↓ Skip to main content

Biased interpretation and memory in children with varying levels of spider fear

Overview of attention for article published in Cognition and Emotion, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biased interpretation and memory in children with varying levels of spider fear
Published in
Cognition and Emotion, July 2013
DOI 10.1080/02699931.2013.810144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke M. Klein, Geraldine Titulaer, Carlijn Simons, Esther Allart, Erwin de Gier, Susan M. Bögels, Eni S. Becker, Mike Rinck

Abstract

This study investigated multiple cognitive biases in children simultaneously, to investigate whether spider-fearful children display an interpretation bias, a recall bias, and source monitoring errors, and whether these biases are specific for spider-related materials. Furthermore, the independent ability of these biases to predict spider fear was investigated. A total of 121 children filled out the Spider Anxiety and Disgust Screening for Children (SADS-C), and they performed an interpretation task, a memory task, and a Behavioural Assessment Test (BAT). As expected, a specific interpretation bias was found: Spider-fearful children showed more negative interpretations of ambiguous spider-related scenarios, but not of other scenarios. We also found specific source monitoring errors: Spider-fearful children made more fear-related source monitoring errors for the spider-related scenarios, but not for the other scenarios. Only limited support was found for a recall bias. Finally, interpretation bias, recall bias, and source monitoring errors predicted unique variance components of spider fear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 33%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 65%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cognition and Emotion
#1,232
of 1,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,368
of 209,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognition and Emotion
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 209,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.