↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Similarities and Differences in Chinese and Caucasian Adults' Use of Facial Cues for Trustworthiness Judgments

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Similarities and Differences in Chinese and Caucasian Adults' Use of Facial Cues for Trustworthiness Judgments
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034859
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fen Xu, Dingcheng Wu, Rie Toriyama, Fengling Ma, Shoji Itakura, Kang Lee

Abstract

All cultural groups in the world place paramount value on interpersonal trust. Existing research suggests that although accurate judgments of another's trustworthiness require extensive interactions with the person, we often make trustworthiness judgments based on facial cues on the first encounter. However, little is known about what facial cues are used for such judgments and what the bases are on which individuals make their trustworthiness judgments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 94 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 62 61%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 14 14%