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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Memory impairment is not sufficient for choice blindness to occur
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00449 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Sagana, Melanie Sauerland, Harald Merckelbach |
| Abstract |
Choice blindness refers to the phenomenon that people can be easily misled about the choices they made in the recent past. The aim of this study was to explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying choice blindness. Specifically, we tested whether memory impairment may account for choice blindness. A total of N = 88 participants provided sympathy ratings on 10-point scales for 20 female faces. Subsequently, participants motivated some of their ratings. However, on three trials, they were presented with sympathy ratings that deviated from their original ratings by three full scale points. On nearly 41% of the trials, participants failed to detect (i.e., were blind) the manipulation. After a short interval, participants were informed that some trials had been manipulated and were asked to recall their original ratings. Participants adopted the manipulated outcome in only 3% of the trials. Furthermore, the extent to which the original ratings were accurately remembered was not higher for detected as compared with non-detected trials. From a theoretical point of view our findings indicate that memory impairment does not fully account for blindness phenomena. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 71% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,176,295
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,460
of 29,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,453
of 305,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#107
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,663 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 305,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.