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 |
Regional Brain Changes Occurring during Disobedience to “Experts” in Financial Decision-Making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0087321 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria Y. M. Suen, Matthew R. G. Brown, Randall K. Morck, Peter H. Silverstone |
| Abstract |
It is well recognized that individuals follow "Expert" advice, even when flawed and offers no advantage, and sometimes leads to disadvantages. The neurobiology underlying this is uncertain, and in particular there is an incomplete understanding of which brain regions are most involved when individuals chose to disobey an expert. To study this we examined functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) differences during an investment game where subjects received differentially credible investment advice. Participants (n = 42; 32 males) played an investment game, in which they could Buy or Not Buy a sequence of stocks. The better they did, the more money they made. Participants received either "Expert" advice or "Peer" advice. Those receiving Expert advice were told the advice came from a certified financial "Expert". Those receiving Peer Advice were told the advice was that of the student administering the scans, who deliberately dressed and acted casually. Both streams of advice were predetermined and identical. The advice was scripted to be helpful initially, but progressively worse as the task continued, becoming 100% wrong by the end of the task. Subjects receiving Expert Advice followed the advice significantly longer on average, even though this was progressively worse advice. Thus, following Expert advice had poorer consequences for individuals, but this did not dissuade them from continuing to follow the advice. In contrast, when subjects disobeyed Expert advice they exhibited significant anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and superior frontal gyrus activation relative to those disobeying Peer advice. These findings may suggest that in subjects who defy authority, or believe they are doing so (in this case by disobeying an "Expert") there is increased activation of these two brain regions. This may have relevance to several areas of behavior, and the potential role of these two brain regions in regard to disobedience behavior requires further study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 January 2014.
All research outputs
#4,457,199
of 24,172,513 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#70,028
of 207,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,554
of 315,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,366
of 5,582 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,172,513 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,800 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 315,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,582 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.