↓ Skip to main content

Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
233 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
Published in
Perspectives on Psychological Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1177/1745691618755704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael O’Donnell, Leif D. Nelson, Evi Ackermann, Balazs Aczel, Athfah Akhtar, Silvio Aldrovandi, Nasseem Alshaif, Ronald Andringa, Mark Aveyard, Peter Babincak, Nursena Balatekin, Scott A. Baldwin, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Raoul Bell, Olga Białobrzeska, Angie R. Birt, Walter R. Boot, Scott R. Braithwaite, Jessie C. Briggs, Axel Buchner, Desiree Budd, Kathryn Budzik, Lottie Bullens, Richard L. Bulley, Peter R. Cannon, Katarzyna Cantarero, Joseph Cesario, Stephanie Chambers, Christopher R. Chartier, Peggy Chekroun, Clara Chong, Axel Cleeremans, Sean P. Coary, Jacob Coulthard, Florien M. Cramwinckel, Thomas F. Denson, Marcos Díaz-Lago, Theresa E. DiDonato, Aaron Drummond, Julia Eberlen, Titus Ebersbach, John E. Edlund, Katherine M. Finnigan, Justin Fisher, Natalia Frankowska, Efraín García-Sánchez, Frank D. Golom, Andrew J. Graves, Kevin Greenberg, Mando Hanioti, Heather A. Hansen, Jenna A. Harder, Erin R. Harrell, Andree Hartanto, Michael Inzlicht, David J. Johnson, Andrew Karpinski, Victor N. Keller, Olivier Klein, Lina Koppel, Emiel Krahmer, Anthony Lantian, Michael J. Larson, Jean-Baptiste Légal, Richard E. Lucas, Dermot Lynott, Corey M. Magaldino, Karlijn Massar, Matthew T. McBee, Neil McLatchie, Nadhilla Melia, Michael C. Mensink, Laura Mieth, Samantha Moore-Berg, Geraldine Neeser, Ben R. Newell, Marret K. Noordewier, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Myrto Pantazi, Michał Parzuchowski, Kim Peters, Michael C. Philipp, Monique M. H. Pollmann, Panagiotis Rentzelas, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Jan Philipp Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Nelson A. Roque, Carolina Rueda, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Katey Sackett, Janos Salamon, Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez, Blair Saunders, Juliette Schaafsma, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, David R. Shanks, Martin F. Sherman, Kenneth M. Steele, Niklas K. Steffens, Jessie Sun, Kyle J. Susa, Barnabas Szaszi, Aba Szollosi, Ricardo M. Tamayo, Gustav Tinghög, Yuk-yue Tong, Carol Tweten, Miguel A. Vadillo, Deisy Valcarcel, Nicolas Van der Linden, Michiel van Elk, Frenk van Harreveld, Daniel Västfjäll, Simine Vazire, Philippe Verduyn, Matt N. Williams, Guillermo B. Willis, Sarah E. Wood, Chunliang Yang, Oulmann Zerhouni, Robert Zheng, Mark Zrubka

Abstract

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 233 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 17%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Master 15 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 9%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 54%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 37 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. 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 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#261,212
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#157
of 1,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,957
of 345,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 75.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 345,429 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.