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 |
Risk-Taking and Impulsivity: The Role of Mood States and Interoception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01625 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aleksandra M. Herman, Hugo D. Critchley, Theodora Duka |
| Abstract |
Objectives: The consequences of impulsive decisions and actions represent a major source of concern to the health and well-being of individuals and society. It is, therefore, crucial to understand the factors which contribute to impulsive behaviors. Here, we examined how personality traits of behavioral tendencies, interoceptive sensibility as well as transient mood states predict behavioral performance on impulsivity and risk-taking tasks. Method: 574 (121 males; age 18-45) individuals completed self-report personality measures of impulsivity, reward sensitivity, punishment avoidance as well as interoceptive sensibility, undertook a mood assessment and performed a set of cognitive tasks: delay discounting (temporal impulsivity), probability discounting (risk-taking), and reflection impulsivity task. Data were interrogated using principal component analysis, correlations and regression analyses to test mutual relationships between personality traits, interoceptive sensibility, mood state and impulsive behaviors. Results: We observed a clear separation of measures used, both trait and behavioral. Namely, sensation-seeking, reward sensitivity and probability discounting reflected risk-taking. These were separate from measures associated with impulsivity, both trait (negative and positive urgency, premeditation, perseverance) and behavioral (delayed discounting and reflection impulsivity). This separation was further highlighted by their relationship with the current emotional state: positive affect was associated with increased risk-taking tendencies and risky decision-making, while negative emotions were related to heightened impulsivity measures. Interoceptive sensibility was only associated with negative emotions component. Conclusion: Our findings support the proposal that risk-taking and impulsivity represent distinct constructs that are differentially affected by current mood states. This novel insight enhances our understanding of impulsive behaviors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 19% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 88% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 178 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 47 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 62 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 58 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,719,944
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,959
of 34,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,998
of 345,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#250
of 749 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,726 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 well, scoring higher than 77% 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 345,364 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 749 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 66% of its contemporaries.