↓ Skip to main content

The Positive Emotions that Facilitate the Fulfillment of Needs May Not Be Positive Emotions At All: The Role of Ambivalence

Overview of attention for article published in EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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 Positive Emotions that Facilitate the Fulfillment of Needs May Not Be Positive Emotions At All: The Role of Ambivalence
Published in
EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.explore.2014.10.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon A. Moss, Samuel G. Wilson

Abstract

Rationale: According to some scholars, if individuals experience over three times as many positive emotions as negative emotions, they are more likely to thrive. We contend, however, that perhaps positive and negative emotions that overlap in time are likely to enhance wellbeing. Specifically, if positive and negative emotions are experienced simultaneously rather than separately-called ambivalent emotions-the fundamental needs of individuals are fulfilled more frequently. Evidence: Considerable evidence supports this perspective. First, many emotions that enhance wellbeing, although classified as positive, also coincide with negative feelings. Second, ambivalent emotions, rather than positive or negative emotions separately, facilitate creativity and resilience. Third, ambivalent emotions activate distinct cognitive systems that enable individuals to form attainable goals, refine their skills, and enhance their relationships.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 67%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,730,868
of 12,419,481 outputs
Outputs from EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing
#246
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,949
of 277,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,481 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 277,678 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 59% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.