↓ Skip to main content

Trash-Talking and Trolling

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Trash-Talking and Trolling
Published in
Human Nature, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12110-018-9317-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin M. Kniffin, Dylan Palacio

Abstract

Among the extra-physical aspects of team sports, the ways in which players talk to each other are among the more colorful but understudied dimensions of competition. To contribute an empirical basis for examining the nature of "trash talk," we present the results of a study of 291 varsity athletes who compete in the top division among US universities. Based on a preliminary review of trash-talk topics among student-athletes, we asked participants to indicate the frequency with which they have communicated or heard others talk about opposing players' athleticism, playing ability, physical appearance, boyfriends, girlfriends, sexual behavior, parents, and home institution during competitions. Our three main findings are: (1) Trash-talking is most commonly about the proximately important topic of playing ability while ultimately relevant topics such as physical appearance also appear to be common; (2) Men appear to trash-talk significantly more than women, and consistently across topics; and (3) contact sports such as football, hockey, lacrosse, and wrestling are associated with trash talk significantly more than other sports. We also examined whether the anonymity provided by face-masked helmets in "combat sports" was associated with more trash talk than contact sports played without a helmet (e.g., wrestling) and found no consistent association with face masks. Our findings highlight the ways in which competitors in physical sporting contests attempt to use language-often in ways that focus on players' kin or reproductive interests-in pursuit of victory while establishing a baseline for future research into trash-talking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 6 6%
Lecturer 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 47 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Decision Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 52 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,564,881
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#146
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,711
of 345,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 345,762 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.