↓ Skip to main content

Evidence that photos promote rosiness for claims about the future

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Evidence that photos promote rosiness for claims about the future
Published in
Memory & Cognition, September 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0652-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eryn J. Newman, Tanjeem Azad, D. Stephen Lindsay, Maryanne Garry

Abstract

When people rapidly judge the truth of claims about the present or the past, a related but nonprobative photo can produce "truthiness," an increase in the perceived truth of those claims (Newman, Garry, Bernstein, Kantner, & Lindsay, 2012). What we do not know is the extent to which nonprobative photos cause truthiness for the future. We addressed this issue in four experiments. In each experiment, people judged the truth of claims that the price of certain commodities (such as manganese) would increase (or decrease). Half of the time, subjects saw a photo of the commodity paired with the claim. Experiments 1A and 1B produced a "rosiness" bias: Photos led people to believe positive claims about the future but had very little effect on people's belief in negative claims. In Experiment 2, rosiness occurred for both close and distant future claims. In Experiments 3A and 3B, we tested whether rosiness was tied to the perceived positivity of a claim. Finally, in Experiments 4A and 4B, we tested the rosiness hypothesis and found that rosiness was unique to claims about the future: When people made the same judgments about the past, photos produced the usual truthiness pattern for both positive and negative claims. Considered all together, our data fit with the idea that photos may operate as hypothesis-confirming evidence for people's tendency to anticipate rosy future outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Professor 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 26%
Unspecified 3 16%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Linguistics 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,739,085
of 24,640,106 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#400
of 1,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,419
of 326,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,640,106 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.