| Title |
Is waiting bad for subjective health?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-016-9729-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer L. Howell, Kate Sweeny |
| Abstract |
The present study examined the possibility that waiting is bad for one's subjective health. Specifically, we examined longitudinal trends in the self-reported health, self-reported sleep disruption, distress, and emotion regulation strategies of law school graduates waiting for their bar exam results. Multilevel analyses suggest that waiting was particularly detrimental to participants' self-reported health and sleep disruption at the beginning and end of the waiting period. Moreover, distress and most emotion regulation efforts were associated with poorer subjective health on average, and personal increases in distress and emotion regulation were largely associated with personal increases in poor self-reported health and sleep disruption. Our results suggest that waiting periods can take a toll on subjective health and that individual and temporal variations in distress and emotion regulation efforts are associated with these health trajectories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 37% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,118,226
of 25,211,948 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#266
of 1,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,440
of 306,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,211,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 306,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.