↓ Skip to main content

The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring
Published in
Memory & Cognition, November 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13421-017-0772-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunliang Yang, Bukuan Sun, David R. Shanks

Abstract

Judgments about future memory performance (metamemory judgments) are known to be susceptible to illusions and bias. Here we asked whether metamemory judgments are affected, like many other forms of judgment, by numerical anchors. Experiment 1 confirmed previous research showing an effect of informative anchors (e.g., past peer performance) on metamemory monitoring. In four further experiments, we then explored the effects of uninformative anchors. All of the experiments obtained significant anchoring effects on metamemory monitoring; in contrast, the anchors had no effect on recall itself. We also explored the anchoring effect on metamemory control (restudy choices) in Experiment 4. The results suggested that anchors can affect metamemory monitoring, which in turn affects metamemory control. The present research reveals that informative and, more importantly, uninformative numbers that have no influence on recall itself can bias metamemory judgments. On the basis of the current theoretical understanding of the anchoring effect and metamemory monitoring, these results offer insight into the processes that trigger metacognitive biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 43%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 November 2018.
All research outputs
#12,998,165
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#718
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,992
of 437,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 437,733 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.