| Title |
Source-constrained retrieval and survival processing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-014-0456-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James S. Nairne, Josefa N. S. Pandeirada, Joshua E. VanArsdall, Janell R. Blunt |
| Abstract |
Three experiments investigated the mnemonic effects of source-constrained retrieval in the survival-processing paradigm. Participants were asked to make survival-based or control decisions (pleasantness or moving judgments) about items prior to a source identification test. The source test was followed by a surprise free recall test for all items processed during the experiment, including the new items (foils) presented during the source test. For the source test itself, when asked about the content of prior processing-did you make a survival or a pleasantness decision about this item?-no differences were found between the survival and control conditions. The final free recall data revealed a different pattern: When participants were asked to decide whether an item had been processed previously for survival, that item was subsequently recalled better than when the source query asked about pleasantness or relevance to a moving scenario. This mnemonic boost occurred across-the-board-for items processed during the initial rating phase and for the new items. These data extend the generality of source-constrained retrieval effects and have implications for understanding the proximate mechanisms that underlie the oft-replicated survival-processing advantage in recall and recognition. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 61% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
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 14 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
#120,974
of 231,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#11
of 29 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 231,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.