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 |
Reflection does not undermine self-interested prosociality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00300 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David G. Rand, Gordon T. Kraft-Todd |
| Abstract |
The cognitive basis of prosocial behavior has received considerable recent attention. Previous work using economic games has found that in social dilemmas, intuitive decisions are more prosocial on average. The Social Heuristics Hypothesis (SHH) explains this result by contending that strategies which are successful in daily life become automatized as intuitions. Deliberation then causes participants to adjust to the self-interested strategy in the specific setting at hand. Here we provide further evidence for the SHH by confirming several predictions regarding when and for whom time pressure/delay will and will not alter contributions in a Public Goods Game (PGG). First, we replicate and extend previous results showing that (as predicted by the SHH) trust of daily-life interaction partners and previous experience with economic games moderate the effect of time pressure/delay in social dilemmas. We then confirm a novel prediction of the SHH: that deliberation should not undermine the decision to benefit others when doing so is also individually payoff-maximizing. Our results lend further support to the SHH, and shed light on the role that deliberation plays in social dilemmas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 States | 4 | 31% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 8% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Scientists | 5 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 12% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 62 | 40% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 15 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 28 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,822,220
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#299
of 3,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,336
of 237,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#9
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 237,864 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.