↓ Skip to main content

Influence in Times of Crisis

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Influence in Times of Crisis
Published in
Psychological Science, October 2012
DOI 10.1177/0956797612453115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Floor Rink, Michelle K. Ryan, Janka I. Stoker

Abstract

In two scenario-based studies, we found that women and men evaluate glass-cliff positions (i.e., precarious leadership positions at organizations in crisis) differently depending on the social and financial resources available. Female and male participants evaluated a hypothetical leadership position in which they would have both social and financial resources, financial resources but no social resources, or social resources but no financial resources. Women evaluated the position without social resources most negatively, whereas men evaluated the position without financial resources most negatively. In study 2, we found that women and men considered different issues when evaluating these leadership positions. Women's evaluations and expected levels of influence as leaders depended on the degree to which they expected to be accepted by subordinates. In contrast, men's evaluations and expected levels of acceptance by subordinates depended on the degree to which they expected to be influential in the position. Our findings have implications for the understanding of the glass-cliff phenomenon and gendered leadership stereotypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 100 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 50%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 18%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,799,055
of 21,732,065 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#2,309
of 4,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,858
of 175,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#50
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,732,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 175,314 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.