↓ Skip to main content

Stereotype threat increases the likelihood that female drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers

Overview of attention for article published in Accident Analysis & Prevention, October 2007
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Stereotype threat increases the likelihood that female drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers
Published in
Accident Analysis & Prevention, October 2007
DOI 10.1016/j.aap.2007.09.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nai Chi Jonathan Yeung, Courtney von Hippel

Abstract

Stereotype threat, or the belief that one may be the target of demeaning stereotypes, leads to performance disruptions in a variety of domains. Two experiments conducted in a driving simulator demonstrate that stereotype threat also disrupts control of an automobile. Women who were reminded of the stereotype that females are poor drivers were more than twice as likely to collide with jaywalking pedestrians than women who were not reminded of this stereotype. Experiment 2 also revealed that the magnitude of this effect was equivalent to that produced by a secondary task, suggesting that stereotype threat might diminish driving performance via a disruptive mental load.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 161 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 39%
Engineering 20 12%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 33 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 18 April 2020.
All research outputs
#916,890
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#158
of 4,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,520
of 84,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 84,450 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.