| Title |
Contingency and contiguity of imitative behaviour affect social affiliation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-017-0854-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Dignath, Paul Lotze-Hermes, Harry Farmer, Roland Pfister |
| Abstract |
Actions of others automatically prime similar responses in an agent's behavioural repertoire. As a consequence, perceived or anticipated imitation facilitates own action control and, at the same time, imitation boosts social affiliation and rapport with others. It has previously been suggested that basic mechanisms of associative learning can account for behavioural effects of imitation, whereas a possible role of associative learning for affiliative processes is poorly understood at present. Therefore, this study examined whether contingency and contiguity, the principles of associative learning, affect also the social effects of imitation. Two experiments yielded evidence in favour of this hypothesis by showing more social affiliation in conditions with high contingency (as compared to low contingency) and in conditions of high contiguity (compared to low contiguity). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 57% |
| Denmark | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 58% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
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 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,794,295
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#270
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,246
of 313,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 313,520 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.