↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity to Peer Evaluation and Its Genetic and Environmental Determinants: Findings from a Population-Based Twin Study

Overview of attention for article published in Child Psychiatry & Human Development, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Sensitivity to Peer Evaluation and Its Genetic and Environmental Determinants: Findings from a Population-Based Twin Study
Published in
Child Psychiatry & Human Development, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10578-018-0792-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelie Klippel, Ulrich Reininghaus, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Jeroen Decoster, Philippe Delespaul, Cathérine Derom, Marc de Hert, Nele Jacobs, Claudia Menne-Lothmann, Bart Rutten, Evert Thiery, Jim van Os, Ruud van Winkel, Inez Myin-Germeys, Marieke Wichers

Abstract

Adolescents and young adults are highly focused on peer evaluation, but little is known about sources of their differential sensitivity. We examined to what extent sensitivity to peer evaluation is influenced by interacting environmental and genetic factors. A sample of 354 healthy adolescent twin pairs (n = 708) took part in a structured, laboratory task in which they were exposed to peer evaluation. The proportion of the variance in sensitivity to peer evaluation due to genetic and environmental factors was estimated, as was the association with specific a priori environmental risk factors. Differences in sensitivity to peer evaluation between adolescents were explained mainly by non-shared environmental influences. The results on shared environmental influences were not conclusive. No impact of latent genetic factors or gene-environment interactions was found. Adolescents with lower self-rated positions on the social ladder or who reported to have been bullied more severely showed significantly stronger responses to peer evaluation. Not genes, but subjective social status and past experience of being bullied seem to impact sensitivity to peer evaluation. This suggests that altered response to peer evaluation is the outcome of cumulative sensitization to social interactions.

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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 41 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,966,609
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#153
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,158
of 330,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 330,329 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.