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 |
Binding lies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01566 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Avraham Merzel, Ilana Ritov, Yaakov Kareev, Judith Avrahami |
| Abstract |
Do we feel bound by our own misrepresentations? Does one act of cheating compel the cheater to make subsequent choices that maintain the false image even at a cost? To answer these questions we employed a two-task paradigm such that in the first task the participants could benefit from false reporting of private observations whereas in the second they could benefit from making a prediction in line with their actual, rather than their previously reported observations. Thus, for those participants who inflated their report during the first task, sticking with that report for the second task was likely to lead to a loss, whereas deviating from it would imply that they had lied. Data from three experiments (total N = 116) indicate that, having lied, participants were ready to suffer future loss rather than admit, even if implicitly, that they had lied. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 38% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 8% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,373,453
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,988
of 29,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,006
of 279,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#261
of 537 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 279,408 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 537 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.