↓ Skip to main content

Stranger than Fiction: Costs and Benefits of Everyday Confabulation

Overview of attention for article published in Review of Philosophy and Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 481)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
25 X users

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Stranger than Fiction: Costs and Benefits of Everyday Confabulation
Published in
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13164-017-0367-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Bortolotti

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the costs and benefits of confabulation, focusing on the type of confabulation people engage in when they offer explanations for their attitudes and choices. What makes confabulation costly? In the philosophical literature confabulation is thought to undermine claims to self-knowledge. I argue that when people confabulate they do not necessarily fail at mental-state self-attributions, but offer ill-grounded explanations which often lead to the adoption of other ill-grounded beliefs. What, if anything, makes confabulation beneficial? As people are unaware of the information that would make their explanations accurate, they are not typically in a position to acknowledge their ignorance or provide better-grounded explanations for their attitudes and choices. In such cases, confabulating can have some advantages over offering no explanation because it makes a distinctive contribution to people's sense of themselves as competent and largely coherent agents. This role of ill-grounded explanations could not be as easily played by better-grounded explanations should these be available. In the end, I speculate about the implications of this conclusion for attempting to eliminate or reduce confabulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 12 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Psychology 4 13%
Neuroscience 4 13%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,620,782
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#34
of 481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,946
of 339,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 339,208 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them