↓ Skip to main content

The David and Goliath Principle

Overview of attention for article published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
The David and Goliath Principle
Published in
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, April 2012
DOI 10.1177/0146167212444454
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla H. Jeffries, Matthew J. Hornsey, Robbie M. Sutton, Karen M. Douglas, Paul G. Bain

Abstract

Two studies documented the "David and Goliath" rule--the tendency for people to perceive criticism of "David" groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of "Goliath" groups (groups with high power and status). The authors confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across Western and Chinese cultures (Study 1). However, the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 57%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,378,944
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
#1,768
of 2,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,246
of 163,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.