↓ Skip to main content

The effect of social categorization on trust decisions in a trust game paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
70 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 effect of social categorization on trust decisions in a trust game paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Cañadas, Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón, Juan Lupiáñez

Abstract

This study investigates whether participants use categorical or individual knowledge about others in order to make cooperative decisions in an adaptation of the trust game paradigm. Concretely, participants had to choose whether to cooperate or not with black and white unknown partners as a function of expected partners' reciprocity rates. Reciprocity rates were manipulated by associating three out of four members of an ethnic group (blacks or whites consistent members) with high (or low) reciprocity rates, while the remaining member of the ethnic group is associated with the reciprocity of the other ethnic group (inconsistent member). Results show opposite performance's patterns for white and black partners. Participants seemed to categorize white partners, by making the same cooperation decision with all the partners, that is, they cooperated equally with consistent and inconsistent white partners. However, this effect was not found for black partners, suggesting a tendency to individuate them. Results are discussed in light of the implications of these categorization-individuation processes for intergroup relations and cooperative economic behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Iceland 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,170
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,678
of 279,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#420
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.