↓ Skip to main content

That’s a good idea, but let’s keep thinking! Can we prevent our initial ideas from being forgotten as a consequence of thinking of new ideas?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
That’s a good idea, but let’s keep thinking! Can we prevent our initial ideas from being forgotten as a consequence of thinking of new ideas?
Published in
Psychological Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00426-016-0773-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annie S. Ditta, Benjamin C. Storm

Abstract

Four experiments examined participants' ability to remember their own ideas in a modified Alternative Uses Task. Participants were asked to generate uses for objects, and on half of the trials participants were then asked to think of more uses. Memory for the initial uses they generated was then tested via a cued-recall task. Results demonstrated that participants forgot their initial uses as a consequence of thinking of new uses (referred to as the thinking-induced forgetting effect), and this effect persisted even when participants chose the subset of uses they thought were the most creative and to be remembered. The only scenario in which uses were protected from forgetting was when they were required to use their uses as hints for generating more ideas. Together, these findings demonstrate that one's own ideas are susceptible to forgetting when additional ideas must be generated, indicating that thinking is a modifier of memory despite one's motivation to preserve their ideas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 53%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Design 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,234,904
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#272
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,750
of 299,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 299,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.