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, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 1991
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf00489606 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David DeGrazia, Andrew Rowan |
| Abstract |
We attempt to bring the concepts of pain, suffering, and anxiety into sufficient focus to make them serviceable for empirical investigation. The common-sense view that many animals experience these phenomena is supported by empirical and philosophical arguments. We conclude, first, that pain, suffering, and anxiety are different conceptually and as phenomena, and should not be conflated. Second, suffering can be the result--or perhaps take the form--of a variety of states including pain, anxiety, fear, and boredom. Third, pain and nociception are not equivalent and should be carefully distinguished. Fourth, nociception can explain the behavior of insects and perhaps other invertebrates (except possibly the cephalopods). Fifth, a behavioral inhibition system associated with anxiety in humans seems to be present in mammals and most or all other vertebrates. Based on neurochemical and behavioral evidence, it seems parsimonious to claim that these animals are capable of experiencing anxious states. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 29% |
| Philosophy | 8 | 14% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 22 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,173,271
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#8
of 378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173
of 16,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 16,016 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 98% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than all of them