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 |
Why People with More Emotion Regulation Difficulties Made a More Deontological Judgment: The Role of Deontological Inclinations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02095 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisong Zhang, Zhongquan Li, Xiaoyuan Wu, Ziyuan Zhang |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have demonstrated the key role of emotion in moral judgment, and explored the relationship between emotion regulation and moral judgment. The present study investigated the influence of individual differences in emotion regulation difficulties on moral judgment. Study 1 examined whether individuals with high emotion regulation difficulties made a more deontological judgment. Study 2 explored the underlying mechanism using a process-dissociation approach, examining whether deontological inclinations and utilitarian inclinations separately or jointly accounted for the association. The results indicated that individuals with high emotion regulation difficulties rated the utilitarian actions less morally appropriate, and one's deontological inclinations mediated the association between emotion regulation difficulties and moral judgment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,276,901
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,968
of 34,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,947
of 451,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#193
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 451,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.