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 |
The Moral Importance of Reflective Empathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-017-9350-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ingmar Persson, Julian Savulescu |
| Abstract |
This is a reply to Jesse Prinz and Paul Bloom's skepticism about the moral importance of empathy. It concedes that empathy is spontaneously biased to individuals who are spatio-temporally close, as well as discriminatory in other ways, and incapable of accommodating large numbers of individuals. But it is argued that we could partly correct these shortcomings of empathy by a guidance of reason because empathy for others consists in imagining what they feel, and, importantly, such acts of imagination can be voluntary - and, thus, under the influence of reflection - as well as automatic. Since empathizing with others motivates concern for their welfare, a reflectively justified empathy will lead to a likewise justified altruistic concern. In addition, we argue that such concern supports another central moral attitude, namely a sense of justice or fairness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 8 | 28% |
| United States | 5 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Singapore | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 18% |
| Philosophy | 6 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 14 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,945,453
of 25,481,734 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#80
of 438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,589
of 444,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,481,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 444,865 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.