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 |
Can humans simulate talking like other humans? Comparing simulated clients to real customers in service inquiries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Discourse Studies, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445619887537 |
| Authors |
Elizabeth Stokoe, Rein Ove Sikveland, Saul Albert, Magnus Hamann, William Housley |
| Abstract |
How authentic are inquiry calls made by simulated clients, or ‘mystery shoppers’, to service organizations, when compared to real callers? We analysed 48 simulated and 63 real inquiry calls to different veterinary practices in the UK and Ireland. The data were transcribed for conversation analysis, as well as coded for a variety of call categories including reason for the call, call outcome, and turn design features. Analysis revealed systematic differences between real and simulated calls in terms of 1) reasons for the call, call outcome, and call duration, and 2) how callers refer to their pets in service requests and follow-up questions about their animal. Our qualitative analyses were supported with statistical summaries and tests. The findings reveal the limitations of mystery shopper methodology for the assessment of service provision. We also discuss the implications of the findings for the use of simulated encounters and the development of conversational agents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 12% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,662,844
of 25,203,135 outputs
Outputs from Discourse Studies
#26
of 279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,885
of 367,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Discourse Studies
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,203,135 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 367,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.