↓ Skip to main content

Facial beauty affects implicit and explicit learning of men and women differently

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Facial beauty affects implicit and explicit learning of men and women differently
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01124
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleni Ziori, Zoltán Dienes

Abstract

The present work explores the unconscious and/or conscious nature of learning attractive faces of same and opposite sex, that is, of stimuli that experimental and neuroimaging research has shown to be rewarding and thus highly motivating. To this end, we examined performance of men and women while classifying strings of average and attractive faces for grammaticality in the experimental task of artificial grammar learning (AGL), which reflects both conscious and unconscious processes. Subjective measures were used to assess participants' conscious and unconscious knowledge. It was found that female attractiveness impaired performance in male participants. In particular, male participants demonstrated the lowest accuracy while classifying beautiful faces of women. Conversely, female attractiveness facilitated performance in female participants. The pattern was similar for conscious and unconscious knowledge. Presumably, objects with high incentive salience, as are beautiful faces, captured resources, which were used in task relevant versus task irrelevant ways by women versus men. The present findings shed light on the relation of conscious and unconscious processing with affective and reward-related stimuli, as well as on gender differences underlying this relation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,628,933
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,991
of 33,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,614
of 269,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#219
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 269,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.