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 |
Understanding social engagement in autism: being different in perceiving and sharing affordances
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00850 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annika Hellendoorn |
| Abstract |
In the current paper I will argue that the notion of affordances offers an alternative to theory of mind (ToM) approaches in studying social engagement in general and in explaining social engagement in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) specifically. Affordances are the possibilities for action offered by the environment. In contrast to ToM approaches, the concept of affordances implies the complementarity of person and environment and rejects the dualism of mind and behavior. In line with the Gibsonian idea that a child must eventually perceive the affordances of the environment for others as well for herself in order to become socialized, I will hypothesize that individuals with ASD often do not perceive the same affordances in the environment as other people do and have difficulties perceiving others' affordances. This can lead to a disruption of interpersonal behaviors. I will further argue that the methods for studying social engagement should be adapted if we want to take interaction into account. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Denmark | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Professor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 39 | 44% |
| Philosophy | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,493,486
of 25,210,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,528
of 34,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,414
of 236,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#104
of 375 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,210,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,060 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 well, scoring higher than 80% 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 236,641 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 375 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 72% of its contemporaries.