↓ Skip to main content

Caucasian Infants Scan Own- and Other-Race Faces Differently

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Caucasian Infants Scan Own- and Other-Race Faces Differently
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0018621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Wheeler, Gizelle Anzures, Paul C. Quinn, Olivier Pascalis, Danielle S. Omrin, Kang Lee

Abstract

Young infants are known to prefer own-race faces to other race faces and recognize own-race faces better than other-race faces. However, it is entirely unclear as to whether infants also attend to different parts of own- and other-race faces differently, which may provide an important clue as to how and why the own-race face recognition advantage emerges so early. The present study used eye tracking methodology to investigate whether 6- to 10-month-old Caucasian infants (N = 37) have differential scanning patterns for dynamically displayed own- and other-race faces. We found that even though infants spent a similar amount of time looking at own- and other-race faces, with increased age, infants increasingly looked longer at the eyes of own-race faces and less at the mouths of own-race faces. These findings suggest experience-based tuning of the infant's face processing system to optimally process own-race faces that are different in physiognomy from other-race faces. In addition, the present results, taken together with recent own- and other-race eye tracking findings with infants and adults, provide strong support for an enculturation hypothesis that East Asians and Westerners may be socialized to scan faces differently due to each culture's conventions regarding mutual gaze during interpersonal communication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 145 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 18 12%
Other 10 6%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 109 70%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Philosophy 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 20 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,682,153
of 25,310,061 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#20,780
of 219,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,734
of 114,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#156
of 1,515 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,310,061 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 114,997 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,515 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.