↓ Skip to main content

Memory Accessibility and Medical Decision-Making for Significant Others: The Role of Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Memory Accessibility and Medical Decision-Making for Significant Others: The Role of Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dora Coman, Alin Coman, William Hirst

Abstract

Medical decisions will often entail a broad search for relevant information. No sources alone may offer a complete picture, and many may be selective in their presentation. This selectivity may induce forgetting for previously learned material, thereby adversely affecting medical decision-making. In the study phase of two experiments, participants learned information about a fictitious disease and advantages and disadvantages of four treatment options. In the subsequent practice phase, they read a pamphlet selectively presenting either relevant (Experiment 1) or irrelevant (Experiment 2) advantages or disadvantages. A final cued recall followed and, in Experiment 2, a decision as to the best treatment for a patient. Not only did reading the pamphlet induce forgetting for related and unmentioned information, the induced forgetting adversely affected decision-making. The research provides a cautionary note about the risks of searching through selectively presented information when making a medical decision.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 25%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,921,906
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#650
of 3,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,030
of 280,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#36
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 280,737 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.