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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Roles of Featural and Configural Face Processing in Snap Judgments of Sexual Orientation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0036671 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua A. Tabak, Vivian Zayas |
| Abstract |
Research has shown that people are able to judge sexual orientation from faces with above-chance accuracy, but little is known about how these judgments are formed. Here, we investigated the importance of well-established face processing mechanisms in such judgments: featural processing (e.g., an eye) and configural processing (e.g., spatial distance between eyes). Participants judged sexual orientation from faces presented for 50 milliseconds either upright, which recruits both configural and featural processing, or upside-down, when configural processing is strongly impaired and featural processing remains relatively intact. Although participants judged women's and men's sexual orientation with above-chance accuracy for upright faces and for upside-down faces, accuracy for upside-down faces was significantly reduced. The reduced judgment accuracy for upside-down faces indicates that configural face processing significantly contributes to accurate snap judgments of sexual orientation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 23 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 15 | 12% |
| Canada | 6 | 5% |
| Belgium | 4 | 3% |
| Philippines | 4 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 3 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 93 | 76% |
| Scientists | 20 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 6% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 27% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 39 | 45% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 187. 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 06 December 2023.
All research outputs
#219,375
of 25,891,484 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#3,213
of 225,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#895
of 177,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#37
of 3,861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,891,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 177,235 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.