↓ Skip to main content

First Is Best

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2012
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
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
42 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
First Is Best
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana R. Carney, Mahzarin R. Banaji

Abstract

We experience the world serially rather than simultaneously. A century of research on human and nonhuman animals has suggested that the first experience in a series of two or more is cognitively privileged. We report three experiments designed to test the effect of first position on implicit preference and choice using targets that range from individual humans and social groups to consumer goods. Experiment 1 demonstrated an implicit preference to buy goods from the first salesperson encountered and to join teams encountered first, even when the difference in encounter is mere seconds. In Experiment 2 the first of two consumer items presented in quick succession was more likely to be chosen. In Experiment 3 an alternative hypothesis that first position merely accentuates the valence of options was ruled out by demonstrating that first position enhances preference for the first even when it is evaluatively negative in meaning (a criminal). Together, these experiments demonstrate a "first is best" effect and we offer possible interpretations based on evolutionary mechanisms of this "bound" on rational behavior and suggest that automaticity of judgment may be a helpful principle in clarifying previous inconsistencies in the empirical record on the effects of order on preference and choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 119 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 13 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 36%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 8%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 15 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 04 August 2021.
All research outputs
#627,897
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,474
of 224,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,023
of 178,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#117
of 3,997 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 178,151 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 3,997 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.