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 |
How to Set Focal Categories for Brief Implicit Association Test? “Good” Is Good, “Bad” Is Not So Good
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00038 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuanyuan Shi, Huajian Cai, Yiqin Alicia Shen, Jing Yang |
| Abstract |
Three studies were conducted to examine the validity of the four versions of BIATs that are supposed to measure the same construct but differ in shared focal category. Study 1 investigated the criterion validity of four BIATs measuring attitudes toward flower versus insect. Study 2 examined the experimental sensitivity of four BIATs by considering attitudes toward induced ingroup versus outgroup. Study 3 examined the predictive power of the four BIATs by investigating attitudes toward the commercial beverages Coke versus Sprite. The findings suggested that for the two attributes "good" and "bad," "good" rather than "bad" proved to be good as a shared focal category; for two targets, so long as they clearly differed in goodness or valence, the "good" rather than "bad" target emerged as good for a shared focal category. Beyond this case, either target worked well. These findings may facilitate the understanding of the BIAT and its future applications. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 28% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,642,559
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,483
of 29,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,836
of 397,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#162
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,839 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 397,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.