Search

Previous research found that collaboration reduces the tendency to yield to misleading questions. Here, the aim was to determine whether this occurs because collaboration induces a conservative change in response criterion or because it promotes more efficient error-checking strategies. To this purpose, we compared the performance of collaborative and nominal triads in the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Critically, we recorded conversations during retrieval, allowing us to compute inclusive scores and analyze retrieval strategies. Confirming previous evidence, results showed that collaborative groups yielded less to leading questions; however, the differences between collaborative and nominal groups in yield 1 were canceled when we took into account questions to which at least one participant in the collaborative group gave in but was corrected by collaborators during the discussion (the so-called inclusive scores). This was not the case for yield 2 and total suggestibility scores. Also, the analysis of retrieval strategies indicated that collaborative groups who used process-focused strategies (such as correction and cross-cueing) to a greater extent were less likely to change their responses after receiving the negative feedback and were less suggestible. We conclude that, while the use of error-checking and process-focused strategies played a role in reducing suggestibility in collaborative groups, the administration of negative feedback induced members of collaborative groups to adopt a more conservative response criterion. These results contribute to the understanding of the conditions that maximize the positive effects of collaborative retrieval. They have implications for policymakers and police practitioners, specifying when and how collaboration might be allowed., Author(s): Clelia Rossi-Arnaud [sup.1] , Pietro Spataro [sup.2] , Serena Mastroberardino [sup.1] , Enrica Lucaroni [sup.1] , Anna Maria Giannini [sup.1] , Vincenzo Cestari [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.7841.a, Department [...]

Previous research consistently reported that subjects that were exclusively breastfed (eBF) vs. not-exclusively breastfed (neBF) during infancy (0–6 months) showed increased scores of general intelligence measures (e.g., the intelligence quotient). However, the existent literature largely neglected whether breastfeeding also affects specific cognitive processes, such as attention and working memory (WM) capacity. We tested whether eBF vs. neBF subjects showed performance differences in relation to these two core cognitive functions. The Attention Network Test (ANT), to measure alerting, orienting, and conflict, and the Change Colour Task (CCT), to measure visuospatial WM capacity, were administered to 144 participants divided according to age (6-, 10-, and 18-year-old participants) and breastfeeding (eBF or neBF during 0–6 months of life). Importantly, the sub-groups were homogenous in terms of maternal education, a factor potentially affecting the relation between breastfeeding and cognition. While we found increased performance as a function of participants' age in both tasks, we failed to observe effects related to breastfeeding, as evidenced by Bayesian analyses. These findings highlight for the first time that the pattern of nutrition provided during early infancy does not appear to affect the development of attention and WM capacity, at least starting from the age considered in the present study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]