↓ Skip to main content

Explaining the forgetting bias effect on value judgments: The influence of memory for a past test

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Explaining the forgetting bias effect on value judgments: The influence of memory for a past test
Published in
Memory & Cognition, November 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0674-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew G. Rhodes, Amber E. Witherby, Alan D. Castel, Kou Murayama

Abstract

People often feel that information that was forgotten is less important than remembered information. Prior work has shown that participants assign higher importance to remembered information while undervaluing forgotten information. The current study examined two possible accounts of this finding. In three experiments, participants studied lists of words in which each word was randomly assigned a point value denoting the value of remembering the word. Following the presentation of each list participants engaged in a free recall test. After the presentation of all lists participants were shown each of the words they had studied and asked to recall the point value that was initially paired with each word. Experiment 1 tested a fluency-based account by presenting items for value judgments in a low-fluency or high-fluency format. Experiment 2 examined whether value judgments reflect attributions based on the familiarity of an item when value judgments are made. Finally, in Experiment 3, we evaluated whether participants believe that forgotten words are less important by having them judge whether an item was initially recalled or forgotten prior to making a value judgment. Manipulating the fluency of an item presented for judgment had no influence on value ratings (Experiment 1) and familiarity exerted a limited influence on value judgments (Experiment 2). More importantly, participants' value judgments appeared to reflect a theory that remembered information is more valuable than forgotten information (Experiment 3). Overall, the present work suggests that individuals may apply a theory about remembering and forgetting to retrospectively assess the value of information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 45%
Linguistics 3 8%
Chemistry 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#488
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,658
of 415,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 415,170 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.