You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adolescents' beliefs about the fairness of exclusion of peers with mental health problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Adolescence, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire O'Driscoll, Caroline Heary, Eilis Hennessy, Lynn McKeague |
| Abstract |
Stigma research suggests that exclusion of peers with mental health problems is acceptable, however, no research has explored young people's beliefs about the fairness of exclusion. Group interviews with 148 adolescents explored judgements about the fairness of excluding peers with ADHD or depression from dyads and groups. Young people evaluated exclusion of peers with ADHD or depression from dyads and groups, with the exception of group exclusion of the peer with ADHD, as mostly unfair. Beliefs about the fairness of exclusion were influenced by the attributions that they applied to the target peer's behaviour, social obligations and loyalty within friendships and concerns about the adverse psychological effects of exclusion. Furthermore, their evaluations were influenced by personal beliefs about the social and personal costs of including the target peer. Evaluations of exclusion highlight novel avenues for to develop knowledge on the stigma of mental health problems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 35 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 28 | 28% |
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 07 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,330,127
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Adolescence
#1,055
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,753
of 265,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Adolescence
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 265,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.