↓ Skip to main content

Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 46,831)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1402786111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kiju Jung, Sharon Shavitt, Madhu Viswanathan, Joseph M. Hilbe

Abstract

Do people judge hurricane risks in the context of gender-based expectations? We use more than six decades of death rates from US hurricanes to show that feminine-named hurricanes cause significantly more deaths than do masculine-named hurricanes. Laboratory experiments indicate that this is because hurricane names lead to gender-based expectations about severity and this, in turn, guides respondents' preparedness to take protective action. This finding indicates an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the gendered naming of hurricanes, with important implications for policymakers, media practitioners, and the general public concerning hurricane communication and preparedness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 957 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 6%
United Kingdom 5 3%
Germany 3 2%
Switzerland 3 2%
Australia 3 2%
France 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 119 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 28%
Researcher 37 25%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 7%
Other 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 19%
Psychology 25 17%
Environmental Science 17 11%
Social Sciences 17 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 9%
Other 47 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1972. 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 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#339
of 8,422,968 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#17
of 46,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8
of 178,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2
of 931 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,422,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 46,831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 178,344 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 931 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.