↓ Skip to main content

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts
Published in
Memory & Cognition, March 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0603-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany A. Cardwell, Linda A. Henkel, Maryanne Garry, Eryn J. Newman, Jeffrey L. Foster

Abstract

Photos lead people to believe that both true and false events have happened to them, even when those photos provide no evidence that the events occurred. Research has shown that these nonprobative photos increase false beliefs when combined with misleading suggestions and repeated exposure to the photo or target event. We propose that photos exert similar effects without those factors, and test that proposition in five experiments. In Experiment 1, people saw the names of several animals and pretended to give food to or take food from each. Then people saw the animal names again, half with a photo of the animal and half alone, and decided whether they had an experience with each. The photos led people to believe they had experiences with the animals. Moreover, Experiments 2-5 provided evidence that photos exerted these effects by making it easier to bring related thoughts and images to mind-a feeling that people mistook as evidence of genuine experience. In each experiment, photos led people to believe positive claims about the past (but not negative claims), consistent with evidence that feelings of ease selectively increase positive judgments. Experiment 4 also showed that photos (like other manipulations of ease) bias people's judgments broadly, producing false beliefs about other people's pasts. Finally, in Experiment 5, photos exerted more powerful effects when they depicted unfamiliar animals, and thus could most help bring information to mind. These findings suggest that nonprobative photos can distort the past without other factors that encourage false beliefs, and that they operate by helping related thoughts and images come to mind.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 30%
Professor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 61%
Linguistics 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,103,328
of 25,067,172 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#77
of 1,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,014
of 306,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,067,172 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 1,630 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 306,522 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 92% of its contemporaries.