↓ Skip to main content

Fetal Protection

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Fetal Protection
Published in
Human Nature, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12110-015-9239-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caitlyn D. Placek, Edward H. Hagen

Abstract

Pregnancy involves puzzling aversions to nutritious foods. Although studies generally support the hypotheses that such aversions are evolved mechanisms to protect the fetus from toxins and/or pathogens, other factors, such as resource scarcity and psychological distress, have not been investigated as often. In addition, many studies have focused on populations with high-quality diets and low infectious disease burden, conditions that diverge from the putative evolutionary environment favoring fetal protection mechanisms. This study tests the fetal protection, resource scarcity, and psychological distress hypotheses of food aversions in a resource-constrained population with high infectious disease burden. The role of culture is also explored. In the first of two studies in Tamil Nadu, India, we investigated cultural explanations of pregnancy diet among non-pregnant women (N = 54). In the second study, we conducted structured interviews with pregnant women (N = 94) to determine their cravings and aversions, resource scarcity, indices of pathogen exposure, immune activation, psychological distress, and emic causes of aversions. Study 1 found that fruits were the most commonly reported food that pregnant women should avoid because of their harmful effects on infants. Study 2 found modest support for the fetal protection hypothesis for food aversions. It also found that pregnant women most commonly avoided fruits as well as "black" and "hot" foods. Aversions were primarily acquired through learning and focused on protecting the infant from harm. Our findings provide modest support for the fetal protection hypothesis and surprisingly strong support for the influence of cultural norms and learning on dietary aversions in pregnancy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Psychology 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,766,742
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#415
of 519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,416
of 267,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,262 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 50% 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.