↓ Skip to main content

A biological security motivation system for potential threats: are there implications for policy-making?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 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
A biological security motivation system for potential threats: are there implications for policy-making?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik Z. Woody, Henry Szechtman

Abstract

Research indicates that there is a specially adapted, hard-wired brain circuit, the security motivation system, which evolved to manage potential threats, such as the possibility of contamination or predation. The existence of this system may have important implications for policy-making related to security. The system is sensitive to partial, uncertain cues of potential danger, detection of which activates a persistent, potent motivational state of wariness or anxiety. This state motivates behaviors to probe the potential danger, such as checking, and to correct for it, such as washing. Engagement in these behaviors serves as the terminating feedback for the activation of the system. Because security motivation theory makes predictions about what kinds of stimuli activate security motivation and what conditions terminate it, the theory may have applications both in understanding how policy-makers can best influence others, such as the public, and also in understanding the behavior of policy-makers themselves.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 %
Germany 2 6%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 41%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#14,760,611
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,901
of 7,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,341
of 280,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#645
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.