↓ Skip to main content

Converging Evidence of Ubiquitous Male Bias in Human Sex Perception

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Converging Evidence of Ubiquitous Male Bias in Human Sex Perception
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148623
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Visually judging the sex of another can be achieved easily in most social encounters. When the signals that inform such judgements are weak (e.g. outdoors at night), observers tend to expect the presence of males-an expectation that may facilitate survival-critical decisions under uncertainty. The present aim was to examine whether this male bias depends on expertise. To that end, Caucasian and Asian observers targeted female and male hand images that were either the same or different to the observers' race (i.e. long term experience was varied) while concurrently, the proportion of targets changed across presentation blocks (i.e. short term experience change). It was thus found that: (i) observers of own-race stimuli were more likely to report the presence of males and absence of females, however (ii) observers of other-race stimuli-while still tending to accept stimuli as male-were not prone to rejecting female cues. Finally, (iii) male-biased measures did not track the relative frequency of targets or lures, disputing the notion that male bias derives from prior expectation about the number of male exemplars in a set. Findings are discussed in concert with the pan-stimulus model of human sex perception.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 37%
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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#12,256,224
of 34,307,719 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#107,437
of 224,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,669
of 456,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,719
of 5,463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,307,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 456,410 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,463 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 50% of its contemporaries.