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 |
Bonding Pictures: Affective Ratings Are Specifically Associated to Loneliness But Not to Empathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01136 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heraldo D. Silva, Rafaela R. Campagnoli, Bruna Eugênia F. Mota, Cássia Regina V. Araújo, Roberta Sônia R. Álvares, Izabela Mocaiber, Vanessa Rocha-Rego, Eliane Volchan, Gabriela G. L. Souza |
| Abstract |
Responding to pro-social cues plays an important adaptive role in humans. Our aims were (i) to create a catalog of bonding and matched-control pictures to compare the emotional reports of valence and arousal with the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) pictures; (ii) to verify sex influence on the valence and arousal of bonding and matched-control pictures; (iii) to investigate if empathy and loneliness traits exert a specific influence on emotional reports for the bonding pictures. To provide a finer tool for social interaction studies, the present work defined two new sets of pictures consisting of "interacting dyads" (Bonding: N = 70) and matched controls "non-interacting dyads" (Controls: N = 70). The dyads could be either a child and an adult, or two children. Participants (N = 283, 182 women) were divided in 10 groups for the experimental sessions. The task was to rate the hedonic valence and emotional arousal of bonding and controls; and of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant pictures from the IAPS. Effects of social-related traits, empathy and loneliness, on affective ratings were tested. Participants rated bonding pictures as more pleasant and arousing than control ones. Ratings did not differentiate bonding from IAPS pleasant pictures. Control pictures showed lower ratings than pleasant but higher ratings than neutral IAPS pictures. Women rated bonding and control pictures as more positive than men. There was no sex difference for arousal ratings. High empathic participants rated bonding and control pictures higher than low empathic participants. Also, they rated pleasant IAPS pictures more positive and arousing; and unpleasant pictures more negative and arousing than the less empathic ones. Loneliness trait, on the other hand, affected very specifically the ratings of bonding pictures; lonelier participants rated them less pleasant and less arousing than less lonely. Loneliness trait did not modulate ratings of other categories. In conclusion, high empathy seems related to emotional strength in general, while high loneliness seems to weaken the engagement in social interaction cues. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 31% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
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 20 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,323,680
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,588
of 30,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,995
of 312,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 587 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 312,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 587 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.