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 |
But I Was So Sure! Metacognitive Judgments Are Less Accurate Given Prospectively than Retrospectively
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Siedlecka, Borysław Paulewicz, Michał Wierzchoń |
| Abstract |
Prospective and retrospective metacognitive judgments have been studied extensively in the field of memory; however, their accuracy has not been systematically compared. Such a comparison is important for studying how metacognitive judgments are formed. Here, we present the results of an experiment aiming to investigate the relation between performance in an anagram task and the accuracy of prospective and retrospective confidence judgments. Participants worked on anagrams and were then asked to respond whether a presented word was the solution. They also rated their confidence, either before or after the response and either before or after seeing the suggested solution. The results showed that although response accuracy always correlated with confidence, this relationship was weaker when metacognitive judgements were given before the response. We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of this finding for studies on metacognition and consciousness. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Norway | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 21% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 63 | 44% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 34 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,455,370
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,361
of 29,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,890
of 297,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#301
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,853 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 53% 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 297,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.