| Title |
Fandom Biases Retrospective Judgments Not Perception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep43083 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Markus Huff, Frank Papenmeier, Annika E. Maurer, Tino G. K. Meitz, Bärbel Garsoffky, Stephan Schwan |
| Abstract |
Attitudes and motivations have been shown to affect the processing of visual input, indicating that observers may see a given situation each literally in a different way. Yet, in real-life, processing information in an unbiased manner is considered to be of high adaptive value. Attitudinal and motivational effects were found for attention, characterization, categorization, and memory. On the other hand, for dynamic real-life events, visual processing has been found to be highly synchronous among viewers. Thus, while in a seminal study fandom as a particularly strong case of attitudes did bias judgments of a sports event, it left the question open whether attitudes do bias prior processing stages. Here, we investigated influences of fandom during the live TV broadcasting of the 2013 UEFA-Champions-League Final regarding attention, event segmentation, immediate and delayed cued recall, as well as affect, memory confidence, and retrospective judgments. Even though we replicated biased retrospective judgments, we found that eye-movements, event segmentation, and cued recall were largely similar across both groups of fans. Our findings demonstrate that, while highly involving sports events are interpreted in a fan dependent way, at initial stages they are processed in an unbiased manner. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,824,609
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#23,852
of 132,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,333
of 315,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#909
of 4,641 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 132,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 315,830 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,641 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.