↓ Skip to main content

Emotion, rationality, and decision-making: how to link affective and social neuroscience with social theory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
73 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Emotion, rationality, and decision-making: how to link affective and social neuroscience with social theory
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00332
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Verweij, Timothy J. Senior, Juan F. Domínguez D., Robert Turner

Abstract

In this paper, we argue for a stronger engagement between concepts in affective and social neuroscience on the one hand, and theories from the fields of anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology on the other. Affective and social neuroscience could provide an additional assessment of social theories. We argue that some of the most influential social theories of the last four decades-rational choice theory, behavioral economics, and post-structuralism-contain assumptions that are inconsistent with key findings in affective and social neuroscience. We also show that another approach from the social sciences-plural rationality theory-shows greater compatibility with these findings. We further claim that, in their turn, social theories can strengthen affective and social neuroscience. The former can provide more precise formulations of the social phenomena that neuroscientific models have targeted, can help neuroscientists who build these models become more aware of their social and cultural biases, and can even improve the models themselves. To illustrate, we show how plural rationality theory can be used to further specify and test the somatic marker hypothesis. Thus, we aim to accelerate the much-needed merger of social theories with affective and social neuroscience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 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 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 232 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 22%
Student > Master 42 17%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 43 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 22%
Social Sciences 33 14%
Neuroscience 19 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 53 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#644,629
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#268
of 11,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,003
of 286,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 286,472 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 98% of its contemporaries.