↓ Skip to main content

Proximity under Threat: The Role of Physical Distance in Intergroup Relations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2016
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
62 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Proximity under Threat: The Role of Physical Distance in Intergroup Relations
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0159792
Pubmed ID
Authors

Y. Jenny Xiao, Michael J. A. Wohl, Jay J. Van Bavel

Abstract

Throughout human history, social groups have invested immense amounts of wealth and time to keep threatening out-groups at a distance. In the current research, we explored the relationship between intergroup threat, physical distance, and discrimination. Specifically, we examined how intergroup threat alters estimates of physical distance to out-groups and how physical proximity affects intergroup relations. Previous research has found that people judge threatening out-groups as physically close. In Studies 1 and 2, we examined ways to attenuate this bias. In Study 1 a secure (vs. permeable) US-Mexico border reduced the estimated proximity to Mexico City among Americans who felt threatened by Mexican immigration. In Study 2, intergroup apologies reduced estimates of physical proximity to a threatening cross-town rival university, but only among participants with cross-group friendships. In Study 3, New York Yankees fans who received an experimental induction of physical proximity to a threatening out-group (Boston Red Sox) had a stronger relationship between their collective identification with the New York Yankees and support for discriminatory policies toward members of the out-group (Red Sox fans) as well as how far they chose to sit from out-group members (Red Sox fans). Together, these studies suggest that intergroup threat alters judgment of physical properties, which has important implications for intergroup relations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 27%
Student > Bachelor 12 22%
Student > Master 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 47%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 31 January 2022.
All research outputs
#792,320
of 25,901,238 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,433
of 225,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,339
of 382,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#199
of 4,379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,901,238 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 225,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 382,250 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 4,379 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 95% of its contemporaries.