↓ Skip to main content

Seeing is believing: Neural mechanisms of action–perception are biased by team membership

Overview of attention for article published in Human Brain Mapping, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Seeing is believing: Neural mechanisms of action–perception are biased by team membership
Published in
Human Brain Mapping, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/hbm.22044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Molenberghs, Veronika Halász, Jason B. Mattingley, Eric J. Vanman, Ross Cunnington

Abstract

Group identification can lead to a biased view of the world in favor of "in-group" members. Studying the brain processes that underlie such in-group biases is important for a wider understanding of the potential influence of social factors on basic perceptual processes. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate how people perceive the actions of in-group and out-group members, and how their biased view in favor of own team members manifests itself in the brain. We divided participants into two teams and had them judge the relative speeds of hand actions performed by an in-group and an out-group member in a competitive situation. Participants judged hand actions performed by in-group members as being faster than those of out-group members, even when the two actions were performed at physically identical speeds. In an additional fMRI experiment, we showed that, contrary to common belief, such skewed impressions arise from a subtle bias in perception and associated brain activity rather than decision-making processes, and that this bias develops rapidly and involuntarily as a consequence of group affiliation. Our findings suggest that the neural mechanisms that underlie human perception are shaped by social context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 31%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 12 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,039,096
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Brain Mapping
#203
of 4,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,400
of 253,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Brain Mapping
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 253,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.