↓ Skip to main content

Beyond the “Cinderella effect”

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, December 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Beyond the “Cinderella effect”
Published in
Human Nature, December 1999
DOI 10.1007/s12110-999-1008-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L. Burgess, Alicia A. Drais

Abstract

A central thesis of this paper is that understanding the nature of child maltreatment is so complex that no one disciplinary specialty is likely to be sufficient for the task. Although life history theory is the guiding principle for our analysis, we argue that an evolutionary explanation adds precision by incorporating empirical findings originating from the fields of anthropology; clinical, developmental, and social psychology; and sociology. Although evolutionary accounts of child maltreatment have been largely limited to the role of the coefficient of relatedness, the prospective reproductive value of a child, and the residual reproductive potential of parents, a case is made for expanding this basic application. An explanatory model is presented that describes how ecological conditions as well as parental and child traits interact to influence the degree of parental investment. As shown in the model, these various "marker variables" alter parental perceptions of the benefits and costs associated with child care and promote low-investment parenting, which leads to disrupted family management practices and to a downward-spiraling, self-perpetuating system of coercive family interaction, increased parental rejection of the child, and even lower parental investment. Child maltreatment is the ultimate outcome of this downward trajectory of family relations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 29%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,413,376
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#310
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,026
of 105,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 105,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them