↓ Skip to main content

Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more.

Overview of attention for article published in Memory, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 533)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more.
Published in
Memory, August 2015
DOI 10.1080/09658211.2015.1042884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelies Vredeveldt, Vredeveldt, Annelies, Hildebrandt, Alieke, van Koppen, Peter J

Abstract

Crimes are often observed by multiple witnesses. Research shows that witnesses can contaminate each other's memory, but potential benefits of co-witness discussion have not yet been investigated. We examined whether witnesses can help each other remember, or prune each other's errors. In a research design with high ecological validity, attendees of a theatre play were interviewed approximately one week later about a violent scene in the play. The couples that signed up for our study had known each other for 31 years on average. Participants were first interviewed individually and then took part in a collaborative interview. We also included a control condition in which participants took part in two individual interviews. Collaboration did not help witnesses to remember more about the scene, but collaborative pairs made significantly fewer errors than nominal pairs. Further, quantitative and qualitative analyses of retrieval strategies during the discussion revealed that couples who actively acknowledged, repeated, rephrased, and elaborated upon each other's statements remembered significantly more information overall. Taken together, our findings suggest that, under certain circumstances, discussion between witnesses is not such a bad idea after all.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 85%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Master 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 18 69%
Psychology 6 23%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#138,351
of 7,553,774 outputs
Outputs from Memory
#15
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,081
of 228,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,553,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 228,613 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.