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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Scope Insensitivity in Helping Decisions: Is It a Matter of Culture and Values?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1037/a0039708 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tehila Kogut, Paul Slovic, Daniel Västfjäll |
| Abstract |
The singularity effect of identifiable victims refers to people's greater willingness to help a single concrete victim compared with a group of victims experiencing the same need. We present 3 studies exploring values and cultural sources of this effect. In the first study, the singularity effect was found only among Western Israelis and not among Bedouin participants (a more collectivist group). In Study 2, individuals with higher collectivist values were more likely to contribute to a group of victims. Finally, the third study demonstrates a more causal relationship between collectivist values and the singularity effect by showing that enhancing people's collectivist values using a priming manipulation produces similar donations to single victims and groups. Moreover, participants' collectivist preferences mediated the interaction between the priming conditions and singularity of the recipient. Implications for several areas of psychology and ways to enhance caring for groups in need are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 47% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,186,861
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
#314
of 2,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,536
of 397,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
#4
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. 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 397,414 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.