↓ Skip to main content

Outcome Evaluation in Social Context Measured by Event-Related Potentials Is Partially Dependent on the Partner’s Sex

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Outcome Evaluation in Social Context Measured by Event-Related Potentials Is Partially Dependent on the Partner’s Sex
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00853
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jinping Liu, Shurui Wang, Zhenbiao Jia, Entao Zhang, Mengping Yao

Abstract

Outcome evaluation is a cognitive process that people rely on feedback information to evaluate behavior results. It can help people to modify the previous mistakes in order to facilitate the performance of the behavior. In the present study, we examined sex differences in outcome evaluation when men and women performed a "Chuck-A-Luck" dice game with a same-versus opposite-sex partner. We recruited 40 college students (Half of women) to perform the gambling game task, and event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded for outcome feed back when male or female participants performed the game alone, or with same-versus opposite-sex partners. Two main findings are reported in our study. (1) FRN amplitude of same-sex condition was significantly greater than alone condition for male when the feedback was loss. However, FRN amplitude of opposite-sex condition was significantly greater than alone condition for female when feedback was loss. (2) The loss feedback induced greater P300 than gain only in alone condition. It suggests that sex differences in outcome evaluation is a complex process that is partially influenced by the partner's sex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,607,615
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,546
of 30,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,939
of 328,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#593
of 697 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 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 30,365 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 328,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 697 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.