↓ Skip to main content

No evidence for unethical amnesia for imagined actions: A failed replication and extension

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
No evidence for unethical amnesia for imagined actions: A failed replication and extension
Published in
Memory & Cognition, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13421-018-0803-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew L. Stanley, Brenda W. Yang, Felipe De Brigard

Abstract

In a recent study, Kouchaki and Gino (2016) suggest that memory for unethical actions is impaired, regardless of whether such actions are real or imagined. However, as we argue in the current study, their claim that people develop "unethical amnesia" confuses two distinct and dissociable memory deficits: one affecting the phenomenology of remembering and another affecting memory accuracy. To further investigate whether unethical amnesia affects memory accuracy, we conducted three studies exploring unethical amnesia for imagined ethical violations. The first study (N = 228) attempts to directly replicate the only study from Kouchaki and Gino (2016) that includes a measure of memory accuracy. The second study (N = 232) attempts again to replicate these accuracy effects from Kouchaki and Gino (2016), while including several additional variables meant to potentially help in finding the effect. The third study (N = 228) is an attempted conceptual replication using the same paradigm as Kouchaki and Gino (2016), but with a new vignette describing a different moral violation. We did not find an unethical amnesia effect involving memory accuracy in any of our three studies. These results cast doubt upon the claim that memory accuracy is impaired for imagined unethical actions. Suggestions for further ways to study memory for moral and immoral actions are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 40%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 August 2023.
All research outputs
#14,491,137
of 24,313,168 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#791
of 1,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,276
of 336,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,313,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 336,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.