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 |
Perception-Induced Effects of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR) for Stereotypical and Admired Firms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00970 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seraphim Voliotis, Pavlos A. Vlachos, Olga Epitropaki |
| Abstract |
How do stakeholders react to Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR)? What are the emotional mechanisms and behavioral outcomes following CSiR perception? The psychology of CSR literature has yet to address these important questions and has largely considered CSR and CSiR as the opposite poles of the same continuum. In contrast, we view CSR and CSiR as distinct constructs and theorize about the cognitive (perceptual), emotional, and behavioral effects of CSiR activity on observers (i.e., primary and secondary stakeholders) building on theories of intergroup perception. Specifically, building on the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) and the BIAS map (i.e., Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes; Cuddy et al., 2007)-which extends the SCM by predicting behavioral responses-we make predictions on potential stakeholder reactions to CSiR focusing on two practice-relevant cases: (a) a typical for-profit firm that engages in a CSiR activity, (b) an atypical admired firm that engages in CSiR activity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 39 | 53% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,441,344
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,458
of 29,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,787
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#168
of 391 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,973 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 68% 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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 391 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 57% of its contemporaries.