↓ Skip to main content

Mind Invasion: Situated Affectivity and the Corporate Life Hack

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Mind Invasion: Situated Affectivity and the Corporate Life Hack
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Slaby

Abstract

In view of the philosophical problems that vex the debate on situated affectivity, it can seem wise to focus on simple cases. Accordingly, theorists often single out scenarios in which an individual employs a device in order to enhance their emotional experience, or to achieve new kinds of experience altogether, such as playing an instrument, going to the movies, or sporting a fancy handbag. I argue that this narrow focus on cases that fit a "user/resource model" tends to channel attention away from more complex and also more problematic instances of situated affectivity. Among these are scenarios in which a social domain draws individuals into certain modes of affective interaction, often by way of attunement and habituation to affective styles and interaction patterns that are normative in the domain in question. This can lead to a phenomenon that is not so much "mind extension" than "mind invasion": affectivity is dynamically framed and modulated from without, often contrary to the prior orientations of the individuals in question. As an example, I discuss affective patterns prevalent in today's corporate workplace. I claim that workplace affect sometimes contributes to what is effectively a "hack" of employees' subjectivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 11 20%
Psychology 9 16%
Arts and Humanities 8 14%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,883,784
of 26,492,291 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,686
of 35,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,440
of 314,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#107
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,492,291 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 314,538 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.