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 |
Introducing Upfront Money Can Decrease Discounting in Intertemporal Choices with Losses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01256 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheng-Ming Jiang, Hong-Yue Sun, Sheng-Hua Zheng, Liang-Jun Wang, Yu Qin |
| Abstract |
People generally tend to advance gains and postpone losses in intertemporal choice. Jiang et al. (2014) recently showed that adding upfront losses or gains to both smaller and sooner (SS) and larger and later (LL) rewards can decrease people's discounting. To account for this decrease, they proposed the salience hypothesis, which states that introducing upfront losses or gains makes the money dimension more salient than not, thus increasing people's preference for LL rewards. Considering that decreasing the discounting of delayed losses is imperative and that most previous studies have focused on intertemporal choices with gains, in the current paper we conducted two experiments and used hypothetical money outcomes to examine whether the effect of upfront money could be extended to intertemporal choices with losses. The results showed that when both SS and LL intertemporal losses were combined with an upfront loss or gain, people's discounting rate decreased and the preference for the SS option increased. This finding further supports the salience account. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 38% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 44% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,227
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,234
of 343,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#353
of 394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 343,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.