↓ Skip to main content

Extracting the Evaluations of Stereotypes: Bi-factor Model of the Stereotype Content Structure

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Extracting the Evaluations of Stereotypes: Bi-factor Model of the Stereotype Content Structure
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01692
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Sayans-Jiménez, Isabel Cuadrado, Antonio J. Rojas, Juan R. Barrada

Abstract

Stereotype dimensions-competence, morality and sociability-are fundamental to studying the perception of other groups. These dimensions have shown moderate/high positive correlations with each other that do not reflect the theoretical expectations. The explanation for this (e.g., halo effect) undervalues the utility of the shared variance identified. In contrast, in this work we propose that this common variance could represent the global evaluation of the perceived group. Bi-factor models are proposed to improve the internal structure and to take advantage of the information representing the shared variance among dimensions. Bi-factor models were compared with first order models and other alternative models in three large samples (300-309 participants). The relationships among the global and specific bi-factor dimensions with a global evaluation dimension (measured through a semantic differential) were estimated. The results support the use of bi-factor models rather than first order models (and other alternative models). Bi-factor models also show a greater utility to directly and more easily explore the stereotype content including its evaluative content.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Unspecified 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 44%
Unspecified 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,470
of 30,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,407
of 323,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#504
of 600 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,235 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 323,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 600 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.