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 |
Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helena Matute, Fernando Blanco, Ion Yarritu, Marcos Díaz-Lago, Miguel A. Vadillo, Itxaso Barberia |
| Abstract |
Illusions of causality occur when people develop the belief that there is a causal connection between two events that are actually unrelated. Such illusions have been proposed to underlie pseudoscience and superstitious thinking, sometimes leading to disastrous consequences in relation to critical life areas, such as health, finances, and wellbeing. Like optical illusions, they can occur for anyone under well-known conditions. Scientific thinking is the best possible safeguard against them, but it does not come intuitively and needs to be taught. Teaching how to think scientifically should benefit from better understanding of the illusion of causality. In this article, we review experiments that our group has conducted on the illusion of causality during the last 20 years. We discuss how research on the illusion of causality can contribute to the teaching of scientific thinking and how scientific thinking can reduce illusion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 135 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 23 | 17% |
| United States | 16 | 12% |
| Spain | 12 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Argentina | 2 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 55 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 91 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 24 | 18% |
| Scientists | 17 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 10% |
| Researcher | 20 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 58 | 25% |
| Unknown | 45 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 75 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 55 | 24% |
| Unknown | 53 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 125. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#337,742
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#687
of 34,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,487
of 278,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#13
of 561 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. 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 278,046 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 561 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 97% of its contemporaries.