↓ Skip to main content

Trypophobia is predicted by disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Trypophobia is predicted by disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3149-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shu Imaizumi, Manami Furuno, Haruo Hibino, Shinichi Koyama

Abstract

Trypophobia refers to disgust for a cluster of objects, and is considered an extension of disgust for dangerous objects. Furthermore, trypophobic images possess certain spatial properties that can induce perceptually unpleasant states (i.e., visual discomfort). We examined whether trypophobia is associated with disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort. Japanese adults (n = 126) completed four scales: the Trypophobia Questionnaire, which measures trypophobia proneness; the Disgust Scale-Revised, which measures disgust sensitivity; the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, which measures empathic traits; and the Visual Discomfort Scale, which measures proneness to visual discomfort. Trypophobia proneness was found to be predicted by Core disgust sensitivity (i.e., threat of disease), Personal Distress (i.e., the empathic trait of self-oriented emotional distress), and proneness to visual discomfort. We suggest a number of potential factors relating to individual differences in trypophobia and the possible cognitive and perceptual mechanisms underlying trypophobia.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 33%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,716,283
of 24,690,130 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#81
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,413
of 344,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#15
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,690,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 344,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.