↓ Skip to main content

How interpersonal power affects empathic accuracy: differential roles of mentalizing vs. mirroring?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
How interpersonal power affects empathic accuracy: differential roles of mentalizing vs. mirroring?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dario Bombari, Marianne Schmid Mast, Tobias Brosch, David Sander

Abstract

Empathic accuracy (EA)-the correct assessment of the affective states and thoughts of a social partner-affects social behavior and the outcome of interpersonal interactions. Growing evidence has shown that interpersonal power of a perceiver affects EA when assessing a target. This picture, however, is not obvious; there is evidence supporting both the idea that power can improve EA or impair it. Moreover, the mechanisms through which high power individuals are more (or less) accurate at reading others' minds are unknown. The present article provides a new perspective on the power-EA link by investigating how two core abilities involved in EA, mentalizing and mirroring, can explain when and how power is related to EA. The inclusion of findings from neuroimaging studies on mentalizing and mirroring adds a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the power-EA research that has traditionally been conducted in a social psychological framework. The extent to which a given EA-test requires mentalizing or mirroring and the way power affects both of them could explain the contrasting findings. In addition, the analysis of the neural substrates of mentalizing and mirroring may provide new insight into the relationship between power and EA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Switzerland 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 91 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 27%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 15 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,564,985
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,662
of 7,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,804
of 289,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#255
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 289,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.