↓ Skip to main content

Are Happy Faces Attractive? The Roles of Early vs. Late Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

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.
Title
Are Happy Faces Attractive? The Roles of Early vs. Late Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Delin Sun, Chetwyn C. H. Chan, Jintu Fan, Yi Wu, Tatia M. C. Lee

Abstract

Facial attractiveness is closely related to romantic love. To understand if the neural underpinnings of perceived facial attractiveness and facial expression are similar constructs, we recorded neural signals using an event-related potential (ERP) methodology for 20 participants who were viewing faces with varied attractiveness and expressions. We found that attractiveness and expression were reflected by two early components, P2-lateral (P2l) and P2-medial (P2m), respectively; their interaction effect was reflected by LPP, a late component. The findings suggested that facial attractiveness and expression are first processed in parallel for discrimination between stimuli. After the initial processing, more attentional resources are allocated to the faces with the most positive or most negative valence in both the attractiveness and expression dimensions. The findings contribute to the theoretical model of face perception.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

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.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 72%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 18%
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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,184
of 29,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,619
of 387,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#370
of 460 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 387,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 460 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.