| Title |
Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, July 2006
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03193260 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth J. Marsh, Lisa K. Fazio |
| Abstract |
Readers rely on fiction as a source of information, even when fiction contradicts relatively well-known facts about the world (Marsh, Meade, and Roediger, 2003). Of interest was whether readers could monitor fiction for errors, in order to reduce suggestibility. In Experiment 1, warnings about errors in fiction did not reduce students' reliance on stories. In Experiment 2, all subjects were warned before reading stories written at 6th- or 12th-grade reading levels. Even though 6th-grade stories freed resources for monitoring, suggestibility was not reduced. In Experiment 3, suggestibility was reduced but not eliminated when subjects pressed a key each time they detected an error during story reading. Readers do not appear to spontaneously monitor fiction for its veracity, but can do so if reminded on a trial-by-trial basis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 8% |
| Researcher | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 43% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#488,074
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#37
of 1,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#620
of 64,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. 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 64,435 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.