↓ Skip to main content

A Multimodal Theory of Affect Diffusion

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Bulletin, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Multimodal Theory of Affect Diffusion
Published in
Psychological Bulletin, September 2015
DOI 10.1037/bul0000020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Peters, Yoshihisa Kashima

Abstract

There is broad consensus in the literature that affect diffuses through social networks (such that a person may "acquire" or "catch" an affective state from his or her social contacts). It is further assumed that affect diffusion primarily occurs as the result of people's tendencies to synchronize their affective actions (such as smiles and frowns). However, as we show, there is a lack of clarity in the literature about the substrate and scope of affect diffusion. One consequence of this is a difficulty in distinguishing between affect diffusion and several other affective influence phenomena that look similar but have very different consequences. There is also a growing body of evidence that action synchrony is unlikely to be the only, or indeed the most important, pathway for affect diffusion. This paper has 2 key aims: (a) to craft a formal definition of affect diffusion that does justice to the core of the phenomenon while distinguishing it from other phenomena with which it is frequently confounded and (b) to advance a theory of the mechanisms of affect diffusion. This theory, which we call the multimodal theory of affect diffusion, identifies 3 parallel multimodal mechanisms that may act as routes for affect diffusion. It also provides a basis for novel predictions about the conditions under which affect is most likely to diffuse. (PsycINFO Database Record

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 128 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 26%
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Professor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 64 47%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 11%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 25 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,517,312
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Bulletin
#1,951
of 2,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,725
of 276,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Bulletin
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 276,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.