↓ Skip to main content

Category-Based Learning About Deviant Outgroup Members Hinders Performance in Trust Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
Category-Based Learning About Deviant Outgroup Members Hinders Performance in Trust Decision Making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maïka Telga, Soledad de Lemus, Elena Cañadas, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Juan Lupiáñez

Abstract

The present research examines whether individuation and categorization processes influence trust decisions about strangers at first and across repeated interactions. In a partial replication of the study reported by Cañadas et al. (2015), participants played an adaptation of the multi-round trust game paradigm and had to decide whether or not to cooperate with unknown partners. Gender (Study 1a) and ethnicity (Studies 1b, 2, and 3) served to create distinct social categories among the game partners, whose reciprocation rates were manipulated at group and individual levels. At the group level, two social groups (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup) were associated with opposite reciprocation rates (i.e., high vs. low reciprocation rate). At the individual level, consistency was manipulated by altering the reciprocation rate of one out of four members of each social group. That is, there was one inconsistent individual in each group showing a pattern of reciprocation opposite to the group reciprocation rate. Our data, contrary to Cañadas et al.'s (2015) findings, suggested that ingroup partners were individuated given that participants made their decisions to cooperate with the trustees according to their individual reciprocation rate and independently of the group reciprocation rate. In contrast, decisions about outgroup partners (i.e., men in Study 1a and Blacks in Studies 1b, 2, and 3) were affected by category-based thinking. At the same time, in comparison with ingroup, greater cooperation was observed with ethnic outgroups but not with gender outgroups. The consistency of our results with the previous literature on social categorization and across the three experiments seems to indicate they are reliable, supporting the hypothesis that categorization and individuation processes guide trust decision-making, promoting individuation mainly for ingroup and categorization among outgroup members.

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.
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 %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 41%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,455,177
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,804
of 30,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,032
of 328,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#160
of 697 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 328,056 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 697 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.