| Title |
Scientists’ personality, values, and well-being
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2225-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wataru Sato |
| Abstract |
Scientists play an important role in modern society. However, only a small number of their psychological characteristics, such as personality traits, have been investigated; hence, further investigation is required. In this study, scientists (n = 24) and non-scientist controls (n = 26) were assessed with respect to their five-factor personality traits, 10 basic values, and subjective well-being (subjective happiness and sense of purpose in life). Compared with the non-scientist control group and with normative data of laypeople, the scientists consistently exhibited greater openness (i.e., traits related to curiosity and intelligence), self-direction (i.e., values related to the pursuit of curiosity, creativity, and autonomous action), happiness, and sense of purpose in life. These data indicate that scientists possess personality traits and values suitable for a career in science, from which they also derive subjective well-being. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 7% |
| Finland | 1 | 7% |
| Belarus | 1 | 7% |
| Russia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 15 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,744,185
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#82
of 1,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,944
of 318,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#8
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 318,604 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.