↓ Skip to main content

Scaling laws in emotion-associated words and corresponding network topology

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Scaling laws in emotion-associated words and corresponding network topology
Published in
Cognitive Processing, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10339-014-0643-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takuma Takehara, Fumio Ochiai, Naoto Suzuki

Abstract

We investigated whether scaling laws were present in the appearance-frequency distribution of emotion-associated words and determined whether the network constructed from those words had small-world or scale-free properties. Over 1,400 participants were asked to write down the first single noun that came to mind in response to nine emotional cue words, resulting in a total of 12,556 responses. We identified Zipf's law in the distribution of the data, as the slopes of the regression lines reached approximately -1.0 in the appearance frequencies for each emotional cue word. This suggested that the emotion-associated words had a clear regularity, were not randomly generated, were scale-invariant, and were influenced by unification/diversification forces. Thus, we predicted that the emotional intensity of the words might play an important role for a Zipf's law. Moreover, we also found that the 1-mode network of emotion-associated words clearly had small-world properties in terms of the network topologies of clustering, average distance, and small-worldness value, indicating that all nodes (words) were highly interconnected with each other and were only a few short steps apart. Furthermore, the data suggested the possibility of a scale-free property. Interestingly, we were able to identify hub words with neutral emotional content, such as 'dog', 'woman', and 'face', indicating that these neutral words might be an intermediary between words with conflicting emotional valence. Additionally, efficiency and optimal navigation in terms of complex networks were discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 21%
Mathematics 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,735,364
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#228
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,069
of 231,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 231,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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.