↓ Skip to main content

Inferential Costs of Trait Centrality in Impression Formation: Organization in Memory and Misremembering

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Inferential Costs of Trait Centrality in Impression Formation: Organization in Memory and Misremembering
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ludmila D. Nunes, Leonel Garcia-Marques, Mário B. Ferreira, Tânia Ramos

Abstract

An extension of the DRM paradigm was used to study the impact of central traits (Asch, 1946) in impression formation. Traits corresponding to the four clusters of the implicit theory of personality-intellectual, positive and negative; and social, positive and negative (Rosenberg et al., 1968)-were used to develop lists containing several traits of one cluster and one central trait prototypical of the opposite cluster. Participants engaging in impression formation relative to participants engaging in memorization not only produced higher levels of false memories corresponding to the same cluster of the list traits but, under response time pressure at retrieval, also produced more false memories of the cluster corresponding to the central trait. We argue that the importance of central traits stems from their ability to activate their corresponding semantic space within a specialized associative memory structure underlying the implicit theory of personality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 28%
Student > Master 4 16%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 48%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Linguistics 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,695,502
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#27,229
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,149
of 323,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#533
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.