The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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.
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 |
Influence of an Intermediate Option on the Description-Experience Gap and Information Search
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00364 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neha Sharma, Shoubhik Debnath, Varun Dutt |
| Abstract |
Research shows that people tend to overweight small probabilities in description and underweight them in experience, thereby leading to a different pattern of choices between description and experience; a phenomenon known as the Description-Experience (DE) gap. However, little is known on how the addition of an intermediate option and contextual framing influences the DE gap and people's search strategies. This paper tests the effects of an intermediate option and contextual framing on the DE gap and people's search strategies, where problems require search for information before a consequential choice. In the first experiment, 120 participants made choice decisions across investment problems that differed in the absence or presence of an intermediate option. Results showed that adding an intermediate option did not reduce the DE gap on the maximizing option across a majority of problems. There were a large majority of choices for the intermediate option. Furthermore, there was an increase in switching between options due to the presence of the intermediate option. In the second experiment, 160 participants made choice decisions in problems like those presented in experiment 1; however, problems lacked the investment framing. Results replicated findings from the first experiment and showed a similar DE gap on the maximizing option in a majority of problems in both the absence and presence of the intermediate option. Again, there were a large majority of choices for the intermediate option. Also, there was an increase in switching between options due to the presence of the intermediate option. Meta-analyses revealed that the absence or presence of the intermediate option created certain differences in the strength of frequency and recency processes. Also, a single natural-mean heuristic model was able to account for the experimental results across both experiments. We discuss implications of our findings to consequential decisions made after information search. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 27% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,273
of 30,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,223
of 329,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#383
of 565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 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 30,283 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 329,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.