↓ Skip to main content

When Do We Confuse Self and Other in Action Memory? Reduced False Memories of Self-Performance after Observing Actions by an Out-Group vs. In-Group Actor

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
When Do We Confuse Self and Other in Action Memory? Reduced False Memories of Self-Performance after Observing Actions by an Out-Group vs. In-Group Actor
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00467
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Lindner, Cécile Schain, René Kopietz, Gerald Echterhoff

Abstract

Observing another person performing an action can lead to a false memory of having performed the action oneself - the observation-inflation effect. In the experimental paradigm, participants first perform or do not perform simple actions, and then observe another person perform some of these actions. The observation-inflation effect is found when participants later remember performing actions that they have merely observed. In this case, self and other are confused in action memory. We examined social conditions of this self-other confusion when remembering actions, specifically whether the effect depends on the observed actor's group membership. In our experiment, we manipulated group membership based on physical appearance, specifically complexion of the hands. Fair-skinned participants observed either an in-group (i.e., fair-skinned) or an out-group (i.e., dark-skinned) actor. Our results revealed that the observed actor's group membership moderated the observation-inflation effect: False memories were significantly reduced when the actor was from the out-group (vs. in-group). We found no difference to a control condition in which the actor wore black gloves, suggesting that distinctiveness of perceptual or sensory features alone (due to the out-group member's dark skin) is not critical. We discuss these findings in light of social-neuroscience studies demonstrating the impact of an observed person's group membership on motor simulation. Overall, our findings suggest that action memory can be affected by a ubiquitous feature of people's social perception, that is, group-based social categorization of others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 44%
Philosophy 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,532,824
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,067
of 29,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,909
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#107
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 244,115 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.