The Collaborative Inhibition refers to that at the retrieval stage, when individuals work together as a collaborative group they recall more than any one individual. However, collaborative group recall less than the polled, non-redundant answers of the same number of individuals working alone (a nominal group). There have been a number of studies on this topic since it was found two decades ago. Researches have also given models to explain this effect. Psychologists suggest that collaborative inhibition may be due to the cognitive factors such as retrieval strategy disruption or retrieval inhibition. According to the former hypothesis, each group member develops an idiosyncratic organization of study information based on his or her unique past knowledge and experiences, thereby bringing a somewhat unique retrieval strategy to the collaborative situation. Retrieval disruption occurs because individuals must listen to others’ output that is misaligned with their own retrieval plans, such disruption lowers each member’s recall during collaboration. While according to the latter one, a speaker's selective recounting of memories shared with a listener will induce both the speaker and the listener to forget unmentioned, related material more than unmentioned, unrelated material. This hypothesis suggested that listening to a speaker remember selectively can induce forgetting of related information in the listener. The present article makes a review about those studies, with special focus on the two models with the introduction and analysis of recent studies in details. There were three experiments in this study. Experiment 1 had a 2 × 2 × 2 three-factor mixed design, adopted a twice retrieval paradigm, by controlling the original organizational strategy in collaborative groups, to form the collaborative identical and divergent organizational structure groups. Results suggested that within the collaborative identical organizational structure groups, the collaborative inhibition was showed up and the final individual recall performance was bad; while within the collaborative divergent organizational structure groups, the collaborative inhibition wasn't showed up and the final individual recall performance was good. Experiment 2 also adopted a twice retrieval paradigm, and controlled the study repetition to explore the collaborative recall performance in these two conditions: participants studied categorized word lists once or twice times. Results showed that study repetition improved retrieval organization in recall in this experiment, this was consistent with the findings of Pereira-Pasarin & Rajaram(2011). Results also suggested that no matter studying once or twice times, the collaborative inhibition was eliminated in their final individual recall. Furthermore, experiment 3 used the hard materials, and found the similar results to experiment 2. This result supported the idea of retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis. Participants disrupted each other original organizational strategy in collaborative recall performance. And the result did not give a support to the conclusion that participants had been inhibited when hearing others' recall items. This is not identical with the retrieval inhibition hypothesis being based on the explicit methods.