The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 |
Fairness and Smiling Mediate the Effects of Openness on Perceived Fairness: Beside Perceived Intention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00772 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhifang He, Jianping Liu, Zhiming Rao, Lili Wan |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have shown that smiling, fairness, intention, and the results being openness to the proposer can influence the responses in ultimatum games, respectively. But it is not clear that how the four factors might interact with each other in twos or in threes or in fours. This study examined the way that how the four factors work in resource distribution games by testing the differences between average rejection rates in different treatments. Two hundred and twenty healthy volunteers participated in an intentional version of the ultimatum game (UG). The experiment used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design with "openness" as a between subjects factor and the other three as within subjects factors, and the participants were assigned as recipients. The results revealed that fairness or perceived good intention reduced the subject's average rejection rates. There was a significant interaction between facial expressions and openness. With fair offers, the average rejection rate for informed was lower than that of uninformed; but when unfair, no difference between the corresponding average rejection rates was found. The interaction effect of smiling and openness was also significant, the average rejection rate for informed offers was lower when the proposer was smiling and no rejection rate difference between uninformed offers and informed offers when no smiling. No other interaction effect was found. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 31% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 3 | 19% |
| Psychology | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
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 09 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,646,707
of 25,652,464 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,503
of 34,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,479
of 344,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#347
of 658 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,652,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 344,753 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 658 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.