The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 |
Follower-Centered Perspective on Feedback: Effects of Feedback Seeking on Identification and Feedback Environment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01492 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhenxing Gong, Miaomiao Li, Yaoyuan Qi, Na Zhang |
| Abstract |
In the formation mechanism of the feedback environment, the existing research pays attention to external feedback sources and regards individuals as objects passively accepting feedback. Thus, the external source fails to realize the individuals' need for feedback, and the feedback environment cannot provide them with useful information, leading to a feedback vacuum. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of feedback-seeking by different strategies on the supervisor-feedback environment through supervisor identification. The article consists of an empirical study with a sample of 264 employees in China; here, participants complete a series of questionnaires in three waves. After controlling for the effects of demography, the results indicate that supervisor identification partially mediates the relationship between feedback-seeking (including feedback monitoring and feedback inquiry) and the supervisor-feedback environment. Implications are also discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,116,313
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,936
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,870
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#191
of 596 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 316,305 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 596 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.