The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
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 |
Collective Efficacy in Sports and Physical Activities: Perceived Emotional Synchrony and Shared Flow
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01960 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Larraitz N. Zumeta, Xavier Oriol, Saioa Telletxea, Alberto Amutio, Nekane Basabe |
| Abstract |
This cross-sectional study analyzes the relationship between collective efficacy and two psychosocial processes involved in collective sport-physical activities. It argues that in-group identification and fusion with the group will affect collective efficacy (CE). A sample of 276 university students answered different scales regarding their participation in collective physical and sport activities. Multiple-mediation analyses showed that shared flow and perceived emotional synchrony mediate the relationship between in-group identification and CE, whereas the relationship between identity fusion and CE was only mediated by perceived emotional synchrony. Results suggest that both psychosocial processes explain the positive effects of in-group identification and identity fusion with the group in collective efficacy. Specifically, the role of perceived emotional synchrony in explaining the positive effects of participation in collective sport-physical activities is underlined. In sum, this study highlights the utility of collective actions and social identities to explain the psychosocial processes related to collective efficacy in physical and sports activities. Finally, practical implications are discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 32 | 29% |
| Sports and Recreations | 16 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,198
of 29,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,142
of 393,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#377
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 393,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.