↓ Skip to main content

Simulating Memory Impairment for Child Sexual Abuse

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simulating Memory Impairment for Child Sexual Abuse
Published in
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/bsl.2197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy W Newton, Sue D Hobbs

Abstract

The current study investigated effects of simulated memory impairment on recall of child sexual abuse (CSA) information. A total of 144 adults were tested for memory of a written CSA scenario in which they role-played as the victim. There were four experimental groups and two testing sessions. During Session 1, participants read a CSA story and recalled it truthfully (Genuine group), omitted CSA information (Omission group), exaggerated CSA information (Commission group), or did not recall the story at all (No Rehearsal group). One week later, at Session 2, all participants were told to recount the scenario truthfully, and their memory was then tested using free recall and cued recall questions. The Session 1 manipulation affected memory accuracy during Session 2. Specifically, compared with the Genuine group's performance, the Omission, Commission, or No Rehearsal groups' performance was characterized by increased omission and commission errors and decreased reporting of correct details. Victim blame ratings (i.e., victim responsibility and provocativeness) and participant gender predicted increased error and decreased accuracy, whereas perpetrator blame ratings predicted decreased error and increased accuracy. Findings are discussed in relation to factors that may affect memory for CSA information. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 39%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,597,003
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#550
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,270
of 270,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 270,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.