↓ Skip to main content

Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency

Overview of attention for article published in Learning & Behavior, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency
Published in
Learning & Behavior, March 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13420-013-0108-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Blanco, Helena Matute, Miguel A. Vadillo

Abstract

Overestimations of null contingencies between a cue, C, and an outcome, O, are widely reported effects that can arise for multiple reasons. For instance, a high probability of the cue, P(C), and a high probability of the outcome, P(O), are conditions that promote such overestimations. In two experiments, participants were asked to judge the contingency between a cue and an outcome. Both P(C) and P(O) were given extreme values (high and low) in a factorial design, while maintaining the contingency between the two events at zero. While we were able to observe main effects of the probability of each event, our experiments showed that the cue- and outcome-density biases interacted such that a high probability of the two stimuli enhanced the overestimation beyond the effects observed when only one of the two events was frequent. This evidence can be used to better understand certain societal issues, such as belief in pseudoscience, that can be the result of overestimations of null contingencies in high-P(C) or high-P(O) situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 61%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,238,666
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#146
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,479
of 210,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 210,390 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them