| Title |
All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-016-0613-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samantha A. Deffler, Cassidy Fox, Christin M. Ogle, David C. Rubin |
| Abstract |
Despite knowing a familiar individual (such as a daughter) well, anecdotal evidence suggests that naming errors can occur among very familiar individuals. Here, we investigate the conditions surrounding these types of errors, or misnamings, in which a person (the misnamer) incorrectly calls a familiar individual (the misnamed) by someone else's name (the named). Across 5 studies including over 1,700 participants, we investigated the prevalence of the phenomenon of misnaming, identified factors underlying why it may occur, and tested potential mechanisms. We included undergraduates and MTurk workers and asked questions of both the misnamed and the misnamer. We find that familiar individuals are often misnamed with the name of another member of the same semantic category; family members are misnamed with another family member's name and friends are misnamed with another friend's name. Phonetic similarity between names also leads to misnamings; however, the size of this effect was smaller than that of the semantic category effect. Overall, the misnaming of familiar individuals is driven by the relationship between the misnamer, misnamed, and named; phonetic similarity between the incorrect name used by the misnamer and the correct name also plays a role in misnaming. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 | 4 | 10% |
| Spain | 3 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| France | 2 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 3% |
| Georgia | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 82% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1070. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#14,753
of 25,760,414 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 1,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206
of 314,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,760,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,666 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 99% 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 314,203 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 99% 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.