↓ Skip to main content

Generalization Effects in Evaluative Conditioning: Evidence for Attitude Transfer Effects from Single Exemplars to Social Categories

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Generalization Effects in Evaluative Conditioning: Evidence for Attitude Transfer Effects from Single Exemplars to Social Categories
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tina Glaser, Dieta Kuchenbrandt

Abstract

The present research investigated whether evaluatively conditioned attitudes toward members of a social category (CSs) generalize to other stimuli belonging to the same category as the CSs (generalization at the stimulus level) and to the category itself (generalization at the category level). In four experiments, USs were paired with schematic or naturalistic CSs belonging to certain fictitious groups. Afterward, attitudes toward the CSs, toward non-presented exemplars of the CS category, and toward the CS category were assessed. Results revealed evidence for generalization effects in EC on both the stimulus and the category level. Transfer effects were greater when participants' awareness of the CS-US contingency (CA) was high. Moreover, we found differences in generalization between the stimulus and category level, indicating that different processes might contribute to the effects. Theoretical and practical implications such as using EC as a tool for changing attitudes toward social groups will be discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 41%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Computer Science 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Unknown 8 36%
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 21 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,599,965
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#25,193
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,645
of 432,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#371
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 432,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.