↓ Skip to main content

The More (Social Group Memberships), the Merrier: Is This the Case for Asians?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
The More (Social Group Memberships), the Merrier: Is This the Case for Asians?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa X.-L. Chang, Jolanda Jetten, Tegan Cruwys, Catherine Haslam, Nurul Praharso

Abstract

While previous studies have consistently shown that belonging to multiple groups enhances well-being, the current research proposes that for Asians, multiple group memberships (MGM) may confer fewer well-being benefits. We suggest that this is due, in part, to Asian norms about relationships and support seeking, making Asians more reluctant to enlist social support due to concerns about burdening others. Overall, MGM was associated with enhanced well-being in Westerners (Study 2), but not Asians (Studies 1-3). Study 2 showed that social support mediated the relationship between MGM and well-being for Westerners only. In Study 3, among Asians, MGM benefited the well-being of those who were least reluctant to enlist support. Finally, reviewing the MGM evidence-base to date, relative to Westerners, MGM was less beneficial for the well-being of Asians. The evidence underscores the importance of culture in influencing how likely individuals utilize their group memberships as psychological resources.

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 9 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 58%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,043,054
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,646
of 31,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,277
of 356,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#159
of 391 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 356,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 391 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 59% of its contemporaries.