↓ Skip to main content

The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2016
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
73 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 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 Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0152798
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Steven J. Heine

Abstract

Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively. We report ten studies (N = 2328) that investigated morality judgments of scientists and compared those with judgments of various control groups, including atheists. A persistent intuitive association between scientists and disturbing immoral conduct emerged for violations of the binding moral foundations, particularly when this pertained to violations of purity. However, there was no association in the context of the individualizing moral foundations related to fairness and care. Other evidence found that scientists were perceived as similar to others in their concerns with the individualizing moral foundations of fairness and care, yet as departing for all of the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Furthermore, participants stereotyped scientists particularly as robot-like and lacking emotions, as well as valuing knowledge over morality and being potentially dangerous. The observed intuitive immorality associations are partially due to these explicit stereotypes but do not correlate with any perceived atheism. We conclude that scientists are perceived not as inherently immoral, but as capable of immoral conduct.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

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 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 30%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 25 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 161. 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 07 April 2024.
All research outputs
#274,270
of 26,725,470 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#3,905
of 233,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,642
of 315,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#118
of 5,340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,725,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 233,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 315,786 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 5,340 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 97% of its contemporaries.