↓ Skip to main content

Fomenting Sickness: Nocebo Priming of Residents about Expected Wind Turbine Health Harms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Fomenting Sickness: Nocebo Priming of Residents about Expected Wind Turbine Health Harms
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00279
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Chapman, Ketan Joshi, Luke Fry

Abstract

A nocebo effect hypothesis has been proposed to explain variations in where small minorities of exposed residents complain about noise and health effects said to be caused by wind farm turbines. The hypothesis requires that those complaining have been exposed to negative, potentially frightening information about the impact of proposed wind farms on nearby residents, and that this information conditions both expectations about future health impacts or the etiology of current health problems where wind farms are already operational. This hypothesis has been confirmed experimentally under laboratory conditions, but case studies of how this process can operate in local communities are lacking. In this paper, we present a case study of the apparent impact of an anti-wind farm public meeting on the generation of negative news media and the subsequent expression of concerns about anticipated health and noise impacts to a planning authority approval hearing in Victoria, Australia. We present a content analysis of the negative claims disseminated about health and noise in the news media and available on the internet prior to the hearing, and another content analysis of all submissions made to the planning authority by those opposing the development application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 27%
Psychology 5 14%
Environmental Science 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 19 January 2022.
All research outputs
#876,084
of 25,791,949 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#465
of 14,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,788
of 365,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#3
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 365,545 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.