↓ Skip to main content

Fandom Biases Retrospective Judgments Not Perception

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Fandom Biases Retrospective Judgments Not Perception
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2017
DOI 10.1038/srep43083
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Huff, Frank Papenmeier, Annika E. Maurer, Tino G. K. Meitz, Bärbel Garsoffky, Stephan Schwan

Abstract

Attitudes and motivations have been shown to affect the processing of visual input, indicating that observers may see a given situation each literally in a different way. Yet, in real-life, processing information in an unbiased manner is considered to be of high adaptive value. Attitudinal and motivational effects were found for attention, characterization, categorization, and memory. On the other hand, for dynamic real-life events, visual processing has been found to be highly synchronous among viewers. Thus, while in a seminal study fandom as a particularly strong case of attitudes did bias judgments of a sports event, it left the question open whether attitudes do bias prior processing stages. Here, we investigated influences of fandom during the live TV broadcasting of the 2013 UEFA-Champions-League Final regarding attention, event segmentation, immediate and delayed cued recall, as well as affect, memory confidence, and retrospective judgments. Even though we replicated biased retrospective judgments, we found that eye-movements, event segmentation, and cued recall were largely similar across both groups of fans. Our findings demonstrate that, while highly involving sports events are interpreted in a fan dependent way, at initial stages they are processed in an unbiased manner.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 27%
Sports and Recreations 3 12%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#919,479
of 11,563,317 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#7,927
of 50,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,642
of 260,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#736
of 3,930 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,563,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 50,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 260,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,930 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.