| Title |
The costs and benefits of memory conformity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-011-0130-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Jaeger, Paula Lauris, Diana Selmeczy, Ian G. Dobbins |
| Abstract |
We examined the influence of external recommendations on memory attributions. In two experiments, participants were led to believe that they were viewing the responses of two prior students to the same memoranda they were currently judging. However, they were not informed of the reliability of these fictive sources of cues or provided with performance feedback as testing proceeded. Experiment 1 demonstrated improvement in the presence of reliable source cues (75% valid), as compared to uncued recognition, whereas performance was unaltered in the presence of random cues provided by an unreliable source (50% valid). Critically, participants did not ignore the unreliable source, but instead appeared to restrict cue use from both sources to low-confidence trials on which internal evidence was highly unreliable. Experiment 2 demonstrated that participants continued to treat an unreliable source as potentially informative even when it was predominantly incorrect (25% valid), highlighting severe limitations in the ability to adequately discount unreliable or deceptive sources of memory cues. Thus, under anonymous source conditions, observers appear to use a low-confidence outsourcing strategy, wherein they restrict reliance on external cues to situations of low confidence. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 46% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Researcher | 6 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 78 | 65% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,414,259
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#414
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,882
of 119,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 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 71% 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 119,403 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.