↓ Skip to main content

A Robust Method of Measuring Other-Race and Other-Ethnicity Effects: The Cambridge Face Memory Test Format

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
A Robust Method of Measuring Other-Race and Other-Ethnicity Effects: The Cambridge Face Memory Test Format
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0047956
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elinor McKone, Sacha Stokes, Jia Liu, Sarah Cohan, Chiara Fiorentini, Madeleine Pidcock, Galit Yovel, Mary Broughton, Michel Pelleg

Abstract

Other-race and other-ethnicity effects on face memory have remained a topic of consistent research interest over several decades, across fields including face perception, social psychology, and forensic psychology (eyewitness testimony). Here we demonstrate that the Cambridge Face Memory Test format provides a robust method for measuring these effects. Testing the Cambridge Face Memory Test original version (CFMT-original; European-ancestry faces from Boston USA) and a new Cambridge Face Memory Test Chinese (CFMT-Chinese), with European and Asian observers, we report a race-of-face by race-of-observer interaction that was highly significant despite modest sample size and despite observers who had quite high exposure to the other race. We attribute this to high statistical power arising from the very high internal reliability of the tasks. This power also allows us to demonstrate a much smaller within-race other ethnicity effect, based on differences in European physiognomy between Boston faces/observers and Australian faces/observers (using the CFMT-Australian).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 53%
Neuroscience 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 25 22%
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 09 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,656,267
of 23,979,422 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#95,269
of 204,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,994
of 185,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,735
of 4,897 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,979,422 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 204,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 185,723 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,897 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 62% of its contemporaries.