Información complementaria, resistencia y efectos subjetivos en la memoria conversacional / Reinforcement, resistance and subjetive effects on conversational memories

RESUMEN

El estudio realizado indagó el papel que tiene la información complementaria en los procesos de resistencia que participan en el desarrollo de memorias colectivas. Se diseñó un experimento con el fin de evaluar si es posible fortalecer los procesos de resistencia proveyendo a los participantes con información complementaria al material estímulo. El experimento constaba de tres fases El día 1 escucharon historias (cada sujeto escuchó una versión levemente modificada) y desarrollaron un recuerdo libre, individual y escrito acerca de cada una. El día 2 participaron en un recupero grupal acerca de las historias. El día 3 respondieron a tareas escritas de recuerdo libre y de reconocimiento forzado e indicaron el nivel de confianza en sus respuestas. La calidad de los recuerdos se manipuló al proveer dibujos contextualizantes generales y específicos para el material estímulo. Además se generó una situación de desconfianza en uno de los participantes a fines de evaluar los procesos resistenciales. Los resultados indican que la información complementaria reforzante no tiene una incidencia mayor que la información contextualizante general en los procesos de resistencia. Si la fuente que impone no es confiable y escuchó la información sin dibujo que la acompañe, aumenta el nivel de confianza que el sujeto tiene en su propia respuesta. En cambio, si la fuente recibió la información con un dibujo acompañante, el nivel de confianza en la respuesta dada se mantiene igual, tanto si la fuente es confiable como si no lo es.

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the resistance processes involved in the development of collective memories. It is part of a series of studies that consider conversational dynamics as a factor in the development of these memories. Previous studies have shown how conversation participates in the development and the shaping of collective memories. Recall of the past has shown to be very structured according to different roles those of Narrator, Mentor and Monitor. Narrators, those subjects in a group recall who do most of the telling of the past, proved to be very effective in imposing their version of the past onto other members of the group. This fact would explain one of the ways memory converge and how collective memories are formed. When a group of subjects recall together the past, some of the processes involved are those of resistance and appropriation. In conversational recalls, participants have resisted the rendering of the past of some members and appropriated those of others. There are several studies that consider how different factors -psychological as well as social- have an impact on the formation of collective memories through conversation. These studies have shown how the quality of the memories affects the levels of resistance, as well as the dynamics of the conversation. Another factor that has had an impact on resistance and appropriation processes is trust. Entrusted subjects can be resisted in a group recall under certain circumstances. Finally, discussions about disagreements of the past, as they happen during a conversational recall of the past, have also proven to be an important factor that has had an effect on resistance levels. In this experimental study we investigated how complementary information may play a role on resistance processes. The study was designed in order to find out whether it is possible to reinforce resistance by providing the subjects with information that complements the stimuli material. It took place on three consecutive days. The sample was composed of 80 participants that conformed 20 groups of four subjects each. On the first day, subjects listened to some stories (each one heard a slightly different version), then they were exposed to a distracter, and then responded to a free recall task. On the second day, subjects were assembled around a table and asked to recall the stories together. Before the recall, a warning was provided over one of the subjects, who was not aware of the situation. Finally, on the third day, they completed a free recall and a forced recognition task remembering the stories as they heard them on the first day. In order to evaluate their confidence on the response, subjects had also to indicate how confidence they were in a 1 to 6 Lickert scale. By providing the subjects with specific and general contextual drawings together with the stimuli material, we manipulated the quality of the memories. Subjects with a contextual drawing would be able to form better memories of the stories, thus, more resistance to imposition. Would a specific drawing generate even more resistant memories? The mistrust situation generated on day 2 would allow enquiring on resistance processes. The findings indicate that reinforcing complementary information has no major incidence on resistance processes than general contextualizing information. Results on recognition have shown that. On the other hand, confidence rating analysis show that if the source imposing its version is not trusted and heard the story without complementary information, subjects tend to trust more on their own answers. Also, if the source imposing its version was provided with complementary information, subjects' confidence on their own answers remains the same whether the source is trusted or not.