↓ Skip to main content

Taiwanese Political Parties can be Categorized by Face, by Those Who Reported Making Face-To-Trait Inferences

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Taiwanese Political Parties can be Categorized by Face, by Those Who Reported Making Face-To-Trait Inferences
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shun-Fu Hu, Chien-Kai Chang, Yu-Chen Chen, Sarina Hui-Lin Chien

Abstract

The present study aims to replicate and extend Rule and Ambady (2010a)'s findings that Republicans and Democrats could be differentiated by face. In Experiment 1, undergraduates categorized 50 gray-scale full-face photos of candidates of the two major political parties in Taiwan, the Kuomingtang (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Using identical stimuli and procedure, Experiment 2 tested 25- to 57-year-olds. Experiment 3 tested undergraduates with cropped photos, Experiment 4, with photos devoid of the mouth and chin area. At the end of each Experiment, we interviewed the participants about the strategies used. Results showed that undergraduates could categorize KMT and DPP with accuracies significantly higher than chance in full-face photos (Experiment 1), M = 0.524, p = 0.045, cropped photos (Experiment 3), M = 0.534, p = 0.016, and photos devoid of the mouth-and-chin area (Experiment 4), M = 0.530, p = 0.048. Adults aged between 25 and 57 could also categorize full-face photos (Experiment 2), M = 0.557, p < 0.001. Analysis on strategy use revealed that the better-than-chance performance may be a unique contribution of those who reported making face-to-trait inferences. In sum, we replicated Rule and Ambady's (2010a) results in East Asian and found that face-to-trait inferences may be essential.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 33%
Student > Master 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 44%
Computer Science 1 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
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 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,190
of 29,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,378
of 394,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#374
of 449 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 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 29,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 394,936 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 449 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.