↓ Skip to main content

The hierarchical face: Higher rankings lead to less cooperative looks.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Psychology, January 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
The hierarchical face: Higher rankings lead to less cooperative looks.
Published in
Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.1037/a0026308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Chen, Christopher G. Myers, Shirli Kopelman, Stephen M. Garcia

Abstract

In 3 studies, we tested the hypothesis that the higher ranked an individual's group is, the less cooperative the facial expression of that person is judged to be. Study 1 established this effect among business school deans, with observers rating individuals from higher ranked schools as appearing less cooperative, despite lacking prior knowledge of the latters' actual rankings. Study 2 then experimentally manipulated ranking, showing that the effect of rankings on facial expressions is driven by context rather than by individual differences per se. Finally, Study 3 demonstrated that the repercussions of this effect extend beyond the perception of cooperativeness to tangible behavioral outcomes in social interactions. Theoretical and practical implications of this phenomenon are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 6%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Mexico 1 2%
France 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 54 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 35%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Unspecified 6 9%
Other 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 45%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 29%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Unspecified 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#966,085
of 12,343,316 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Psychology
#263
of 2,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,717
of 115,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Psychology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,343,316 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 2,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 115,420 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.