↓ Skip to main content

Understanding egorrhea from cultural-clinical psychology

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Understanding egorrhea from cultural-clinical psychology
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Sasaki, Kaori Wada, Yoshihiko Tanno

Abstract

Based on his observations in Japanese clinical settings, Fujinawa (1972) conceptualized egorrhea syndrome, which includes symptoms such as erythrophobia, fear of eye-to-eye confrontation, olfactory reference syndrome, delusions of soliloquy, delusions of sleep talking, and thought broadcasting. The key feature of this syndrome is self-leakage, a perceived sense that one's personal internal information, such as feelings and thoughts, are leaking out. To reach a more comprehensive understanding of egorrhea, this paper aims to present general overview and reconsider the phenomenon of self-leakage using cultural-clinical psychology as a framework. First, the symptoms of egorrhea are reviewed in relation to other related psychopathologies such as social anxiety disorder (SAD) and taijin kyofusho (TKS), as well as schizophrenia. Second, a series of empirical studies conducted using Japanese non-clinical samples are summarized. The results of these studies form the basis for subsequent discussions, which incorporates the cultural-clinical psychology perspective proposed by Ryder et al. (2011). This paper ends with a general discussion regarding implications for research and clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,199,599
of 25,225,182 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,821
of 34,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,028
of 293,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,182 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 293,123 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 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 63% of its contemporaries.