| Title |
What or when? The impact of anticipated social action effects is driven by action-effect compatibility, not delay
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-017-1371-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roland Pfister, Lisa Weller, David Dignath, Wilfried Kunde |
| Abstract |
Motor actions are facilitated if they are foreseeably being imitated rather than counterimitated by social partners. Such beneficial effects of anticipated imitation have been explained in terms of compatibility between one's own actions and their anticipated consequences. Previous demonstrations of these effects might alternatively be explained by consistently faster partner responses for imitative than for nonimitative actions, however. This study contrasts both explanations by using virtual coactors to disentangle the contributions of anticipated action-effect compatibility and anticipated action-effect delay. The data of two experiments support previous theoretical assumptions by showing that the effects of anticipated imitation are indeed driven by compatibility rather than delay. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
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 23 September 2017.
All research outputs
#21,500,614
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,661
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,957
of 316,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 316,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.