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 |
Attachment Security Balances Perspectives: Effects of Security Priming on Highly Optimistic and Pessimistic Explanatory Styles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01269 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yanhe Deng, Mengge Yan, Henry Chen, Xin Sun, Peng Zhang, Xianglong Zeng, Xiangping Liu, Yue Lye |
| Abstract |
Highly optimistic explanatory style (HOES) and highly pessimistic explanatory style (HPES) are two maladaptive ways to explain the world and may have roots in attachment insecurity. The current study aims to explore the effects of security priming - activating supportive representations of attachment security - on ameliorating these maladaptive explanatory styles. 57 participants with HOES and 57 participants with HPES were randomized into security priming and control conditions. Their scores of overall optimistic attribution were measured before and after priming. Security priming had a moderating effect: the security primed HOES group exhibited lower optimistic attribution, while the security primed HPES group evinced higher scores of optimistic attribution. Furthermore, the security primed HOES group attributed positive outcomes more externally, while the security primed HPES group attributed successful results more internally. The results support the application of security priming interventions on maladaptive explanatory styles. Its potential mechanism and directions for future study are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 44% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,227
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,998
of 340,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#360
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 340,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.