↓ Skip to main content

Telling Friend from Foe: Listeners Are Unable to Identify In-Group and Out-Group Members from Heard Laughter

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Telling Friend from Foe: Listeners Are Unable to Identify In-Group and Out-Group Members from Heard Laughter
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Ritter, Disa A. Sauter

Abstract

Group membership is important for how we perceive others, but although perceivers can accurately infer group membership from facial expressions and spoken language, it is not clear whether listeners can identify in- and out-group members from non-verbal vocalizations. In the current study, we examined perceivers' ability to identify group membership from non-verbal vocalizations of laughter, testing the following predictions: (1) listeners can distinguish between laughter from different nationalities and (2) between laughter from their in-group, a close out-group, and a distant out-group, and (3) greater exposure to laughter from members of other cultural groups is associated with better performance. Listeners (n = 814) took part in an online forced-choice classification task in which they were asked to judge the origin of 24 laughter segments. The responses were analyzed using frequentist and Bayesian statistical analyses. Both kinds of analyses showed that listeners were unable to accurately identify group identity from laughter. Furthermore, exposure did not affect performance. These results provide a strong and clear demonstration that group identity cannot be inferred from laughter.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#1,513,079
of 24,140,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,066
of 32,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,193
of 298,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#73
of 557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,140,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 298,370 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.