| Title |
Memory blindness: Altered memory reports lead to distortion in eyewitness memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-016-0594-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin J. Cochran, Rachel L. Greenspan, Daniel F. Bogart, Elizabeth F. Loftus |
| Abstract |
Choice blindness refers to the finding that people can often be misled about their own self-reported choices. However, little research has investigated the more long-term effects of choice blindness. We examined whether people would detect alterations to their own memory reports, and whether such alterations could influence participants' memories. Participants viewed slideshows depicting crimes, and then either reported their memories for episodic details of the event (Exp. 1) or identified a suspect from a lineup (Exp. 2). Then we exposed participants to manipulated versions of their memory reports, and later tested their memories a second time. The results indicated that the majority of participants failed to detect the misinformation, and that exposing witnesses to misleading versions of their own memory reports caused their memories to change to be consistent with those reports. These experiments have implications for eyewitness memory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 87 | 54% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 39 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 29 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,038,039
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#72
of 1,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,192
of 315,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 315,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.