↓ Skip to main content

Action and perception in social contexts: intentional binding for social action effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Action and perception in social contexts: intentional binding for social action effects
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00667
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roland Pfister, Sukhvinder S. Obhi, Martina Rieger, Dorit Wenke

Abstract

The subjective experience of controlling events in the environment alters the perception of these events. For instance, the interval between one's own actions and their consequences is subjectively compressed-a phenomenon known as intentional binding. In two experiments, we studied intentional binding in a social setting in which actions of one agent prompted a second agent to perform another action. Participants worked in pairs and were assigned to a "leader" and a "follower" role, respectively. The leader's key presses triggered (after a variable interval) a tone and this tone served as go signal for the follower to perform a keypress as well. Leaders and followers estimated the interval between the leader's keypress and the following tone, or the interval between the tone and the follower's keypress. The leader showed reliable intentional binding for both intervals relative to the follower's estimates. These results indicate that human agents experience a pre-reflective sense of agency for genuinely social consequences of their actions.

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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 110 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 23%
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 44%
Neuroscience 12 11%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 29 25%
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 06 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,059
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,092
of 237,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#222
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 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 7,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 237,372 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 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.