↓ Skip to main content

Callous-Unemotional Traits Moderate the Relation Between Prenatal Testosterone (2D:4D) and Externalising Behaviours in Children

Overview of attention for article published in Child Psychiatry & Human Development, October 2016
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Callous-Unemotional Traits Moderate the Relation Between Prenatal Testosterone (2D:4D) and Externalising Behaviours in Children
Published in
Child Psychiatry & Human Development, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10578-016-0690-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alyson Blanchard, Luna C. Munoz Centifanti

Abstract

Children who exhibit callous-unemotional (CU) traits are identified as developing particularly severe forms of externalising behaviours (EB). A number of risk factors have been identified in the development of CU traits, including biological, physiological, and genetic factors. However, prenatal testosterone (PT) remains un-investigated, yet could signal fetal programming of a combination of CU/EB. Using the 2D:4D digit ratio, the current study examined whether CU traits moderated the relationship between PT and EB. Hand scans were obtained from 79 children aged between 5 and 6 years old whose parents completed the parent report ICU (Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits) and SDQ (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). CU traits were found to moderate the relationship between PT and EB so that children who were exposed to increased PT and were higher in CU traits exhibited more EB. Findings emphasize the importance of recognising that vulnerability for EB that is accompanied by callousness may arise before birth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 24%
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 55%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 15 20%
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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,608,750
of 25,186,033 outputs
Outputs from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#596
of 1,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,196
of 327,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,186,033 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,006 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 327,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.