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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Monetary Incentives in Speeded Perceptual Decision: Effects of Penalizing Errors Versus Slow Responses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00248 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Dambacher, Ronald Hübner, Jan Schlösser |
| Abstract |
The influence of monetary incentives on performance has been widely investigated among various disciplines. While the results reveal positive incentive effects only under specific conditions, the exact nature, and the contribution of mediating factors are largely unexplored. The present study examined influences of payoff schemes as one of these factors. In particular, we manipulated penalties for errors and slow responses in a speeded categorization task. The data show improved performance for monetary over symbolic incentives when (a) penalties are higher for slow responses than for errors, and (b) neither slow responses nor errors are punished. Conversely, payoff schemes with stronger punishment for errors than for slow responses resulted in worse performance under monetary incentives. The findings suggest that an emphasis of speed is favorable for positive influences of monetary incentives, whereas an emphasis of accuracy under time pressure has the opposite effect. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 68 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 28% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 33 | 45% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
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 08 November 2011.
All research outputs
#2,203,947
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,279
of 29,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,037
of 180,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#52
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 180,535 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 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.