↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 113 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 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 20%
Student > Master 23 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 47%
Business, Management and Accounting 22 19%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 19 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,651,569
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science
#2,195
of 4,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,747
of 173,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science
#47
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 82.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 173,889 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.