↓ Skip to main content

Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 1,191)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 89 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 35%
Student > Master 14 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 47%
Social Sciences 16 16%
Unspecified 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 7%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Other 17 17%

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
#234,448
of 13,668,760 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#23
of 1,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,833
of 265,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,668,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 265,490 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.