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 |
Bridging Social Circles: Need for Cognition, Prejudicial Judgments, and Personal Social Network Characteristics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01251 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Petru L. Curşeu, Jeroen P. de Jong |
| Abstract |
Various factors pertaining to the social context (availability of plausible social contacts) as well as personality traits influence the emergence of social ties that ultimately compose one's personal social network. We build on a situational selection model to argue that personality traits influence the cognitive processing of social cues that in turn influences the preference for particular social ties. More specifically, we use a cross-lagged design to test a mediation model explaining the effects of need for cognition (NFC) on egocentric network characteristics. We used the data available in the LISS panel, in which a probabilistic sample of Dutch participants were asked to fill in surveys annually. We tested our model on data collected in three successive years and our results show that people scoring high in NFC tend to revolve in information-rich egocentric networks, characterized by high demographic diversity, high interpersonal dissimilarity, and high average education. The results also show that the effect of NFC on social network characteristics is mediated by non-prejudicial judgments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,888,695
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,198
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,343
of 322,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#431
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 322,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.