↓ Skip to main content

Preschool children favor copying a successful individual over an unsuccessful group

Overview of attention for article published in Developmental Science, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preschool children favor copying a successful individual over an unsuccessful group
Published in
Developmental Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1111/desc.12274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matti Wilks, Emma Collier-Baker, Mark Nielsen

Abstract

The human aptitude for imitation and social learning underpins our advanced cultural practices. While social learning is a valuable evolutionary survival strategy, blind copying does not necessarily facilitate survival. Copying from the majority allows individuals to make rapid judgments on the value of a trait, based on its frequency. This is known as the majority bias: an individual's tendency to copy the behavior elicited by the largest number of individuals in a population. An alternative approach is to follow those who are the most proficient. While there is evidence that children do show both processes, no study has directly pitted them against each other. To do this, in the current experiment 36 children aged between 4 and 5 years watched live actors demonstrate, as a group or individually, how to open novel puzzle boxes. Children exhibited a bias to the majority when group and individual methods were successful, but favored the individual if the group method was unsuccessful. Affiliating children with the unsuccessful majority group did not impact on this pattern.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 37%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 53%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 17%
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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#15,196,328
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Developmental Science
#1,182
of 1,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,413
of 363,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Developmental Science
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 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 1,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. 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 363,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.