↓ Skip to main content

Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 553)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
76 X users
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears
Published in
Human Nature, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12110-018-9312-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asmir Gračanin, Lauren M. Bylsma, Ad J. J. M. Vingerhoets

Abstract

Producing emotional tears is a universal and uniquely human behavior. Until recently, tears have received little serious attention from scientists. Here, we summarize recent theoretical developments and research findings. The evolutionary approach offers a solid ground for the analysis of the functions of tears. This is especially the case for infant crying, which we address in the first part of this contribution. We further elaborate on the antecedents and (intra- and interpersonal) functions of emotional tears in adults. The main hypothesis that emerges from this overview is that crying evolved as an emotional expression that signals distress and promotes prosocial behaviors in conspecifics. Further, shedding tears may influence the mood of the crier and his/her outlook on life primarily as a consequence of fulfillment of the proposed signaling function of tears. We also describe how cultural phenomena such as ritual weeping nicely fit within this framework, as they often aim to support a request for help to a powerful person or deity and promote social bonding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 156. 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 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#273,675
of 26,109,760 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#29
of 553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,143
of 351,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,109,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 351,579 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.