↓ Skip to main content

Chronic Stress and Moral Decision-Making: An Exploration With the CNI Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Chronic Stress and Moral Decision-Making: An Exploration With the CNI Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01702
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisong Zhang, Ming Kong, Zhongquan Li, Xia Zhao, Liuping Gao

Abstract

Stress is prevalent in our daily life, and people often make moral decision-making in a stressful state. Several studies indicated the influence of acute stress on moral decision-making and behavior. The present study extended the investigation to chronic stress, and employed a new approach, the CNI model, to add new insights regarding the mechanism underlying the association between chronic stress and moral decision-making. A total of 197 undergraduates completed the Perceived Stress Scale and made moral decision-making on a series of deliberately designed moral dilemmas. The results indicated that higher chronic stress was related to more deontological moral choices. The process-dissociation analyses revealed that chronic stress was marginally significantly associated with deontological inclinations but not with utilitarian inclinations. And the CNI model analyses suggested that the high-stress group (above the median) showed a stronger general preference for inaction than the low-stress group (below the median) did, but there were no significant differences in sensitivity to consequences or sensitivity to moral norms between the two groups. Finally, the implications of the findings were discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 31 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 23%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 34 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,888,769
of 24,333,504 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,792
of 32,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,677
of 341,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#122
of 753 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,333,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,761 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 88% 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 341,192 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 753 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.