| Title |
Media Portrayal of a Landmark Neuroscience Experiment on Free Will
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9845-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric Racine, Valentin Nguyen, Victoria Saigle, Veljko Dubljevic |
| Abstract |
The concept of free will has been heavily debated in philosophy and the social sciences. Its alleged importance lies in its association with phenomena fundamental to our understandings of self, such as autonomy, freedom, self-control, agency, and moral responsibility. Consequently, when neuroscience research is interpreted as challenging or even invalidating this concept, a number of heated social and ethical debates surface. We undertook a content analysis of media coverage of Libet's et al.'s (Brain 106(Pt 3):623-642, 1983) landmark study, which is frequently interpreted as posing a serious challenge to the existence of free will. Media descriptions of Libet et al.'s experiment provided limited details about the original study. Overall, many media articles reported that Libet et al.'s experiments undermined the existence of free will, despite acknowledging that several methodological limitations had been identified in the literature. A propensity to attribute greater credibility than warranted to neurobiological explanations could be at stake. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 20% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Russia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,807,599
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#139
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,383
of 427,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 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 85% 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 427,299 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 32 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 90% of its contemporaries.