Cited by 6Library Science and Information LiteracyInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Relevance versus big numbers: Students’ criteria for selecting scholarly references online.

Rouet, Jean-François, Skov, Ole, De Pereyra, Guillaume, Ros, Christine, Le Bigot, Ludovic, Vibert, Nicolas·2018·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

This study examined the effect of the number of citations attributed to documents on third year psychology students' selection of bibliographical references. Our main assumption was that students would take high numbers of citations as accessible relevance cues and use them heuristically to facilitate decision making, potentially bypassing deeper relevance assessment based on semantic processing. Experiment 1 presented the students with a reference selection task while manipulating the number of citations attributed to references, and found that the number of citations had a strong impact on reference selection. Moreover, the effect was independent from topic familiarity and even from students' prior knowledge of what the number of citations meant. Experiment 2 used eye-tracking data to show that this "big number" effect was contingent upon the participants fixating the numbers of citations attributed to documents. Experiment 3 manipulated the semantic relevance of references to the search topic, and demonstrated that the less relevant references were 3 times more likely to be selected when they came with a high number of citations. Overall, the study shows that the number of citations significantly influences students' selections, competing with the semantic relevance of references. Implications for the teaching of online search skills are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xap0000194

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouet, J.-F., Skov, O., De Pereyra, G., Ros, C., Le Bigot, L., & Vibert, N.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2018-12
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
476-489
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2895993948
Cited by
6
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
French National Research Agency (ANR-11-IDFI-0028)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
citation counts, reference selection, heuristic decision making, semantic relevance, bibliographic databases, eye tracking, psychology students, information seeking
MeSH terms
Heuristics, Adolescent, Adult, Bibliographies as Topic, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Students, Knowledge, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review