↓ Skip to main content

Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Falck, Ingar Brinck, Magnus Lindgren

Abstract

In the debate about how to interpret Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) based false-belief experiments, it has been suggested that infants are predicting the actions of the agent based on more or less sophisticated cognitive means. We present an alternative, more parsimonious interpretation, exploring the possibility that the infants' reactions are not governed by rational expectation but rather of memory strength due to differences in the allocation of cognitive resources earlier in the experiment. Specifically, it is argued that (1) infants' have a tendency to find more interest in events that observed agents are attending to as opposed to unattended events ("interest contagion"), (2) the object-location configurations that result from such interesting events are remembered more strongly by the infants, and (3) the VoE contrast arises as a consequence of the difference in memory strength between more and less interesting object-location configurations. We discuss two published experiments, one which we argue that our model can explain (Kovács etal., 2010), and one which we argue cannot be readily explained by our model (Onishi and Baillargeon, 2005).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 48%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Computer Science 2 7%
Linguistics 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#22,350,992
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#26,917
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,921
of 318,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#166
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 318,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.