The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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.
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 |
Information asymmetry and deception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00109 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irma Clots-Figueras, Roberto Hernán-González, Praveen Kujal |
| Abstract |
Situations such as an entrepreneur overstating a project's value, or a superior choosing to under or overstate the gains from a project to a subordinate are common and may result in acts of deception. In this paper we modify the standard investment game in the economics literature to study the nature of deception. In this game a trustor (investor) can send a given amount of money to a trustee (or investee). The amount received is multiplied by a certain amount, k, and the investee then decides on how to divide the total amount received. In our modified game the information on the multiplier, k, is known only to the investee and she can send a non-binding message to the investor regarding its value. We find that 66% of the investees send false messages with both under and over, statement being observed. Investors are naive and almost half of them believe the message received. We find greater lying when the distribution of the multiplier is unknown by the investors than when they know the distribution. Further, messages make beliefs about the multiplier more pessimistic when the investors know the distribution of the multiplier, while the opposite is true when they do not know the distribution. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 29% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 23% |
| Psychology | 6 | 19% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,970,214
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#334
of 3,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,058
of 264,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#11
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 264,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.