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 |
Dual-Processing Altruism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00193 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suna Pirita Kinnunen, Sabine Windmann |
| Abstract |
Altruism refers to an other-benefiting behavior that is costly but bears no direct profit to oneself. At least three different forms can be distinguished: help giving, altruistic punishment, and moral courage. We investigated the differential impact of two thinking modes, intuitive (System 1) and rational (System 2), on these three altruistic behaviors. Situational (state-related) thinking style was manipulated via experimental instructions and generally preferred thinking style (trait-related) was assessed via questionnaires. We found that of the subjectively preferred thinking styles (trait), faith in intuition (System 1) promoted sharing and altruistic punishment, whereas need for cognition (System 2) promoted volunteering in a situation that required moral courage. By contrast, we did not find a significant effect of situational thinking style (state) on any of the altruistic behaviors, although manipulation checks were positive. Results elucidate the affective-motivational underpinnings of different types of altruistic behaviors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 29% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 52 | 50% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
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 14 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,736,618
of 24,266,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,603
of 32,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,338
of 289,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#397
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,266,964 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 32,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 289,092 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 968 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.