↓ Skip to main content

How culture influences perspective taking: differences in correction, not integration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
How culture influences perspective taking: differences in correction, not integration
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00822
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shali Wu, Dale J. Barr, Timothy M. Gann, Boaz Keysar

Abstract

Individuals from East Asian (Chinese) backgrounds have been shown to exhibit greater sensitivity to a speaker's perspective than Western (U.S.) participants when resolving referentially ambiguous expressions. We show that this cultural difference does not reflect better integration of social information during language processing, but rather is the result of differential correction: in the earliest moments of referential processing, Chinese participants showed equivalent egocentric interference to Westerners, but managed to suppress the interference earlier and more effectively. A time-series analysis of visual-world eye-tracking data found that the two cultural groups diverged extremely late in processing, between 600 and 1400 ms after the onset of egocentric interference. We suggest that the early moments of referential processing reflect the operation of a universal stratum of processing that provides rapid ambiguity resolution at the cost of accuracy and flexibility. Late components, in contrast, reflect the mapping of outputs from referential processes to decision-making and action planning systems, allowing for a flexibility in responding that is molded by culturally specific demands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 105 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 15 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Professor 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 42%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 7%
Linguistics 8 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 17 September 2014.
All research outputs
#2,237,967
of 23,133,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,106
of 7,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,149
of 282,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#192
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,133,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 282,769 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.