↓ Skip to main content

Trust matters: a cross-cultural comparison of Northern Ghana and Oaxaca groups

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Trust matters: a cross-cultural comparison of Northern Ghana and Oaxaca groups
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00661
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Acedo-Carmona, Antoni Gomila

Abstract

A cross-cultural analysis of trust and cooperation networks in Northern Ghana (NGHA) and Oaxaca (OAX) was carried out by means of ego networks and interviews. These regions were chosen because both are inhabited by several ethnic groups, thus providing a good opportunity to test the cultural group selection hypothesis. Against the predictions of this approach, we found that in both regions cooperation is grounded in personal trust groups, and that social cohesion depends on these emotional bonds. Moreover, in agreement with Fiske's notion of "evolved proclivities," we also found two distinct kinds of trust networks, one for each region, which vary in terms of the degree of ethnic interrelation. This pattern suggests that social cohesion increases when environmental resources are scarce.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Student > Master 4 15%
Lecturer 3 11%
Librarian 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 15%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,435,123
of 23,508,125 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,768
of 31,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,314
of 267,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#104
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,508,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 267,952 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.