| Title |
Creating bizarre false memories through imagination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, April 2002
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03194942 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ayanna K. Thomas, Elizabeth F. Loftus |
| Abstract |
The present study explored memory for familiar or usual actions (e.g., flip the coin) and bizarre or unusual actions (e.g., sit on the dice). In Session 1, action statements were presented to 210 participants, who had to either perform or imagine those actions. In Session 2, 24 h later, participants imagined performing various actions, some presented in the first session and others totally new. Finally, in Session 3, 2 weeks later, participants were tested on their memory for the original actions. We found that as the number of imaginings increased in Session 2, so did the proportion of did responses to actions that were only imagined or not even presented. This pattern was present for both bizarre and familiar actions. These results demonstrate that bizarre actions may lose the item distinctiveness that is used to make accurate memory decisions after repeated imagination. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 5% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 17% |
| Researcher | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 89 | 64% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,350,384
of 23,435,471 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#380
of 1,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,303
of 123,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,435,471 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 123,105 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.