| Title |
Prototype Effect and the Persuasiveness of Generalizations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13164-015-0264-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Dahlman, Farhan Sarwar, Rasmus Bååth, Lena Wahlberg, Sverker Sikström |
| Abstract |
An argument that makes use of a generalization activates the prototype for the category used in the generalization. We conducted two experiments that investigated how the activation of the prototype affects the persuasiveness of the argument. The results of the experiments suggest that the features of the prototype overshadow and partly overwrite the actual facts of the case. The case is, to some extent, judged as if it had the features of the prototype instead of the features it actually has. This prototype effect increases the persuasiveness of the argument in situations where the audience finds the judgment more warranted for the prototype than for the actual case (positive prototype effect), but decreases persuasiveness in situations where the audience finds the judgment less warranted for the prototype than for the actual case (negative prototype effect). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 13% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,469,995
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#353
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,603
of 264,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 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 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 264,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.