The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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.
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 |
Role of Creativity in the Effectiveness of Cognitive Reappraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01598 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaofei Wu, Tingting Guo, Tengteng Tang, Baoguo Shi, Jing Luo |
| Abstract |
As a well-recognized and widely adopted emotional regulation strategy, cognitive reappraisal has generally been proven to be efficient. However, the cognitive mechanism underlying regulatory efficiency, particularly the role of creativity, in cognitive reappraisal is unclear. Although previous studies have evaluated the relationship between creativity and reappraisal from the perspectives of generation (i.e., generating cognitive reappraisals and generating creative ideas involve similar cognitive neural networks) and individual differences (i.e., the ability to generate different cognitive reappraisals can be predicted by scores on creativity-related tests), how cognitive reappraisal's efficiency can be related to creativity is still unknown. In this research, we assessed the relationship between cognitive reappraisal's creativity and its effectiveness in regulating negative emotion. In Study 1, participants were asked to generate reappraisals of negative stimuli and then evaluate the creativity and regulatory effectiveness of these reappraisals. The results indicated positive correlation between creativity rating and regulatory effectiveness, but we found that it was difficult for the participants to generate highly creative reappraisals on their own. Therefore, in Study 2, we showed participants well-prepared reappraisal materials that varied in their creativity and asked them to evaluate their regulatory effectiveness and creativity. The results suggested that creativity and appropriateness were significant predictors of the regulating effects of the reappraisal and that creativity was the most dominant predictor. In summary, both experiments found a positive correlation between reappraisal's creativity and effectiveness, thus implying that creativity plays an important role in reappraisal. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Design | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,335,574
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,204
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,491
of 319,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#167
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 319,793 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 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 71% of its contemporaries.