The retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997) is the most widely cited theoretical explanation for why the memory performance of collaborative groups is inferior to the pooled performance of individual group members remembering alone (i.e., collaborative inhibition). This theory also predicts that several variables will moderate collaborative inhibition. This meta-analysis tests the veracity of the theory by systematically examining whether or not these variables do moderate the presence and strength of collaborative inhibition. A total of 75 effect sizes from 64 studies were included in the analysis. Collaborative inhibition was found to be a robust effect. Moreover, it was enhanced when remembering took place in larger groups, when uncategorized content items were retrieved, when group members followed free-flowing and free-order procedures, and when group members did not know one another. These findings support the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis as a general theoretical explanation for the collaborative inhibition effect. Several additional analyses were also conducted to elucidate the potential contributions of other cognitive mechanisms to collaborative inhibition. Some results suggest that a contribution of retrieval inhibition is possible, but we failed to find any evidence to suggest retrieval blocking and encoding specificity impact upon collaborative inhibition effects. In a separate analysis (27 effect sizes), moderating factors of postcollaborative memory performance were examined. Generally, collaborative remembering tends to benefit later individual retrieval. Moderator analyses suggest that reexposure to study material may be partly responsible for this postcollaborative memory enhancement. Some applied implications of the meta-analyses are discussed.