The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Perceived Race Affects Configural Processing but Not Holistic Processing in the Composite-Face Task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01456 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael B. Lewis, Peter J. Hills |
| Abstract |
One explanation for the own-race bias in face recognition is the loss of holistic processing for other-race faces. The composite-face task (involving matching the top halves of faces when the bottom halves are either changed or the same) tests holistic processing but it has been inconsistent in revealing other-race effects. Two composite-face experiments are reported using pairs of faces that have common internal features but can be perceived as either being racially Black or White depending on their external features. In Experiment 1 (matching the top halves of faces) holistic processing was found for both face races for White participants (shown by both a mis-alignment advantage when bottom halves were different and also by a congruence-by-alignment interaction in discrimination). Bayesian analysis supported there being no effect of race. However, the size of the simple congruence effect was larger for own- than for other-race faces. Experiment 2 found that this race-by-congruence interaction was not present when matching the bottom halves of faces. The results are interpreted in of terms of the perceived race affecting the processing of second-order relational information rather than holistic processing. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 63% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,985,001
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,892
of 30,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,562
of 333,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#572
of 730 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 730 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.