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 |
Behavioral Investigation of the Influence of Social Categorization on Empathy for Pain: A Minimal Group Paradigm Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00389 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benoît Montalan, Thierry Lelard, Olivier Godefroy, Harold Mouras |
| Abstract |
Research on empathy for pain has provided evidence of an empathic bias toward racial ingroup members. In this study, we used for the first time the "minimal group paradigm" in which participants were assigned to artificial groups and required to perform pain judgments of pictures of hands and feet in painful or non-painful situations from self, ingroup, and outgroup perspectives. Findings showed that the mere categorization of people into two distinct arbitrary social groups appears to be sufficient to elicit an ingroup bias in empathy for pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 59% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 October 2012.
All research outputs
#15,253,344
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,447
of 29,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,186
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.