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 |
Neural components of altruistic punishment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2015.00026 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Du, Steve W. C. Chang |
| Abstract |
Altruistic punishment, which occurs when an individual incurs a cost to punish in response to unfairness or a norm violation, may play a role in perpetuating cooperation. The neural correlates underlying costly punishment have only recently begun to be explored. Here we review the current state of research on the neural basis of altruism from the perspectives of costly punishment, emphasizing the importance of characterizing elementary neural processes underlying a decision to punish. In particular, we emphasize three cognitive processes that contribute to the decision to altruistically punish in most scenarios: inequity aversion, cost-benefit calculation, and social reference frame to distinguish self from others. Overall, we argue for the importance of understanding the neural correlates of altruistic punishment with respect to the core computations necessary to achieve a decision to punish. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Japan | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,997,643
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,538
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,429
of 364,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#54
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 364,739 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 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 58% of its contemporaries.