↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of positive vicarious learning and verbal information for reducing vicariously learned fear

Overview of attention for article published in Cognition and Emotion, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Article details
Title
A comparison of positive vicarious learning and verbal information for reducing vicariously learned fear
Published in
Cognition and Emotion, October 2017
DOI 10.1080/02699931.2017.1389695
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Research with children has demonstrated that both positive vicarious learning (modelling) and positive verbal information can reduce children's acquired fear responses for a particular stimulus. However, this fear reduction appears to be more effective when the intervention pathway matches the initial fear learning pathway. That is, positive verbal information is a more effective intervention than positive modelling when fear is originally acquired via negative verbal information. Research has yet to explore whether fear reduction pathways are also important for fears acquired via vicarious learning. To test this, an experiment compared the effectiveness of positive verbal information and positive vicarious learning interventions for reducing vicariously acquired fears in children (7-9 years). Both vicarious and informational fear reduction interventions were found to be equally effective at reducing vicariously acquired fears, suggesting that acquisition and intervention pathways do not need to match for successful fear reduction. This has significant implications for parents and those working with children because it suggests that providing children with positive information or positive vicarious learning immediately after a negative modelling event may prevent more serious fears developing.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,688,404
of 28,832,041 outputs
Outputs from Cognition and Emotion
#653
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,631
of 344,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognition and Emotion
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,832,041 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 344,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.