↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Distal and Proximal Explanations for Withdrawal: A Rejoinder to Varnum and Kwon’s “The Ecology of Withdrawal”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Evaluating Distal and Proximal Explanations for Withdrawal: A Rejoinder to Varnum and Kwon’s “The Ecology of Withdrawal”
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinai Norasakkunkit, Yukiko Uchida, Kosuke Takemura

Abstract

In their 2016 commentary on our theorizing about how youth withdrawal from economic and social participation in Japanese society (i.e., NEET and Hikikomori phenomena) stems from generational inequality of economic opportunities, Varnum and Kwon correctly point out that our explanation for withdrawal is yet untested. They then offered an alternative, evolutionary psychological explanation for withdrawal in which they claim that in resource-rich ecologies like Japan, the option to withdraw from participating in society is a possible life strategy, a strategy that would be much more costly in resource-poor ecologies. While we agree with this premise, we argue that this distal explanatory framework, at least in its current form, has limits in reconciling some of the more recent cross-cultural observations, as well as well-established sociological claims about the causes of withdrawal. Thus we argue that much work remains in refining and expanding the explanatory power of more distal explanations on the issue of withdrawal. Until then, the more proximal and culture-specific explanations are probably the useful and meaningful explanations for the withdrawal phenomenon.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 41%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 34%
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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,566,801
of 26,557,909 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,761
of 35,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,548
of 453,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#215
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,557,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 453,207 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 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 60% of its contemporaries.