↓ Skip to main content

Gender differences in crowd perception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Gender differences in crowd perception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Bai, Allison Y. Leib, Amrita M. Puri, David Whitney, Kaiping Peng

Abstract

In this study, we investigated whether the first impression of a crowd of faces-crowd perception-is influenced by social background and cognitive processing. Specifically, we explored whether males and females, two groups that are distinct biologically and socially, differ in their ability to extract ensemble characteristics from crowds of faces that were comprised of different identities. Participants were presented with crowds of similar faces and were instructed to scroll through a morphed continuum of faces until they found a face that was representative of the average identity of each crowd. Consistent with previous research, females were more precise in single face perception. Furthermore, the results showed that females were generally more accurate in estimating the average identity of a crowd. However, the correlation between single face discrimination and crowd averaging differed between males and females. Specifically, male subjects' ensemble integration slightly compensated for their poor single face perception; their performance on the crowd perception task was not as poor as would be expected from their single face discrimination ability. Overall, the results suggest that group perception is not an isolated or uniform cognitive mechanism, but rather one that interacts with biological and social processes.

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 5 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 57%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,721,364
of 24,007,780 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,118
of 32,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,252
of 270,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#222
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,007,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 270,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.