↓ Skip to main content

Thinking you can catch mental illness: How beliefs about membership attainment and category structure influence interactions with mental health category members

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 1,571)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
15 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Thinking you can catch mental illness: How beliefs about membership attainment and category structure influence interactions with mental health category members
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13421-014-0427-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessecae K. Marsh, Lindzi L. Shanks

Abstract

We explored beliefs about mental disorder categories that influence potential interactions with category members. Specifically, we investigated beliefs related to how membership in a mental disorder category is obtained (communicability and causal origin) as well as beliefs related to the underlying reality of disorder categories (essentialism and controllability). In Experiment 1, participants' interaction-willingness decisions were predicted by their beliefs that a mental disorder category was (1) communicable, (2) psychologically caused, (3) environmentally caused, and (4) possessed all-or-none membership. With fictitious mental disorders, people were less willing to interact with people described as having a communicable mental disorder than with those described as possessing any of the other factors of interest, highlighting the independent influence of these contagion beliefs (Experiment 2). We further explored beliefs about the communicability of mental disorders in Experiment 3 by asking participants to generate descriptions of how mental disorders are transferred between people. Our findings suggest the importance of understanding contagion beliefs in discovering why people distance themselves from people diagnosed with mental disorders. More generally, our findings help in understanding how our basic category knowledge is used to guide interactions with category members, illustrating how knowledge is translated into action.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 43%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 20 January 2021.
All research outputs
#506,764
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#41
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,054
of 228,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 228,814 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.