↓ Skip to main content

ProQuest

The “Arnold Schwarzenegger Effect”: Is strength of the “victim” related to misinterpretations of harm intrusions?

Overview of attention for article published in Behaviour Research & Therapy, December 2012
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Title
The “Arnold Schwarzenegger Effect”: Is strength of the “victim” related to misinterpretations of harm intrusions?
Published in
Behaviour Research & Therapy, December 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2012.09.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah C. Berman, Michael G. Wheaton, Jonathan S. Abramowitz

Abstract

The present study used an in vivo paradigm to examine whether the victim's vulnerability in a harm-related intrusion affects beliefs about the importance of thoughts (i.e., Thought Action Fusion; TAF). Sixty-six undergraduate students at a large university were randomly assigned to imagine either a vulnerable (e.g., elderly man) or able-bodied individual (e.g., strong youthful male) they know getting into a car accident and provided in vivo ratings of anxiety, guilt, likelihood, moral wrongness, and urges to neutralize. Results indicated that thinking of car accident involving a vulnerable, compared to an able-bodied person, provoked more distress (anxiety and guilt), stronger feelings of moral wrongness, greater urges to cancel the effects of thinking such thoughts, and higher estimates of the likelihood that the collision would occur. The findings of our study broadly support Rachman's (1998) assertion that more significance and importance is attached to negative thoughts about vulnerable or helpless people. Current findings are discussed in terms of the cognitive-behavioral model of obsessions and clinical implications are addressed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 54%
Unspecified 13 22%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 4 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,977,783
of 12,236,571 outputs
Outputs from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#456
of 1,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,385
of 124,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,236,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 124,153 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.