↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive appraisal biases: An approach to understanding the relation between socioeconomic status and cardiovascular reactivity in children

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, May 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive appraisal biases: An approach to understanding the relation between socioeconomic status and cardiovascular reactivity in children
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, May 2001
DOI 10.1207/s15324796abm2302_4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edith Chen, Karen A. Matthews

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that lower socioeconomic status (SES) children display heightened cardiovascular reactivity during stressful situations because they are more likely to appraise a wide variety of social situations, including ambiguous ones, as threatening. A sample of 201 children and adolescents, half White and half African American, were assessed initially. Ninety of these children were retested an average of 3 years later. At both time points, children were interviewed about appraisals of hostile intent and feelings of anger in response to scenarios with negative or ambiguous outcomes. Cardiovascular reactivity to 3 laboratory stress tasks was measured. Initially, lower SES was associated with greater hostile intent appraisal and anger during ambiguous scenarios across all participants. In addition, responses to ambiguous scenalios partially mediated the relation between SES and vascular reactivity. Longitudinally, low SES African American participants showed higher mean intensity of hostile intent appraisals during ambiguous scenarios, and these appraisals mediated the SES-reactivity relationship. These findings suggest that the way in which children appraise ambiguous social situations plays an important role in the relation between SES and cardiovascular reactivity.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 24%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 7 7%
Professor 7 7%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 49%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 24 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 January 2013.
All research outputs
#7,494,138
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#689
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,179
of 40,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 40,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.