| Title |
Reducing reliance on inaccurate information
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-013-0339-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David N. Rapp, Scott R. Hinze, Kristine Kohlhepp, Rachel A. Ryskin |
| Abstract |
People learn from the texts that they read, but sometimes what they read is wrong. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals encode even obvious inaccuracies, at times relying on the misinformation to complete postreading tasks. In the present study, we investigated whether the influence of inaccurate information might be reduced by encouraging the retrieval of accurate knowledge. Participants read an extended text that contained both accurate and inaccurate assertions, after which they evaluated the validity of statements associated with those assertions. In general, participants made more mistakes in their evaluations of statements after having read inaccurate as compared to accurate assertions, offering evidence of the influence of misinformation. However, when participants were tasked with correcting inaccuracies during reading, their mistakes were substantially reduced. Encouraging the retrieval of accurate knowledge during reading can reduce the influence of misinformation. These findings are discussed with respect to the contributions of episodic traces and prior knowledge on learning, as well as to the conditions that support successful comprehension. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 34 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 29 October 2018.
All research outputs
#408,349
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#30
of 1,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,069
of 196,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 196,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.