↓ Skip to main content

The social-devaluation effect: interactive evaluation deteriorates likeability of objects based on daily relationship

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
The social-devaluation effect: interactive evaluation deteriorates likeability of objects based on daily relationship
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01558
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atsunori Ariga

Abstract

Although previous research has explored the effects of discussion on optimal and collective group outcomes, it is unclear how an individual's preference for an object is modulated by discussion with others. This study investigated the determinants of likeability ratings under two conditions. In Experiment 1, pairs of participants consisting of friends evaluated various photographic images. Under the interactive condition, the participants discussed their impressions of each image for 30 s and then independently rated how much they liked it. Under the non-interactive condition, the participants did not interact with each other but instead only thought about their impressions of each image for 30 s before rating its likeability. The results indicate that the exchange of impressions between the participants affected the individual likeability ratings of objects. More specifically, the interactive participants generally rated the images as less likeable than did the non-interactive participants (social-devaluation effect). However, in Experiment 2, the effect was eliminated when the pairs consisted of strangers. These findings suggest that shared information modulates individual preferences but only when a daily relationship exists within a group.

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 5 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 1 25%
Neuroscience 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,715,757
of 24,072,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,561
of 32,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,592
of 359,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#234
of 390 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,072,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 359,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 390 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.