↓ Skip to main content

Situational Strength Cues from Social Sources at Work: Relative Importance and Mediated Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Situational Strength Cues from Social Sources at Work: Relative Importance and Mediated Effects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Balca Alaybek, Reeshad S. Dalal, Zitong Sheng, Alexander G. Morris, Alan J. Tomassetti, Samantha J. Holland

Abstract

Situational strength is considered one of the most important situational forces at work because it can attenuate the personality-performance relationship. Although organizational scholars have studied the consequences of situational strength, they have paid little attention to its antecedents. To address this gap, the current study focused on situational strength cues from different social sources as antecedents of overall situational strength at work. Specifically, we examined how employees combine situational strength cues emanating from three social sources (i.e., coworkers, the immediate supervisor, and top management). Based on field theory, we hypothesized that the effect of situational strength from coworkers and immediate supervisors (i.e., proximal sources of situational strength) on employees' perceptions of overall situational strength on the job would be greater than the effect of situational strength from the top management (i.e., the distal source of situational strength). We also hypothesized that the effect of situational strength from the distal source would be mediated by the effects of situational strength from the proximal sources. Data from 363 full-time employees were collected at two time points with a cross-lagged panel design. The former hypothesis was supported for one of the two situational strength facets studied. The latter hypothesis was fully supported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 6 20%
Psychology 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2021.
All research outputs
#14,079,280
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,296
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,800
of 315,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#387
of 602 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 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 50% 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 315,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 602 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.