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 |
Pain judgements of patients’ relatives: examining the use of social contract theory as theoretical framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, May 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-008-9157-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judith Kappesser, Amanda C. de C. Williams |
| Abstract |
Observer underestimation of others' pain was studied using a concept from evolutionary psychology: a cheater detection mechanism from social contract theory, applied to relatives and friends of chronic pain patients. 127 participants estimated characters' pain intensity and fairness of behaviour after reading four vignettes describing characters suffering from pain. Four cues were systematically varied: the character continuing or stopping liked tasks; continuing or stopping disliked tasks; availability of medical evidence; and pain intensity as rated by characters. Results revealed that pain intensity and the two behavioural variables had an effect on pain estimates: high pain self-reports and stopping all tasks led to high pain estimates; pain was estimated to be lowest when characters stopped disliked but continued with liked tasks. This combination was also rated least fair. Results support the use of social contract theory as a theoretical framework to explore pain judgements. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 3 | 43% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,671,033
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#199
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,549
of 98,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 98,415 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.