↓ Skip to main content

Are Callous-Unemotional Traits Associated with Conflict Adaptation in Childhood?

Overview of attention for article published in Child Psychiatry & Human Development, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Are Callous-Unemotional Traits Associated with Conflict Adaptation in Childhood?
Published in
Child Psychiatry & Human Development, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10578-015-0593-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole S. Gluckman, David J. Hawes, Alex M. T. Russell

Abstract

This study examined associations between childhood callous-unemotional (CU) traits and cognitive control using a conflict adaptation paradigm. Participants were (N = 158) children aged 9 to 12 years (M = 10.42, SD = 1.05; 57 % boys), who completed a modified color-word Stroop task. CU traits and conduct problems were indexed via self-reports on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. CU traits were found to be uniquely associated with reduced conflict adaptation, however, this significant association was specific to boys. Conversely, conduct problems were associated with increased conflict adaptation, but among girls only. These findings contribute to evidence of atypical goal directed behavior in boys with CU traits by providing preliminary evidence that the specific impairments in cognitive control that characterize these boys include those concerning dynamic adjustments in cognitive control. Findings are discussed in relation to accounts of childhood CU traits based on the Response Modulation hypothesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,381,416
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#577
of 917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,590
of 275,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 275,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.