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 |
The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01075 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Zoë Chance, Francesca Gino, Michael I. Norton, Dan Ariely |
Abstract |
People demonstrate an impressive ability to self-deceive, distorting misbehavior to reflect positively on themselves-for example, by cheating on a test and believing that their inflated performance reflects their true ability. But what happens to self-deception when self-deceivers must face reality, such as when taking another test on which they cannot cheat? We find that self-deception diminishes over time only when self-deceivers are repeatedly confronted with evidence of their true ability (Study 1); this learning, however, fails to make them less susceptible to future self-deception (Study 2). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
United States | 1 | 20% |
Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
Australia | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 100 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 21% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 13% |
Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
Researcher | 11 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
Other | 19 | 18% |
Unknown | 17 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 33 | 32% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 13 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 9% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Other | 13 | 13% |
Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 19 December 2020.
All research outputs
#863,724
of 24,837,507 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,804
of 33,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,339
of 271,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#36
of 561 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,837,507 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 271,775 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 561 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 93% of its contemporaries.