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 |
Outcome Knowledge and False Belief
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siba E. Ghrear, Susan A. J. Birch, Daniel M. Bernstein |
| Abstract |
Virtually every social interaction involves reasoning about the perspectives of others, or 'theory of mind (ToM).' Previous research suggests that it is difficult to ignore our current knowledge when reasoning about a more naïve perspective (i.e., the curse of knowledge). In this Mini Review, we discuss the implications of the curse of knowledge for certain aspects of ToM. Particularly, we examine how the curse of knowledge influences key measurements of false belief reasoning. In closing, we touch on the need to develop new measurement tools to discern the mechanisms involved in the curse of knowledge and false belief reasoning, and how they develop across the lifespan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 47% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,832,901
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,107
of 29,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,864
of 400,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#324
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,847 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 400,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.