↓ Skip to main content

Regulating Emotional Responses to Climate Change – A Construal Level Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Regulating Emotional Responses to Climate Change – A Construal Level Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Ejelöv, André Hansla, Magnus Bergquist, Andreas Nilsson

Abstract

This experimental study (N = 139) examines the role of emotions in climate change risk communication. Drawing on Construal Level Theory, we tested how abstract vs. concrete descriptions of climate threat affect basic and self-conscious emotions and three emotion regulation strategies: changing oneself, repairing the situation and distancing oneself. In a 2 × 2 between subjects factorial design, climate change consequences were described as concrete/abstract and depicted as spatially proximate/distant. Results showed that, as hypothesized, increased self-conscious emotions mediate overall positive effects of abstract description on self-change and repair attempts. Unexpectedly and independent of any emotional process, a concrete description of a spatially distant consequence is shown to directly increase self-change and repair attempts, while it has no such effects when the consequence is spatially proximate. "Concretizing the remote" might refer to a potentially effective strategy for overcoming spatial distance barriers and motivating mitigating behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Other 10 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 34%
Social Sciences 17 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Decision Sciences 6 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 40 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,202,604
of 23,837,558 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,327
of 31,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,237
of 328,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#140
of 627 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,837,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 328,239 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 627 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.