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 |
Think Leader, Think White? Capturing and Weakening an Implicit Pro-White Leadership Bias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0083915 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seval Gündemir, Astrid C. Homan, Carsten K. W. de Dreu, Mark van Vugt |
| Abstract |
Across four studies, we found evidence for an implicit pro-White leadership bias that helps explain the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in leadership positions. Both White-majority and ethnic minority participants reacted significantly faster when ethnically White names and leadership roles (e.g., manager; Study 1) or leadership traits (e.g., decisiveness; Study 2 & 3) were paired in an Implicit Association Test (IAT) rather than when ethnic minority names and leadership traits were paired. Moreover, the implicit pro-White leadership bias showed discriminant validity with the conventional implicit bias measures (Study 3). Importantly, results showed that the pro-White leadership bias can be weakened when situational cues increase the salience of a dual identity (Study 4). This, in turn, can diminish the explicit pro-White bias in promotion related decision making processes (Study 4). This research offers a new tool to measure the implicit psychological processes underlying the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in leadership positions and proposes interventions to weaken such biases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 6 | 33% |
| Panama | 1 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 50% |
| Scientists | 6 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 5 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 40 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 63 | 32% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 36 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 10% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,237,624
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#15,988
of 209,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,965
of 314,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#467
of 5,342 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 209,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 314,792 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 5,342 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.