↓ Skip to main content

Social Power Increases Interoceptive Accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Social Power Increases Interoceptive Accuracy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mehrad Moeini-Jazani, Klemens Knoeferle, Laura de Molière, Elia Gatti, Luk Warlop

Abstract

Building on recent psychological research showing that power increases self-focused attention, we propose that having power increases accuracy in perception of bodily signals, a phenomenon known as interoceptive accuracy. Consistent with our proposition, participants in a high-power experimental condition outperformed those in the control and low-power conditions in the Schandry heartbeat-detection task. We demonstrate that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is not explained by participants' physiological arousal, affective state, or general intention for accuracy. Rather, consistent with our reasoning that experiencing power shifts attentional resources inward, we show that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is dependent on individuals' chronic tendency to focus on their internal sensations. Moreover, we demonstrate that individuals' chronic sense of power also predicts interoceptive accuracy similar to, and independent of, how their situationally induced feeling of power does. We therefore provide further support on the relation between power and enhanced perception of bodily signals. Our findings offer a novel perspective-a psychophysiological account-on how power might affect judgments and behavior. We highlight and discuss some of these intriguing possibilities for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 22 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,033,038
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,093
of 30,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,076
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#47
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 317,591 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 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 91% of its contemporaries.