↓ Skip to main content

Equity, Equal Shares or Equal Final Outcomes? Group Goal Guides Allocations of Public Goods

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Equity, Equal Shares or Equal Final Outcomes? Group Goal Guides Allocations of Public Goods
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Kazemi, Daniel Eek, Tommy Gärling

Abstract

In an experiment we investigate preferences for allocation of a public good among group members who contributed unequally in providing the public good. Inducing the group goal of productivity resulted in preferences for equitable allocations, whereas inducing the group goals of harmony and social concern resulted in preferences for equal final outcomes. The study makes a contribution by simultaneously treating provision and allocation of a public good, thus viewing these as related processes. Another contribution is that a new paradigm is introduced that bears closer resemblance to real life public good dilemmas than previous research paradigms do.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 40%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 33%
Social Sciences 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,712,631
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,607
of 35,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,268
of 428,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#297
of 434 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 428,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 434 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.