↓ Skip to main content

From Bill Shankly to the Huffington Post: How to Increase Critical Thinking in Experimental Psychology Course?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
From Bill Shankly to the Huffington Post: How to Increase Critical Thinking in Experimental Psychology Course?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00538
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilie Lacot, Geoffrey Blondelle, Mathieu Hainselin

Abstract

Although critical thinking and source checking are basic prerequisites to become a psychologist, or a scientist, it is usually difficult to have students interested in experimental methods courses. Most first year students are tempted not to attend these courses. Such behaviors are reinforced by arguments that "everybody is different" and "people are not numbers." Consequently, students have difficulties to develop source and evidence checking skills, and may be more prone to believe in any supposed expert. This paper presents two ways to involve students during lectures and seminars. The first method consists in presenting, during the initial lecture of the year, a fake scientific concept which students will believe as true. This phenomenon is called the "Bill Shankly syndrome" and it only exists if someone believes that the information is given by a serious lecturer, presenting oneself as a world-class researcher. The second method consists in training students to become reviewers using evidence checking of a mainstream media article which promises scientifically proven ways to be happy. The use of these methods may stimulate students' interest in research methods and its practical applications from week one.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 7%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 33%
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,073,148
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,114
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,000
of 300,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#81
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 300,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.