↓ Skip to main content

Systemizers Are Better Code-Breakers: Self-Reported Systemizing Predicts Code-Breaking Performance in Expert Hackers and Naïve Participants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Systemizers Are Better Code-Breakers: Self-Reported Systemizing Predicts Code-Breaking Performance in Expert Hackers and Naïve Participants
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00229
Pubmed ID
Authors

India Harvey, Samuela Bolgan, Daniel Mosca, Colin McLean, Elena Rusconi

Abstract

Studies on hacking have typically focused on motivational aspects and general personality traits of the individuals who engage in hacking; little systematic research has been conducted on predispositions that may be associated not only with the choice to pursue a hacking career but also with performance in either naïve or expert populations. Here, we test the hypotheses that two traits that are typically enhanced in autism spectrum disorders-attention to detail and systemizing-may be positively related to both the choice of pursuing a career in information security and skilled performance in a prototypical hacking task (i.e., crypto-analysis or code-breaking). A group of naïve participants and of ethical hackers completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient, including an attention to detail scale, and the Systemizing Quotient (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001, 2003). They were also tested with behavioral tasks involving code-breaking and a control task involving security X-ray image interpretation. Hackers reported significantly higher systemizing and attention to detail than non-hackers. We found a positive relation between self-reported systemizing (but not attention to detail) and code-breaking skills in both hackers and non-hackers, whereas attention to detail (but not systemizing) was related with performance in the X-ray screening task in both groups, as previously reported with naïve participants (Rusconi et al., 2015). We discuss the theoretical and translational implications of our findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 21%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Computer Science 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#562,385
of 26,383,519 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#249
of 7,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,398
of 345,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#8
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,383,519 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 345,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.