↓ Skip to main content

Effects of laughter and relaxation on discomfort thresholds

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, April 1987
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Effects of laughter and relaxation on discomfort thresholds
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, April 1987
DOI 10.1007/bf00846422
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary Cogan, Dennis Cogan, William Waltz, Melissa McCue

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to test the proposal that laughter is a pain antagonist. In Experiment I, thresholds for pressure-induced discomfort of 20 male and 20 female subjects were measured after each subject listened to a 20-min-long laughter-inducing, relaxation-inducing, or dull-narrative audio tape or no tape. Discomfort thresholds were higher for subjects in the laughter- and the relaxation-inducing conditions. In Experiment II, 40 female subjects were matched for pressure-induced discomfort thresholds. Their discomfort thresholds were measured after they listened to a laughter-inducing, interesting narrative, or uninteresting narrative audio tape, completed a multiplication task, or experienced no intervention. Discomfort thresholds increased for subjects in the laughter-inducing condition. Laughter, and not simply distraction, reduces discomfort sensitivity, suggesting that laughter has potential as an intervention strategy for the reduction of clinical discomfort.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 65 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 14 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,526,759
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#130
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158
of 12,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 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 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 12,098 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 98% of its contemporaries.
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 all of them