↓ Skip to main content

Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 1,578)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation
Published in
Memory & Cognition, September 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13421-013-0359-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott R. Hinze, Daniel G. Slaten, William S. Horton, Ryan Jenkins, David N. Rapp

Abstract

People rely on information they read even when it is inaccurate (Marsh, Meade, & Roediger, Journal of Memory and Language 49:519-536, 2003), but how ubiquitous is this phenomenon? In two experiments, we investigated whether this tendency to encode and rely on inaccuracies from text might be influenced by the plausibility of misinformation. In Experiment 1, we presented stories containing inaccurate plausible statements (e.g., "The Pilgrims' ship was the Godspeed"), inaccurate implausible statements (e.g., . . . the Titanic), or accurate statements (e.g., . . . the Mayflower). On a subsequent test of general knowledge, participants relied significantly less on implausible than on plausible inaccuracies from the texts but continued to rely on accurate information. In Experiment 2, we replicated these results with the addition of a think-aloud procedure to elicit information about readers' noticing and evaluative processes for plausible and implausible misinformation. Participants indicated more skepticism and less acceptance of implausible than of plausible inaccuracies. In contrast, they often failed to notice, completely ignored, and at times even explicitly accepted the misinformation provided by plausible lures. These results offer insight into the conditions under which reliance on inaccurate information occurs and suggest potential mechanisms that may underlie reported misinformation effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 27%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 53%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Linguistics 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 13 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 26 April 2023.
All research outputs
#508,004
of 23,599,923 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#37
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,231
of 198,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,599,923 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 198,265 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 99% of its contemporaries.