↓ Skip to main content

Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm
Published in
Memory & Cognition, September 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13421-013-0361-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leamarie T. Gordon, Ayanna K. Thomas

Abstract

Retrieval enhanced suggestibility (RES) is the finding that the misinformation effect is exacerbated when a test precedes misleading postevent information (Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich Psychological Science 20: 66-73, 2009). In the present study, we tested three hypotheses relevant to RES. First, we examined whether retrieval of critical details was necessary for the RES effect. Second, we examined whether initial testing influenced the allocation of attention to critical details during postevent information processing. Finally, we examined whether RES resulted in impaired access to the originally learned information. We compared three groups of participants in three experiments: an identical-test group, a related-test group, and a standard misinformation group. Both testing groups were tested on the original event before the introduction of misinformation; however, the identical-test group took the same test before and after the misinformation, whereas the related-test group took different tests before and after misinformation. We found that testing before misleading postevent information affected attention allocation to details in the postevent narrative. Furthermore, the RES effect did not accompany reduced accessibility to the original information, as measured by a modified-modified free recall test. These data have implications for how testing may potentiate new learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 6%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 39%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#849
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,938
of 200,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 200,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.