↓ Skip to main content

Causal beliefs about depression in different cultural groups—what do cognitive psychological theories of causal learning and reasoning predict?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Causal beliefs about depression in different cultural groups—what do cognitive psychological theories of causal learning and reasoning predict?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01303
Pubmed ID
Authors

York Hagmayer, Neele Engelmann

Abstract

Cognitive psychological research focuses on causal learning and reasoning while cognitive anthropological and social science research tend to focus on systems of beliefs. Our aim was to explore how these two types of research can inform each other. Cognitive psychological theories (causal model theory and causal Bayes nets) were used to derive predictions for systems of causal beliefs. These predictions were then applied to lay theories of depression as a specific test case. A systematic literature review on causal beliefs about depression was conducted, including original, quantitative research. Thirty-six studies investigating 13 non-Western and 32 Western cultural groups were analyzed by classifying assumed causes and preferred forms of treatment into common categories. Relations between beliefs and treatment preferences were assessed. Substantial agreement between cultural groups was found with respect to the impact of observable causes. Stress was generally rated as most important. Less agreement resulted for hidden, especially supernatural causes. Causal beliefs were clearly related to treatment preferences in Western groups, while evidence was mostly lacking for non-Western groups. Overall predictions were supported, but there were considerable methodological limitations. Pointers to future research, which may combine studies on causal beliefs with experimental paradigms on causal reasoning, are given.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 14 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,789,596
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,061
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,298
of 361,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#276
of 359 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 361,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.