↓ Skip to main content

The Mad Genius Stereotype: Still Alive and Well

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
The Mad Genius Stereotype: Still Alive and Well
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja G. Baudson

Abstract

Scientists and laypeople agree on high ability as a defining feature of giftedness. Yet their views on gifted people's socioemotional characteristics diverge. Most studies find the gifted to be similar or slightly superior to average-ability persons in these domains ("harmony hypothesis"). However, subjective conceptions and media representations, most of which have focused on gifted children and youth, stress the socioemotional downsides of giftedness ("disharmony hypothesis"), affecting highly able individuals and those around them, thus hampering individual development. To date, most studies on gifted stereotypes have examined selective samples, mostly teachers. The present study is the first to provide representative data on conceptions of gifted individuals in general. A brief survey of 1029 German adults assessed quality and prevalence of stereotypes about gifted individuals, without an explicit focus on children and/or adolescents. Latent class analysis (LCA) revealed two conceptions of giftedness, with twice as many "disharmonious" than "harmonious" raters. Male gender, single parenthood, unemployment, higher income or negative attitudes toward the gifted predicted disharmonious ratings. However, effects were small, suggesting future studies look deeper into the processes of stereotype formation and maintenance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Unspecified 12 9%
Student > Master 12 9%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 46 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 27%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Unspecified 12 9%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 52 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#449,594
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#935
of 34,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,063
of 314,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#18
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 314,510 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 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 96% of its contemporaries.