↓ Skip to main content

Counterfinality: On the Increased Perceived Instrumentality of Means to a Goal

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Counterfinality: On the Increased Perceived Instrumentality of Means to a Goal
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birga M. Schumpe, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Michelle Dugas, Hans-Peter Erb, Arie W. Kruglanski

Abstract

The present research investigates the counterfinality effect, whereby the more a means is perceived as detrimental to an alternative goal, the more it is perceived as instrumental to its focal goal. The results from five studies supported this hypothesis. Study 1 demonstrated the counterfinality effect in an applied context: The more pain people experienced when getting tattooed, the more they perceived getting tattooed as instrumental to attaining their idiosyncratic goals (being unique, showing off, etc.). Study 2 experimentally replicated and extended the results of Study 1: A counterfinal (vs. non-counterfinal) consumer product was perceived as more detrimental, which in turn predicted the perceived effectiveness of the product. In Studies 3 and 5, we showed that increased perceived instrumentality due to counterfinality led to more positive attitudes toward a means. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 indicated that simultaneous commitment to both the focal and the alternative goal moderated the counterfinality effect. We discuss how various psychological phenomena can be subsumed under the general framework of counterfinality, which has broad practical implications extending to consumer behavior, health psychology, and terrorism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 25%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 2 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 47%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 10 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,556,198
of 25,347,437 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,207
of 34,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,013
of 334,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#90
of 720 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,347,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,233 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 334,842 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 720 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.