↓ Skip to main content

Music evokes vicarious emotions in listeners

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Music evokes vicarious emotions in listeners
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00431
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ai Kawakami, Kiyoshi Furukawa, Kazuo Okanoya

Abstract

Why do we listen to sad music? We seek to answer this question using a psychological approach. It is possible to distinguish perceived emotions from those that are experienced. Therefore, we hypothesized that, although sad music is perceived as sad, listeners actually feel (experience) pleasant emotions concurrent with sadness. This hypothesis was supported, which led us to question whether sadness in the context of art is truly an unpleasant emotion. While experiencing sadness may be unpleasant, it may also be somewhat pleasant when experienced in the context of art, for example, when listening to sad music. We consider musically evoked emotion vicarious, as we are not threatened when we experience it, in the way that we can be during the course of experiencing emotion in daily life. When we listen to sad music, we experience vicarious sadness. In this review, we propose two sides to sadness by suggesting vicarious emotion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 20%
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Researcher 13 10%
Professor 9 7%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 38%
Computer Science 12 9%
Arts and Humanities 8 6%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 24 May 2023.
All research outputs
#809,235
of 25,183,822 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,682
of 34,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,577
of 233,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#34
of 359 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,183,822 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,016 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 233,028 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 359 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 90% of its contemporaries.