↓ Skip to main content

Opening the Implicit Leadership Theories’ Black Box: An Experimental Approach with Conjoint Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Opening the Implicit Leadership Theories’ Black Box: An Experimental Approach with Conjoint Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo M Tavares, Filipe Sobral, Rafael Goldszmidt, Felipe Araújo

Abstract

Although research on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) has concentrated on determining which attributes define a leadership prototype, little attention has been paid to testing the relative importance of each of these attributes for individuals' leadership perceptions. Building on socio-cognitive theories of impression processes, we experimentally explore the formation of leadership perceptions based on the recognition of six key attributes in a series of three experimental studies comprising 566 US-based participants recruited online via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our results show that while certain attributes play an important role in the leader categorization process, others are less relevant. We also demonstrate that some attributes' importance is contingent on the presence of other attributes and on the leadership schema type activated in respondents' minds. Consistent with the Leadership Categorization Theory, our findings support the premise that individuals cognitively hold a superordinate leadership prototype, which imposes constraints on their more basic level prototypes. We discuss the implications of these results for leadership theory and practice.

X Demographics

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 34 34%
Psychology 14 14%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 28%
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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,373,275
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,265
of 30,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,462
of 437,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#336
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 437,833 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 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.