↓ Skip to main content

Attracted to power: challenge/threat and promotion/prevention focus differentially predict the attractiveness of group power

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Attracted to power: challenge/threat and promotion/prevention focus differentially predict the attractiveness of group power
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annika Scholl, Claudia Sassenrath, Kai Sassenberg

Abstract

Depending on their motivation, individuals prefer different group contexts for social interactions. The present research sought to provide more insight into this relationship. More specifically, we tested how challenge/threat and a promotion/prevention focus predict attraction to groups with high- or low-power. As such, we examined differential outcomes of threat and prevention focus as well as challenge and promotion focus that have often been regarded as closely related. According to regulatory focus, individuals should prefer groups that they expect to "feel right" for them to join: Low-power groups should be more attractive in a prevention (than a promotion) focus, as these groups suggest security-oriented strategies, which fit a prevention focus. High-power groups should be more attractive in a promotion (rather than a prevention) focus, as these groups are associated with promotion strategies fitting a promotion focus (Sassenberg et al., 2007). In contrast, under threat (vs. challenge), groups that allow individuals to restore their (perceived) lack of control should be preferred: Low-power groups should be less attractive under threat (than challenge) because they provide low resources which threatened individuals already perceive as insufficient and high-power groups might be more attractive under threat (than under challenge), because their high resources allow individuals to restore control. Two experiments (N = 140) supported these predictions. The attractiveness of a group often depends on the motivation to engage in what fits (i.e., prefer a group that feels right in the light of one's regulatory focus). However, under threat the striving to restore control (i.e., prefer a group allowing them to change the status quo under threat vs. challenge) overrides the fit effect, which may in turn guide individuals' behavior in social interactions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 12%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 26%
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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#16,742,889
of 26,371,446 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,622
of 35,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,811
of 280,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#314
of 472 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,371,446 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 35,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. 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 280,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 472 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.