↓ Skip to main content

The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 3,584)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1624 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
Title
The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard
Published in
Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), April 2014
DOI 10.1177/0956797614524581
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pam A. Mueller, Daniel M. Oppenheimer

Abstract

Taking notes on laptops rather than in longhand is increasingly common. Many researchers have suggested that laptop note taking is less effective than longhand note taking for learning. Prior studies have primarily focused on students' capacity for multitasking and distraction when using laptops. The present research suggests that even when laptops are used solely to take notes, they may still be impairing learning because their use results in shallower processing. In three studies, we found that students who took notes on laptops performed worse on conceptual questions than students who took notes longhand. We show that whereas taking more notes can be beneficial, laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,733 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 1,624 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 69 4%
United Kingdom 25 2%
Canada 10 <1%
Germany 9 <1%
Brazil 7 <1%
Australia 6 <1%
New Zealand 6 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Portugal 4 <1%
Other 45 3%
Unknown 1438 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 294 18%
Student > Bachelor 247 15%
Student > Master 205 13%
Researcher 180 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 127 8%
Other 570 35%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 480 30%
Social Sciences 278 17%
Unspecified 133 8%
Computer Science 122 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 117 7%
Other 493 30%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3654. 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 16 September 2019.
All research outputs
#153
of 13,536,671 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.)
#1
of 3,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2
of 188,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.)
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,536,671 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 188,887 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.