↓ Skip to main content

Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: a case for animal–human translational models

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
294 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
493 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: a case for animal–human translational models
Published in
Psychological Research, April 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00426-009-0230-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanne de Wit, Anthony Dickinson

Abstract

Associative accounts of goal-directed action, developed in the fields of human ideomotor action and that of animal learning, can capture cognitive belief-desire psychology of human decision-making. Whereas outcome-response accounts can account for the fact that the thought of a goal can call to mind the action that has previously procured this goal, response-outcome accounts capture decision-making processes that start out with the consideration of possible response alternatives followed only in the second instance by evaluation of their consequences. We argue that while the outcome-response mechanism plays a crucial role in response priming effects, the response-outcome mechanism is particularly important for action selection on the basis of current needs and desires. We therefore develop an integrative account that encapsulates these two routes of action selection within the framework of the associative-cybernetic model. This model has the additional benefit of providing mechanisms for the incentive modulation of goal-directed action and for the development of behavioural autonomy, and therefore provides a promising account of the multi-faceted process of animal as well as human instrumental decision-making.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 493 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 1%
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 469 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 109 22%
Researcher 88 18%
Student > Bachelor 78 16%
Student > Master 58 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 69 14%
Unknown 66 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 218 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 12%
Neuroscience 47 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 2%
Other 43 9%
Unknown 91 18%
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 11 October 2013.
All research outputs
#7,189,800
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#266
of 962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,157
of 93,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 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 962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 93,515 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.