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 |
On Dreams and Motivation: Comparison of Freud’s and Hobson’s Views
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Boag |
| Abstract |
The merits of Freudian dream theory continue to be debated and both supporters and critics appeal to empirical evidence to support their respective positions. What receives much less attention is the theoretical coherency of either Freudian dream theory or alternative perspectives. This paper examines Freudian dream theory and J. Allan Hobson's alternative position by addressing the role of motivation in dreams. This paper first discusses motivation in Freudian theory and its relation to dreams and disguise-censorship. The role of motivation in Hobson's theory is then considered. Hobson's claim that dream plot and content selection is random and based on design error and functional imbalance is then discussed in relation to the protoconsciousness theory proposal that dreams serve an adaptive function. While there are apparent inconsistencies in Hobson's position, his appeal to emotions and instincts provides a preliminary platform for understanding the role of motivation in dreams that is consonant with the Freudian position. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 23 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,145,237
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,403
of 34,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,296
of 423,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#44
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,785 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 93% 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 423,921 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.