↓ Skip to main content

Social contagion of ethnic hostility

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
38 tweeters
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Social contagion of ethnic hostility
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2018
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1720317115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michal Bauer, Jana Cahlíková, Julie Chytilová, Tomáš Želinský

Abstract

Interethnic conflicts often escalate rapidly. Why does the behavior of masses easily change from cooperation to aggression? This paper provides an experimental test of whether ethnic hostility is contagious. Using incentivized tasks, we measured willingness to sacrifice one's own resources to harm others among adolescents from a region with a history of animosities toward the Roma people, the largest ethnic minority in Europe. To identify the influence of peers, subjects made choices after observing either destructive or peaceful behavior of peers in the same task. We found that susceptibility to follow destructive behavior more than doubled when harm was targeted against Roma rather than against coethnics. When peers were peaceful, subjects did not discriminate. We observed very similar patterns in a norms-elicitation experiment: destructive behavior toward Roma was not generally rated as more socially appropriate than when directed at coethnics, but the ratings were more sensitive to social contexts. The findings may illuminate why ethnic hostilities can spread quickly, even in societies with few visible signs of interethnic hatred.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 37%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 25%
Social Sciences 15 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 182. 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 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#115,497
of 17,120,105 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2,606
of 88,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,997
of 284,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#93
of 995 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,120,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 88,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 284,957 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 995 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 90% of its contemporaries.