↓ Skip to main content

A self-reference false memory effect in the DRM paradigm: Evidence from Eastern and Western samples

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
A self-reference false memory effect in the DRM paradigm: Evidence from Eastern and Western samples
Published in
Memory & Cognition, August 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13421-018-0851-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianqin Wang, Henry Otgaar, Mark L. Howe, Chu Zhou

Abstract

It is well established that processing information in relation to oneself (i.e., self-referencing) leads to better memory for that information than processing that same information in relation to others (i.e., other-referencing). However, it is unknown whether self-referencing also leads to more false memories than other-referencing does. In the current two experiments with European and East Asian samples, we presented participants the Deese-Roediger-McDermott lists together with their own name or other people's name (i.e., "Trump" in Experiment 1 and "Li Ming" in Experiment 2). We found consistent results across the two experiments; that is, in the self-reference condition, participants had higher true and false memory rates compared with those in the other-reference condition. Moreover, we found that self-referencing did not exhibit superior mnemonic advantage in terms of net accuracy compared with other-referencing and neutral conditions. These findings are discussed in terms of theoretical frameworks such as spreading activation theories and the fuzzy-trace theory. We propose that our results reflect the adaptive nature of memory in the sense that cognitive processes that increase mnemonic efficiency may also increase susceptibility to associative false memories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 49%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 February 2019.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#849
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,109
of 335,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#8
of 11 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 335,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.