| Title |
The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13423-014-0583-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Dolk, Bernhard Hommel, Wolfgang Prinz, Roman Liepelt |
| Abstract |
Research on joint action has been taken to suggest that actors automatically co-represent the tasks and/or actions of co-actors. However, recent findings on the joint Simon effect have provided evidence for a nonsocial account, which renders automatic co-representation unlikely. In the present study, we aimed to test whether a nonsocial account is also feasible for the joint version of the flanker task. In particular, we manipulated the social nature of the "co-actor" who could be another human or a Japanese waving cat. Contrary to the social interpretation of the joint flanker effect, the results demonstrated a "joint" flanker effect, irrespective of whether participants shared the task with another person or with the Japanese waving cat. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 56% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,784,015
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#4
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,127
of 324,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#12
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one scored the same or higher as 2 of them.
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 324,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.