↓ Skip to main content

An Empirical Analysis of the Methodology of Automatic Imitation Research in a Strategic Context

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Article details
Title
An Empirical Analysis of the Methodology of Automatic Imitation Research in a Strategic Context
Published in
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, January 2015
DOI 10.1037/xhp0000081
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Since the discovery of the mirror neuron system, it has been proposed that the automatic tendency to copy observed actions exists in humans and that this mechanism might be responsible for a range of social behavior. A strong argument for automatic behavior can be made when actions are executed against motivation to do otherwise. Strategic games in which imitation is disadvantageous serve as ideal designs for studying the automatic nature of participants' behavior. Most recently, Belot, Crawford, and Heyes (2013) conducted an explorative study using a modified version of the Rock-Paper-Scissors game, and suggested that in the case of asynchrony in the execution of the gestures, automatic imitation can be observed early on after the opponent's presentation. In our study, we video recorded the games, which allowed us to examine the effect of delay on imitative behavior as well as the sensitivity of the previously employed analyses. The examination of the recorded images revealed that more than 80% of the data were irrelevant to the study of automatic behavior. Additional bias in the paradigm became apparent, as previously presented gestures were found to affect the behavior of the players. After noise filtering, we found no evidence of automatic imitation in either the whole filtered data set or in selected time windows based on delay length. Besides questioning the strength of the results of previous analyses, we propose several experimental and statistical modifications for further research on automatic imitation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Student > Master 8 21%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#21,654,704
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance
#847
of 3,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,126
of 409,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance
#22
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,176 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 409,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.