↓ Skip to main content

The effect of abstract versus concrete framing on judgments of biological and psychological bases of behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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.
Title
The effect of abstract versus concrete framing on judgments of biological and psychological bases of behavior
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0056-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy S. Kim, Samuel G. B. Johnson, Woo-kyoung Ahn, Joshua Knobe

Abstract

Human behavior is frequently described both in abstract, general terms and in concrete, specific terms. We asked whether these two ways of framing equivalent behaviors shift the inferences people make about the biological and psychological bases of those behaviors. In five experiments, we manipulated whether behaviors are presented concretely (i.e. with reference to a specific person, instantiated in the particular context of that person's life) or abstractly (i.e. with reference to a category of people or behaviors across generalized contexts). People judged concretely framed behaviors to be less biologically based and, on some dimensions, more psychologically based than the same behaviors framed in the abstract. These findings held true for both mental disorders (Experiments 1 and 2) and everyday behaviors (Experiments 4 and 5), and yielded downstream consequences for the perceived efficacy of disorder treatments (Experiment 3). Implications for science educators, students of science, and members of the lay public are discussed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 75%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 19%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,008,062
of 9,237,995 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#64
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,104
of 260,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,237,995 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 260,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.