↓ Skip to main content

How can you capture cultural dynamics?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
How can you capture cultural dynamics?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00995
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshihisa Kashima

Abstract

Cross-cultural comparison is a critical method by which we can examine the interaction between culture and psychological processes. However, comparative methods tend to overlook cultural dynamics - the formation, maintenance, and transformation of cultures over time. The present article gives a brief overview of four different types of research designs that have been used to examine cultural dynamics in the literature: (1) cross-temporal methods that trace medium- to long-term changes in a culture; (2) cross-generational methods that explore medium-term implications of cultural transmission; (3) experimental simulation methods that investigate micro-level mechanisms of cultural dynamics; and (4) formal models and computer simulation methods often used to investigate long-term and macro-level implications of micro-level mechanisms. These methods differ in terms of level of analysis for which they are designed (micro vs. macro-level), scale of time for which they are typically used (short-, medium-, or long-term), and direction of inference (deductive vs. empirical method) that they imply. The paper describes examples of these methods, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and point to their complementarity in inquiries about cultural change. Because cultural dynamics research is about meaning over time, issues deriving from interpretation of meaning and temporal distance between researchers and objects of inquiry can pose threats to the validity of the research and its findings. The methodological question about hermeneutic circle is recalled and further inquiries are encouraged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 36%
Social Sciences 18 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,235,337
of 23,325,355 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,284
of 31,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,933
of 240,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#205
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,325,355 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 240,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.