↓ Skip to main content

Is there evidence for automatic imitation in a strategic context?

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Is there evidence for automatic imitation in a strategic context?
Published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2012
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2012.0500
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Over the past decade, a compelling number of studies reported that observing an action makes the imitation of that action more likely. The automatic character of human imitative behaviour was often claimed, but rarely tested. The demonstration of the absence of conscious control has been attempted in a recent report claiming that imitation can occur in the rock-paper-scissors (RPS) game, where strategic players should avoid imitating their opponents. This surprising result could serve as strong evidence that humans imitate each other unconsciously. We find, however, that this conclusion is problematic. In addition to reviewing the original methods, in this work, we also replicated the experiment with double the sample size. Thorough examination of the original analyses and the results of the present replication do not support the original conclusion. In our view, testing the theory of automatic imitation in RPS games is a potentially promising avenue of exploration, yet the interpretation of the data requires further understanding of the subsidiary effects controlling the behaviour of the players.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 42 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 %
United States 2 5%
Japan 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 37 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Physics and Astronomy 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 July 2012.
All research outputs
#18,866,090
of 27,364,796 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#10,767
of 11,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,169
of 180,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#78
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,364,796 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 180,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.