| Title |
The Association Between Early Generative Concern and Caregiving with Friends from Early to Middle Adolescence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10964-012-9888-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather L. Lawford, Anna-Beth Doyle, Dorothy Markiewicz |
| Abstract |
Generativity, defined as concern for future generations, is theorized to become a priority in midlife, preceded by a stage in which intimacy is the central issue. Recent research, however, has found evidence of generativity even in adolescence. This longitudinal study explored the associations between caregiving in friendships, closely related to intimacy, and early generative concern in a young adolescent sample. Given the importance of close friendships in adolescence, it was hypothesized that responsive caregiving in early adolescent friendships would predict later generative concern. Approximately 140 adolescents (56 % female, aged 14 at Time 1) completed questionnaires regarding generative concern and responsive caregiving with friends yearly across 2 years. Structural equation modeling revealed that caregiving predicted generative concern 1 year later but generative concern did not predict later caregiving. These results suggest that caregiving in close friendships plays an important role in the development of adolescents' motivation to contribute to future generations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 43% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 28 February 2020.
All research outputs
#706,076
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#124
of 1,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,435
of 286,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#5
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 286,838 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.