. These findings demonstrate that both cooperation and competition exert a similar positive influence on individuals’ false recognition and this false-recognition suppression effect due to cooperation and competition relies on the same mechanisms. As stated earlier, although cooperation and competition are opposite forms of social interaction, the commonality between them is that improved memory performance contributes to goal achievements in both of these interactive settings. Thus, the similar benefits of cooperation and competition on false recognition through similar mechanisms are sensible and support our argument. In addition, given that previous research showed false recognition suppression driven by competition in the verbal domain (Liu et al., 2021 ), our data not only replicate this work but also extend it to the visual domain using color pictures. Differential effects of cooperation and competition on true recognition Concerning the impact of cooperation and competition on true recognition, the correct recognition rates of studied items were significantly lower in the competition group than in the control group. The application of the signal-detection model revealed a significantly higher response bias ( C ) to studied items in the competition group than in the control group. However, no overall differences in sensitivity ( d' ) to studied items across those groups were found. As stated above, both d' and C are indicative of the amount of encoded memory information and memory monitoring, respectively; thus, these findings suggest that the competition group produced more memory monitoring for studied items than the control group, although encoded memory information for studied items was comparable across the three groups. In other words, competition affects true recognition by only modulating retrieval processes, which leads participants to abandon the global diagnostic monitoring strategy known as the distinctiveness heuristic. In this account, participants apply a retrieval-based decision rule in which they report studied items as targets when accompanied by recollection of expected memorial information and they reject studied items as nonstudied items based on the absence of such information. In contrast, cooperation (relative to control) did not result in a significant change in the retrieval strategy for recognizing studied items. Thus, these findings demonstrate that cooperation and competition modulated true recognition differently. Such a differential impact of cooperation and competition on participants’ true recognition can be explained, at least partly, in terms of the different ways in which participants seek to achieve goals in these two interactive contexts. More specifically, in the context of competition, achieving the goal depends on whether participants attain higher performance than their opponents. Given the cost of errors in competitive settings, a more lenient criterion seems to be an optimal response strategy for studied items during competition, as demonstrated by (Liu et al., 2021 ). Such a retrieval-based strategy for studied items increased the likelihood that participants mistakenly rejected studied items as “new” when studied items were not accompanied by the recollection of expected memorial information, thereby resulting in true recognition reduction during competition. In other words, when faced with an opponent, the increased tendency to withhold reporting studied items that only produce a sense of familiarity as having been studied can potentially maximize true-recognition performance. However, in the context of cooperation, achieving the goal depends on the comparison of the combined performance of participants and their partners with a fixed standard. For this reason, participants are more error-tolerant under cooperative contexts, which may not necessarily lead to a significant shift in the response criterion for judging studied items during cooperation. This argument is supported by our findings showing a comparable response bias between the cooperation and control groups. Summary and concluding thoughts In sum, our study showed that both cooperation and competition (vs. control) suppressed participants’ false recognition and that only competition (vs. control) reduced participants’ true recognition. The false recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition is due to a combination of a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures, a pattern consistent with that of impoverished relational encoding, and an increase in retrieval-based monitoring known as the distinctiveness heuristic. However, competition-driven true recognition reduction is only due to an increase in retrieval-based monitoring. Thus, these results demonstrate that cooperation and competition exert the same influence on false recognition through the same mechanisms, while they have a differential effect on true recognition. Furthermore, these findings contribute to a better understanding of how individuals’ memory processes are modulated by social influence that occurs in interactive contexts such as cooperation and competition. Declarations Funding This study was funded by STI2030-Major Projects (2022ZD0205100 to Y.L.). Author contributions Y.L. contributed to the study concept and design. Testing and data collection were performed by X.C.. X.C. performed the data analysis under the supervision of Y.L.. Y.L. drafted the manuscript. A.E. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Conflicts of interest All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Open Practices Statements The data and materials for the present experiment are available upon request; this experiment was not preregistered. References Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2020). Social interactions can simultaneously enhance and distort memories: Evidence from a collaborative recognition task. Cognition, 200 , 104254. Brainerd, C., Wright, R., Reyna, V., & Payne, D. (2002). Dual-retrieval processes in free and associative recall. Journal of memory and language, 46 (1), 120-152. Chen, X.-P., Xie, X., & Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and Competitive Orientation among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation. Management and Organization Review, 7 (2), 353-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00215.x Chevalier, N., Jackson, J., Roux, A. R., Moriguchi, Y., & Auyeung, B. (2019). Differentiation in prefrontal cortex recruitment during childhood: Evidence from cognitive control demands and social contexts. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 36 , 100629. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of experimental psychology, 58 (1), 17. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human relations, 2 (2), 129-152. Deutsch, M. (2011). Cooperation and competition. Conflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of Morton Deutsch , 23-40. Deutsch, M. (2012). A theory of cooperation–competition and beyond. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 2 , 275-294. Echterhoff, G., & Hirst, W. (2009). Social influence on memory. Social psychology, 40 (3), 106-110. Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38 , 833-848. Gong, X., Xiao, H., & Wang, D. (2016, Nov). Emotional valence of stimuli modulates false recognition: Using a modified version of the simplified conjoint recognition paradigm. Cognition, 156 , 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.002 Gunter, R. W., Bodner, G. E., & Azad, T. (2007). Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35 (5), 1083-1092. Huff, M. J., & Bodner, G. E. (2013). When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 39 (4), 1246. Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of memory and language, 37 (4), 555-583. Li, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Derrington, E., Moisan, F., & Dreher, J.-C. (2023). Spillover effects of competition outcome on future risky cooperation. Scientific Reports, 13 (1), 5535. Liu, Z., Liu, T., & Li, Y. (2021). How does social competition affect true and false recognition? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28 , 292-303. Loftus, E. F. (1996). Memory distortion and false memory creation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 24 (3), 281-295. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user's guide . Psychology press. Maswood, R., & Rajaram, S. (2019). Social transmission of false memory in small groups and large networks. Topics in cognitive science, 11 (4), 687-709. Rajaram, S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A cognitive perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (2), 76-81. Rajaram, S., Maswood, R., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2020). When social influences reduce false recognition memory: A case of categorically related information. Cognition, 202 , 104279. Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on psychological science, 5 (6), 649-663. Reysen, M. B. (2007). The effects of social pressure on false memories. Memory & Cognition, 35 , 59-65. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 21 (4), 803. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2000). Distortions of memory. Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001a). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 , 385-407. Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001b). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8 (3), 385-407. Roediger III, H. L., Balota, D. A., & Watson, J. M. (2001). Spreading activation and arousal of false memories. Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., & Jacques, P. L. S. (2011). Memory distortion: An adaptive perspective. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15 (10), 467-474. Straube, B., Green, A., Chatterjee, A., & Kircher, T. (2011). Encoding social interactions: the neural correlates of true and false memories. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23 (2), 306-324. Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86 (6), 849. Wagner, U., Schlechter, P., & Echterhoff, G. (2022). Socially induced false memories in the absence of misinformation. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 7725. Weldon, M. S. (2000). Remembering as a social process. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 67-120). Elsevier. Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 23 (5), 1160. Wickens, T. D. (2001). Elementary signal detection theory . Oxford university press. Zhu, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E. F., Lin, C., He, Q., Chen, C., Li, H., Xue, G., Lu, Z., & Dong, Q. (2010). Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Cognitive factors. Memory, 18 (5), 543-555. Footnotes A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant between-group difference in competitive orientation ( F (2,138) = 1.980, p = 0.142). Likewise, an ANOVA revealed no significant between-group difference in cooperative orientation ( F (2,138) = 0.041, p = 0.960). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4216442","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":289045890,"identity":"bca15ccb-8e17-4770-b9cb-8c9d35fbacfb","order_by":0,"name":"Yansong Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yansong","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":289045891,"identity":"87f742f4-4b79-4bed-b435-beb9b3956a13","order_by":1,"name":"Xi Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xi","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":289045892,"identity":"6fc3893c-25bb-4703-ae3d-f86ab4236e5c","order_by":2,"name":"Andrew J. Elliot","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Rochester","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Elliot","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-04 08:12:48","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":54594580,"identity":"3dc3b039-eb6d-4dba-b98c-285281aa0c17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-12 18:28:31","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63250,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfluence of cooperation and competition on recognition responses.\u003c/strong\u003e Mean proportions of “old” responses as a function of group and test item type. Hit rates for targets were significantly lower in the competition group than in both the cooperation and control groups. False alarms to critical lures were significantly lower in both the competition and cooperation groups than in the control group. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Target-H = hit rates for targets, Critical lure-FA = critical lure false alarm, Unrelated-FA = unrelated false alarm. * \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4216442/v1/d50cc36f25b2659cff11b79e.png"},{"id":54594572,"identity":"7ab4ec62-aa7e-4c37-9161-79b1edc6d933","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-12 18:28:30","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48500,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe influence of cooperation and competition on signal detection indices of true and false recognition. \u003c/strong\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) There was a significantly lower \u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e for false recognition in the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) There was a more conservative response (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) for true recognition in the competition group than in the control group. Meanwhile, there was a more conservative response (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) for false recognition in the competition and cooperation groups than in the control group. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. * \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4216442/v1/42901dd8c59008b35a03b877.png"},{"id":56935845,"identity":"77417838-daa4-459b-a680-536edf90a079","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-22 11:03:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":633505,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4216442/v1/03cc2509-3a4f-4610-9013-c8eb70fd5dad.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The influence of cooperation and competition on true and false recognition","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHuman memory is fragile and potentially unreliable. It is widely recognized to be a dynamic and reconstructive process that is prone to distortions mainly in the form of false memory (Loftus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Roediger \u0026amp; McDermott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Schacter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Over the past two decades, the topic of human memory fallibility has generated an increasing volume of literature aimed at investigating the role that social influence factors play in modulating individuals\u0026rsquo; memory performance (Echterhoff \u0026amp; Hirst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Maswood \u0026amp; Rajaram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Roediger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001b\u003c/span\u003e; Weldon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Zhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In this research area, given that individuals typically encode and retrieve information in interactive contexts, there has been an increased effort to examine how memory processes can be distorted by social influence arising from social contact or social interaction with others (Echterhoff \u0026amp; Hirst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). A few studies have reported that the mere presence of a confederate \u0026ndash; without communication of misinformation or even memory of social interaction \u0026ndash; is capable of simultaneously enhancing and distorting memories (Reysen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Straube et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, a body of literature has emerged showing that collaboration at retrieval has both negative and positive effects on true and false memory (Abel \u0026amp; B\u0026auml;uml, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rajaram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rajaram et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rajaram \u0026amp; Pereira-Pasarin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Weldon \u0026amp; Bellinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite such advances, some major gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact of social influence on true and false memories. For instance, competition and cooperation are two fundamental, opposing forms of social interaction (Deutsch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1949\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). When competing, interacting individuals have opposite goals, and one individual's win is tied to the other's loss; when cooperating, on the other hand, interacting individuals have a common goal and win and lose together. Despite the extensive impact of social influence arising from these two basic interactive modes on a wide range of human behavior (Chevalier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Tauer \u0026amp; Harackiewicz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), surprisingly, the extent to which an individual\u0026rsquo;s true and false memories might be modulated by those forms of social influence has received little empirical attention. A recent study by Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) provides insight on how competition influences individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false recognition. In this study, participants randomly assigned to either a competition or control group performed a typical Deese\u0026ndash;Roediger\u0026ndash;McDermott (DRM) task in which they studied a series of word lists composed of associates that semantically related to non-studied critical lures; later they were tested on the recognition of studied words, lure words, and new words (Deese, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1959\u003c/span\u003e; Gallo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Roediger \u0026amp; McDermott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). The results revealed that the competition (vs. control) group reported significant true and false recognition reductions. The researchers further assessed the locus of the effect by evaluating the contributions of encoding and retrieval processes through a signal-detection analysis. They found that the competition (vs. control) group a) encoded less information about critical lures as indexed by reduced sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e) for critical lures, a pattern consistent with an impoverished relational encoding account, and b) performed more memory monitoring at retrieval as evidenced by elevated response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) for critical lures and targets, a pattern consistent with a retrieval-based distinctiveness heuristic. In other words, competition suppresses individuals' false recognition by impairing relational encoding and also enhancing diagnostic monitoring at retrieval, while competition reduces true recognition only by increasing diagnostic monitoring at retrieval. Despite such promising findings, there are still several unsolved issues to be addressed. In particular, little attention has been allocated to studying how cooperation may influence individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false memories and whether cooperation and competition exert similar or differential influences on individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false memories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study was designed to address these issues by evaluating how competition and cooperation influence individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false memories in an interpersonal context. We employed a pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm to assess true and false recognition for colored pictures of objects, which is similar to that used in previous research (Gong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Koutstaal \u0026amp; Schacter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Participants randomly assigned to a competition, cooperation, or control group were required to learn a study list comprised of a set of colored pictures of objects drawn from various object categories; later they were asked to recognize items on a test list comprised of targets (presented exemplars taken from the studied categories), critical lures (nonpresented exemplars taken from the studied categories), and unrelated (noncategorized) distractors. Drawing on (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), one can expect that the competition (vs. control) group would show significantly reduced true and false recognition. Regarding the underlying mechanism, one can also expect that both encoding and retrieval factors shape competition-driven false recognition suppression and only the retrieval factor contributes to true recognition suppression driven by competition. With regard to cooperation, achieving a common goal is dependent on whether the combined performance of cooperatively interacting individuals exceeds a fixed standard. This is different from competition where achieving the goal depends on whether participants attain higher performance than their opponents. The commonality between them, however, is that improved recognition performance is beneficial for achieving goals in each of these interactive contexts. Given that improved recognition performance has been demonstrated to take the form of reduced false recognition during competition, it seems logical to posit that both cooperation and competition exert a similar influence on participants\u0026rsquo; false recognition. However, because the manner in which participants achieve goals in these two interactive modes is different, participants tend to be more error-tolerant during cooperation than during competition. For this reason, it seems reasonable to anticipate that cooperation and competition may have a differential effect on participants' true recognition.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe performed an a priori power analysis to determine sample size using G*Power Version 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). Based on the recent study by Liu et al. (2021) focusing on the influence of competition on individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false recognition, medium\u0026nbsp;effect size estimates may be used in this area of\u0026nbsp;research. Our power analysis showed that at least 27 participants in each group would provide greater than 80% power (with \u0026alpha; = .05) to detect an effect of medium size (\u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = .25) in our experimental design. We recruited 47 participants per group to enhance the robustness of the experiment. Therefore, a total of 141 participants (73 women, mean age = 21.79 years, SD = 2.70) completed the study. Each participant received a basic payment of \u0026yen;20, plus an additional bonus of \u0026yen;15 depending on task performance. All participants provided informed consent at the beginning of the experiment. The study was approved by the Nanjing University Institutional Review Board (approval number: NJUPSY202003002). We report all manipulations and measures in the experiment, as well as all data exclusions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-competition/cooperation measures\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the beginning of this study, we had participants complete the Chinese version of the Cooperative and Competitive Orientation Scale (C-CCO; (Chen et al., 2011)) in order to test for potential individual differences in the inclination to compete and cooperate between the competition, cooperation, and control groups. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe pictorial version of the DRM paradigm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe employed a pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm to measure true and false recognition for colored pictures of objects, similar to previous studies (Gong et al., 2016; Koutstaal \u0026amp; Schacter, 1997). The pictures were drawn from the Hemera Photo-Objects Collections (Hemera Technologies, Inc., Canada), following the same procedure described in prior research (Gong et al., 2016). The pictures belong to various object categories (e.g., boats, balls, cats, watches, shoes); there were a total of ninety-six categories, each of which was comprised of 8 exemplars.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe task is divided into three successive phases \u0026ndash; the learning, distractor, and test phases. First, in the learning phase, participants learned a study list comprised of 360 items \u0026ndash; 6 exemplars from 60 categories. These pictures were consecutively presented on a computer screen at a rate of one word every 2 seconds. To engage and maintain interest in each stimulus, participants were instructed to answer the question \u0026ldquo;Is this object animate?\u0026rdquo;by pressing\u0026nbsp;either a\u0026nbsp;key\u0026nbsp;marked \u0026ldquo;Yes\u0026rdquo; or one marked \u0026ldquo;No\u0026rdquo; on the\u0026nbsp;keyboard after viewing each picture. Moreover, 3 filler pictures were added at the beginning and end of the learning phase to control for potential primacy and recency effects. Then, during the distractor phase, participants engaged in 5-minute buffer activities in which participants were asked to solve simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 3 \u0026times; 4 + 5 = ?). Finally, during the test phase, participants performed a recognition memory test in which they were required to classify each test item as Old or New. The test list was comprised of 312 pictures belonging to 3 types of test items: 120 targets (2 exemplars randomly taken from each of 60 previously studied categories), 120 critical lures (the remaining 2 unstudied exemplars taken from each of 60 previously studied categories), and 72 unrelated distractors (2 exemplars randomly taken from each of remaining 36 unstudied categories). This 312 item test list was presented at a rate of one word every 2 seconds in random order. To familiarize participants with the task, the experiment was preceded by a short practice block.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe interpersonal cooperation and competition manipulation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the cooperation group, the competition group, or the control group. Before the experimental manipulation, pairs of participants were seated in two separate rooms. The competition manipulation used in the present study was similar to that described in a recent study (Liu et al., 2021). Participants were instructed to compete against the person in the separate room on the pictorial version of the DRM paradigm via two linked computers. They were informed about the \u0026ldquo;winner takes all principle\u0026rdquo;, thereby emphasizing the importance of striving for an oppositional goal. More precisely, they were told that if they could outperform their opponent in the memory task, they would receive a \u0026yen;15 bonus and their opponent would receive no bonus money. Similarly, if their opponent could outperform them, their opponent would receive a \u0026yen;15 bonus and they would receive no bonus money. Unlike competition, where only winners are rewarded, cooperation refers to an interactive mode where each participant gets half of what both achieve when a performance standard has been met. Specifically, in the cooperation group, participants were instructed to perform the DRM paradigm together with the person in the separate room via two linked computers. Both of the participants were informed that only if their combined performance was above the fixed standard of the experiment, each of them would receive half the amount of bonus that they both earned (\u0026yen;30, so, \u0026yen;15 each). Otherwise, both of them would receive no bonus money. Thus, this manipulation emphasized working as a team for a common goal. Finally, in the control group, participants were instructed to complete the DRM paradigm with the other person independently; no competition or cooperation would occur between them. They were also asked to perform the task as well as possible and told that if their performance exceeded a predetermined standard, they would receive a bonus payment of \u0026yen;15.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo verify that the competition and cooperation manipulations were successful, after the memory task, participants were required to provide a self-reported rating of perceived competition and perceived cooperation on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted to assess between-group differences in competitive orientation scores and cooperative orientation scores, with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. As a manipulation check, between-group differences in subjective ratings of perceived competition (competition vs. control) and perceived cooperation (cooperation vs. control) were analyzed using independent sample t-tests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the effects of competition and cooperation on recognition responses, recognition proportions of \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; responses were analyzed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor and test item type (targets vs. critical lures vs. unrelated distractors) as a within-subject factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, signal detection analysis was used to separate sensitivity\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003ed\u0026apos;\u003c/em\u003e) from response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) for true and false recognition. Following the procedure described in previous studies (Liu et al., 2021; Macmillan \u0026amp; Creelman, 2004; Wickens, 2001), these two measures for true recognition can be expressed as \u003cem\u003ed\u0026apos;\u003c/em\u003e = Z\u003csub\u003eH(targets)\u003c/sub\u003e-Z\u003csub\u003eFA(unrelated distractors)\u003c/sub\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus; 0.5\u0026times;(Z\u003csub\u003eH(targets)\u003c/sub\u003e+Z\u003csub\u003eFA(unrelated distractors)\u003c/sub\u003e), while those for false recognition can be calculated with the following equations: \u003cem\u003ed\u0026apos;\u003c/em\u003e = Z\u003csub\u003eFA(critical lures)\u003c/sub\u003e-Z\u003csub\u003eFA(unrelated distractors)\u003c/sub\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus; 0.5\u0026times;(Z\u003csub\u003eFA(critical lures)\u003c/sub\u003e+Z\u003csub\u003eFA(unrelated distractors)\u003c/sub\u003e). To investigate the effects of competition and cooperation on the sensitivity\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003ed\u0026apos;\u003c/em\u003e) for true and false recognition, two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor. Likewise, to examine the effects of competition and cooperation on response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) for true and false recognition, two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted with group (competition vs. cooperation vs. control) as a between-subject factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe set \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 as the significance level for our analyses, with Greenhouse\u0026ndash;Geisser correction when violations of sphericity occurred. Effect sizes for reliable and marginal ANOVA effects (\u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;2 p\u003c/em\u003e) and t-tests (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e) were also provided.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eManipulation check\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn independent t-test revealed that the competition group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.21, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24) perceived greater interpersonal competition than the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.70, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24) (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(92)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.478, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.543). Similarly, the cooperation group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.38, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.26) perceived greater interpersonal cooperation than the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.94, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21) (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(92)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.503, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.548). These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the cooperation and competition manipulations in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffects of competition and cooperation on recognition responses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.255, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.083). Post hoc comparisons (using Bonferroni correction here and throughout the analyses) showed that both the competition (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.346, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.665) and cooperation groups (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.348, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.623) exhibited a significant reduction in classifying test items as \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; compared to the control group (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.411, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015); there was no differences in classifying test items as \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; between the cooperation and competition groups (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.018). There was also a significant main effect of test item type (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1410.815, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.911). Post hoc comparisons showed that hit rates for targets (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.604, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.012) were significantly higher than false alarm rates for both critical lures (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.430, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.168) and unrelated distractors (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.782). False alarm rates for critical lures were also higher compared to those for unrelated distractors (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.946). More importantly, there was a significant interaction between group and test item type (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (4, 276)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.697, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.076 ) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). An analysis of simple effects revealed that hit rates for targets were significantly lower in the competition group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.564, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.655, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.676). Moreover, false alarm rates for critical lures were significantly lower in the competition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.408, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.618) and cooperation groups (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.382, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.797) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.500, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022). No other significant effects were found. These findings demonstrate that both the cooperation and competition groups falsely recognized fewer critical lures than the control group, while the competition group falsely recognized more targets than the cooperation and control groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffects of competition and cooperation on signal detection indices\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the processes giving rise to the above effects, we examined the contributions of encoding and retrieval processes as measured by signal detection indices (\u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) as a function of group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding true recognition, a one-way ANOVA did not reveal an effect of group on \u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.382, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.255, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA), showing comparable sensitivity for targets across groups. However, a significant effect of group on \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e was found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.064, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.056) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the response bias toward recognizing targets was significantly more conservative in the competition group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.732, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.543, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.570), while no significant differences in response bias were found between the cooperation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.716, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052) and control groups (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.543, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.482).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurning to false recognition, a one-way ANOVA showed an effect of group on \u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.416, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). Post hoc comparisons revealed that sensitivity for critical lures was significantly lower in the competition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.399, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.063) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.622, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.063, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.479), a pattern that was similarly found between the cooperation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.385, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.063) and control groups (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.571). For \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e, a significant effect of group was also found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.716, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004,\u003cem\u003eη2 p\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.076) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the response bias toward recognizing critical lures was significantly more conservative in the competition group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.954, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.739, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.542). Likewise, the response bias toward recognizing critical lures was also greater in the cooperation group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.015, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061) than in the control group (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.644).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo our knowledge, this study is the first to examine how cooperation and competition exert an influence on individuals’ true and false recognition through the pictorial variant of the DRM paradigm. Our results showed that both the cooperation and competition groups falsely recognized fewer critical lures than the control group, while only the competition group falsely recognized more targets than the control group. Our signal-detection analysis revealed that both the competition and cooperation groups not only showed a decreased sensitivity for recognizing critical lures but also were more conservatively biased in their responses than the control group. However, only the competition group was more conservatively biased in their recognition of targets than the control group. These findings demonstrate that both cooperation and competition suppressed false recognition of critical lures through both encoding-based and decision-based mechanisms, while only competition reduced the correct recognition of targets via the decision-based mechanism. Below, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for advancing our understanding of the susceptibility of memory to social influence that occurs in interactive contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFalse recognition suppression during cooperation and competition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted above, we found that fewer critical lures were falsely recognized in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. We then assessed the mechanisms underlying such a false-recognition suppression effect by evaluating the contributions of encoding (study-based) and retrieval (test-based) processes through signal-detection analysis. Our results indicated significantly lower sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e) for recognizing critical lures in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. Since memory sensitivity provides an index of the amount of encoded information (Macmillan \u0026amp; Creelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wickens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), our finding demonstrates that cooperation and competition decreased encoded memory information for critical lures, but did not influence memorial information for targets at study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the nonstudied lure is related to many studied items, reduced memory for relational or associative information should decrease the availability or likelihood of critical lures coming to mind at retrieval by reducing the spread of semantic activation from the studied items to critical lures (Roediger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e; Roediger III et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) or by reducing gist representations (Brainerd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern is consistent with the predictions of the impoverished relational-encoding account, which interprets false memory reduction in terms of disrupting encoding of implicit activation of critical lures at study. Thus, our finding that cooperation and competition reduced \u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e for critical lures suggests that cooperation and competition suppressed false recognition of critical lures through the impoverished encoding of relational or associative information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, our results also revealed a significantly higher response bias (\u003cem\u003eC)\u003c/em\u003e to critical lures in both the cooperation and competition groups than in the control group. In other words, both the cooperation and competition groups were more conservatively biased in their recognition of critical lures than the control group. Given that more conservative responses have been suggested to be indicative of an increase in strategic memory monitoring at retrieval (Gunter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Huff \u0026amp; Bodner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), our finding suggests that both the cooperation and competition groups performed more memory monitoring for critical lures at test than the control group. Such a global diagnostic monitoring strategy at retrieval refers to a decision rule whereby recollection of expected memorial information at test provides diagnostic evidence that an item was studied, and the absence of that information is taken as diagnostic of an item’s nonoccurrence. This pattern fits the predictions of the distinctiveness heuristic account. Thus, our observation that both cooperation and competition lead to an increase in \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e suggests that cooperation and competition lead participants to use the retrieval-based distinctiveness heuristic to withhold reporting critical lures as studied items based on the absence of sufficient memorial information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the false-recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition reflected a bifurcated pattern: a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures and an increase in memory monitoring. In other words, cooperation and competition suppressed participants’ false recognition via interfering with or impairing the encoding of relational or associative information, and also enhancing diagnostic monitoring at test. Thus, impoverished encoding of relational information and strategic retrieval processes such as the distinctiveness heuristic operated in concert as a two-stage process, giving rise to the reduction in false-recognition rates to the critical lures in cooperative and competitive settings. These findings demonstrate that both cooperation and competition exert a similar positive influence on individuals’ false recognition and this false-recognition suppression effect due to cooperation and competition relies on the same mechanisms. As stated earlier, although cooperation and competition are opposite forms of social interaction, the commonality between them is that improved memory performance contributes to goal achievements in both of these interactive settings. Thus, the similar benefits of cooperation and competition on false recognition through similar mechanisms are sensible and support our argument. In addition, given that previous research showed false recognition suppression driven by competition in the verbal domain (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), our data not only replicate this work but also extend it to the visual domain using color pictures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferential effects of cooperation and competition on true recognition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning the impact of cooperation and competition on true recognition, the correct recognition rates of studied items were significantly lower in the competition group than in the control group. The application of the signal-detection model revealed a significantly higher response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) to studied items in the competition group than in the control group. However, no overall differences in sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e) to studied items across those groups were found. As stated above, both \u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e are indicative of the amount of encoded memory information and memory monitoring, respectively; thus, these findings suggest that the competition group produced more memory monitoring for studied items than the control group, although encoded memory information for studied items was comparable across the three groups. In other words, competition affects true recognition by only modulating retrieval processes, which leads participants to abandon the global diagnostic monitoring strategy known as the distinctiveness heuristic. In this account, participants apply a retrieval-based decision rule in which they report studied items as targets when accompanied by recollection of expected memorial information and they reject studied items as nonstudied items based on the absence of such information. In contrast, cooperation (relative to control) did not result in a significant change in the retrieval strategy for recognizing studied items. Thus, these findings demonstrate that cooperation and competition modulated true recognition differently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch a differential impact of cooperation and competition on participants’ true recognition can be explained, at least partly, in terms of the different ways in which participants seek to achieve goals in these two interactive contexts. More specifically, in the context of competition, achieving the goal depends on whether participants attain higher performance than their opponents. Given the cost of errors in competitive settings, a more lenient criterion seems to be an optimal response strategy for studied items during competition, as demonstrated by (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Such a retrieval-based strategy for studied items increased the likelihood that participants mistakenly rejected studied items as “new” when studied items were not accompanied by the recollection of expected memorial information, thereby resulting in true recognition reduction during competition. In other words, when faced with an opponent, the increased tendency to withhold reporting studied items that only produce a sense of familiarity as having been studied can potentially maximize true-recognition performance. However, in the context of cooperation, achieving the goal depends on the comparison of the combined performance of participants and their partners with a fixed standard. For this reason, participants are more error-tolerant under cooperative contexts, which may not necessarily lead to a significant shift in the response criterion for judging studied items during cooperation. This argument is supported by our findings showing a comparable response bias between the cooperation and control groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Summary and concluding thoughts","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn sum, our study showed that both cooperation and competition (vs. control) suppressed participants’ false recognition and that only competition (vs. control) reduced participants’ true recognition. The false recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition is due to a combination of a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures, a pattern consistent with that of impoverished relational encoding, and an increase in retrieval-based monitoring known as the distinctiveness heuristic. However, competition-driven true recognition reduction is only due to an increase in retrieval-based monitoring. Thus, these results demonstrate that cooperation and competition exert the same influence on false recognition through the same mechanisms, while they have a differential effect on true recognition. Furthermore, these findings contribute to a better understanding of how individuals’ memory processes are modulated by social influence that occurs in interactive contexts such as cooperation and competition.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by STI2030-Major Projects (2022ZD0205100 to Y.L.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eY.L. contributed to the study concept and design. Testing and data collection were performed by X.C.. X.C. performed the data analysis under the supervision of Y.L.. Y.L. drafted the manuscript. A.E. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpen Practices Statements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data and materials for the present experiment are available upon request; this experiment was not preregistered.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbel, M., \u0026amp; B\u0026auml;uml, K.-H. T. (2020). Social interactions can simultaneously enhance and distort memories: Evidence from a collaborative recognition task. \u003cem\u003eCognition, 200\u003c/em\u003e, 104254.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrainerd, C., Wright, R., Reyna, V., \u0026amp; Payne, D. (2002). Dual-retrieval processes in free and associative recall. \u003cem\u003eJournal of memory and language, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 120-152.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, X.-P., Xie, X., \u0026amp; Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and Competitive Orientation among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation. \u003cem\u003eManagement and Organization Review, 7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 353-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00215.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChevalier, N., Jackson, J., Roux, A. R., Moriguchi, Y., \u0026amp; Auyeung, B. (2019). Differentiation in prefrontal cortex recruitment during childhood: Evidence from cognitive control demands and social contexts. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience, 36\u003c/em\u003e, 100629.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. \u003cem\u003eJournal of experimental psychology, 58\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. \u003cem\u003eHuman relations, 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 129-152.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeutsch, M. (2011). Cooperation and competition. \u003cem\u003eConflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of Morton Deutsch\u003c/em\u003e, 23-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeutsch, M. (2012). A theory of cooperation\u0026ndash;competition and beyond. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of theories of social psychology, 2\u003c/em\u003e, 275-294.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEchterhoff, G., \u0026amp; Hirst, W. (2009). Social influence on memory. \u003cem\u003eSocial psychology, 40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 106-110.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. \u003cem\u003eMemory \u0026amp; Cognition, 38\u003c/em\u003e, 833-848.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGong, X., Xiao, H., \u0026amp; Wang, D. (2016, Nov). Emotional valence of stimuli modulates false recognition: Using a modified version of the simplified conjoint recognition paradigm. \u003cem\u003eCognition, 156\u003c/em\u003e, 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGunter, R. W., Bodner, G. E., \u0026amp; Azad, T. (2007). Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm. \u003cem\u003eMemory \u0026amp; Cognition, 35\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1083-1092.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuff, M. J., \u0026amp; Bodner, G. E. (2013). When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm. \u003cem\u003eJournal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1246.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoutstaal, W., \u0026amp; Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of pictures in older and younger adults. \u003cem\u003eJournal of memory and language, 37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 555-583.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Derrington, E., Moisan, F., \u0026amp; Dreher, J.-C. (2023). Spillover effects of competition outcome on future risky cooperation. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5535.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, Z., Liu, T., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2021). How does social competition affect true and false recognition? \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 28\u003c/em\u003e, 292-303.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLoftus, E. F. (1996). Memory distortion and false memory creation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 281-295.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMacmillan, N. A., \u0026amp; Creelman, C. D. (2004). \u003cem\u003eDetection theory: A user\u0026apos;s guide\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaswood, R., \u0026amp; Rajaram, S. (2019). Social transmission of false memory in small groups and large networks. \u003cem\u003eTopics in cognitive science, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 687-709.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRajaram, S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A cognitive perspective. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 76-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRajaram, S., Maswood, R., \u0026amp; Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2020). When social influences reduce false recognition memory: A case of categorically related information. \u003cem\u003eCognition, 202\u003c/em\u003e, 104279.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRajaram, S., \u0026amp; Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on psychological science, 5\u003c/em\u003e(6), 649-663.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReysen, M. B. (2007). The effects of social pressure on false memories. \u003cem\u003eMemory \u0026amp; Cognition, 35\u003c/em\u003e, 59-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoediger, H. L., \u0026amp; McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. \u003cem\u003eJournal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 21\u003c/em\u003e(4), 803.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoediger, H. L., \u0026amp; McDermott, K. B. (2000). Distortions of memory.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., \u0026amp; Gallo, D. A. (2001a). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 8\u003c/em\u003e, 385-407.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., \u0026amp; Gallo, D. A. (2001b). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 385-407.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoediger III, H. L., Balota, D. A., \u0026amp; Watson, J. M. (2001). Spreading activation and arousal of false memories.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., \u0026amp; Jacques, P. L. S. (2011). Memory distortion: An adaptive perspective. \u003cem\u003eTrends in cognitive sciences, 15\u003c/em\u003e(10), 467-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStraube, B., Green, A., Chatterjee, A., \u0026amp; Kircher, T. (2011). Encoding social interactions: the neural correlates of true and false memories. \u003cem\u003eJournal of cognitive neuroscience, 23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 306-324.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTauer, J. M., \u0026amp; Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of personality and social psychology, 86\u003c/em\u003e(6), 849.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWagner, U., Schlechter, P., \u0026amp; Echterhoff, G. (2022). Socially induced false memories in the absence of misinformation. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7725.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeldon, M. S. (2000). Remembering as a social process. In \u003cem\u003ePsychology of learning and motivation\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 40, pp. 67-120). Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeldon, M. S., \u0026amp; Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: collaborative and individual processes in remembering. \u003cem\u003eJournal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1160.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickens, T. D. (2001). \u003cem\u003eElementary signal detection theory\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhu, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E. F., Lin, C., He, Q., Chen, C., Li, H., Xue, G., Lu, Z., \u0026amp; Dong, Q. (2010). Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Cognitive factors. \u003cem\u003eMemory, 18\u003c/em\u003e(5), 543-555.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant between-group difference in competitive orientation (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.980, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.142). Likewise, an ANOVA revealed no significant between-group difference in cooperative orientation (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,138)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.960).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"competition, cooperation, true recognition, false recognition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRecent research has revealed that individuals\u0026rsquo; true and false recognition is susceptible to social influence arising from competition. Although cooperation and competition represent two fundamental, opposing forms of social interaction, no work to date has examined how memory processes may be distorted by social influence arising from cooperation and whether these two interactive modes may exert similar or differential influences. To address these issues, participants randomly assigned to a competition, cooperation, or control group performed a pictorial variant of the Deese\u0026ndash;Roediger\u0026ndash;McDermott paradigm. We found that both the cooperation and competition groups showed significant false recognition reduction compared to the control group, while only the competition group showed true recognition reduction relative to the control group. Our signal-detection analysis further revealed that false recognition suppression driven by cooperation and competition is due to a combination of both a reduction in encoded memory information for critical lures and an increase in memory monitoring as evidenced by decreased sensitivity (\u003cem\u003ed'\u003c/em\u003e) and elevated response bias (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e); competition-driven true recognition reduction, however, is due to enhanced monitoring as indexed by increased \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e. These results provide compelling evidence that cooperation and competition suppress participants\u0026rsquo; false recognition by impairing relational encoding and by enhancing retrieval-based monitoring, while competition reduces participants\u0026rsquo; true recognition by increasing retrieval-based monitoring. Collectively, these findings lay the foundation for deepening our understanding of how memory is susceptible to social influence arising from interactive contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The influence of cooperation and competition on true and false recognition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-12 18:22:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4216442/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e59e26b9-5516-491b-85ca-cd46bb02a7a3","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 12th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-22T06:53:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-12 18:22:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4216442","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4216442","identity":"rs-4216442","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}