↓ Skip to main content

Pulling Rank: Military Rank Affects Hormone Levels and Fairness in an Allocation Experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Pulling Rank: Military Rank Affects Hormone Levels and Fairness in an Allocation Experiment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Siart, Lena S. Pflüger, Bernard Wallner

Abstract

Status within social hierarchies has great effects on the lives of socially organized mammals. Its effects on human behavior and related physiology, however, is relatively little studied. The present study investigated the impact of military rank on fairness and behavior in relation to salivary cortisol (C) and testosterone (T) levels in male soldiers. For this purpose 180 members of the Austrian Armed Forces belonging to two distinct rank groups participated in two variations of a computer-based guard duty allocation experiment. The rank groups were (1) warrant officers (high rank, HR) and (2) enlisted men (low rank, LR). One soldier from each rank group participated in every experiment. At the beginning of the experiment, one participant was assigned to start standing guard and the other participant at rest. The participant who started at rest could choose if and when to relieve his fellow soldier and therefore had control over the experiment. In order to trigger perception of unfair behavior, an additional experiment was conducted which was manipulated by the experimenter. In the manipulated version both soldiers started in the standing guard position and were never relieved, believing that their opponent was at rest, not relieving them. Our aim was to test whether unfair behavior causes a physiological reaction. Saliva samples for hormone analysis were collected at regular intervals throughout the experiment. We found that in the un-manipulated setup high-ranking soldiers spent less time standing guard than lower ranking individuals. Rank was a significant predictor for C but not for T levels during the experiment. C levels in the HR group were higher than in the LR group. C levels were also elevated in the manipulated experiment compared to the un-manipulated experiment, especially in LR. We assume that the elevated C levels in HR were caused by HR feeling their status challenged by the situation of having to negotiate with an individual of lower military rank. This would be in line with the observation that unequally shared duty favored HR in most cases. We conclude that social status, in the form of military rank affects fairness behavior in social interaction and endocrine levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 20%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 October 2021.
All research outputs
#5,758,950
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,254
of 31,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,305
of 312,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#170
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 312,625 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 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 62% of its contemporaries.