↓ Skip to main content

A penny for your thoughts: dimensions of self-generated thought content and relationships with individual differences in emotional wellbeing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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
A penny for your thoughts: dimensions of self-generated thought content and relationships with individual differences in emotional wellbeing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00900
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna, Roselinde H. Kaiser, Amy E. J. Turner, Andrew E. Reineberg, Detre Godinez, Sona Dimidjian, Marie T. Banich

Abstract

A core aspect of human cognition involves overcoming the constraints of the present environment by mentally simulating another time, place, or perspective. Although these self-generated processes confer many benefits, they can come at an important cost, and this cost is greater for some individuals than for others. Here we explore the possibility that the costs and benefits of self-generated thought depend, in part, upon its phenomenological content. To test these hypotheses, we first developed a novel thought sampling paradigm in which a large sample of young adults recalled several recurring thoughts and rated each thought on multiple content variables (i.e., valence, specificity, self-relevance, etc.). Next, we examined multi-level relationships among these content variables and used a hierarchical clustering approach to partition self-generated thought into distinct dimensions. Finally, we investigated whether these content dimensions predicted individual differences in the costs and benefits of the experience, assessed with questionnaires measuring emotional health and wellbeing. Individuals who characterized their thoughts as more negative and more personally significant scored higher on constructs associated with Depression and Trait Negative Affect, whereas those who characterized their thoughts as less specific scored higher on constructs linked to Rumination. In contrast, individuals who characterized their thoughts as more positive, less personally significant, and more specific scored higher on constructs linked to improved wellbeing (Mindfulness). Collectively, these findings suggest that the content of people's inner thoughts can (1) be productively examined, (2) be distilled into several major dimensions, and (3) account for a large portion of variability in their functional outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 252 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 25%
Researcher 34 13%
Student > Master 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 53 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 124 48%
Neuroscience 27 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 23 9%
Unknown 61 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 13 January 2024.
All research outputs
#606,982
of 25,162,879 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,245
of 33,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,443
of 293,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#66
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,162,879 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 33,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 293,883 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 98% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.