| Title |
Genes and Virtue: Exploring How Heritability Beliefs Shape Conceptions of Virtue and Its Development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Genetics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10519-018-9908-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew Vess, Rebecca J. Brooker, Matt Stichter, Jenae M. Neiderhiser |
| Abstract |
In this paper, we provide an overview of our ongoing project in the Genetics and Human Agency Initiative sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation. Our project focuses on the ways that lay beliefs about the heritability of virtue influence reasoning about the nature of virtue, parenting behaviors, and the development of virtue in children. First, we provide philosophical perspectives on the nature of virtue and suggest that viewing virtue as a malleable skill may have important advantages. Next, we review theory and research that highlights the ways that lay heritability beliefs potentially undermine conceptualizations of virtue as a malleable skill. Finally, we discuss how lay heritability beliefs might ultimately affect parent-child interactions and child virtue development. The paper thus provides a brief description our project's theoretical foundation and a general look at the empirical questions it will tackle. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 17% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 March 2019.
All research outputs
#22,376,494
of 24,972,357 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Genetics
#835
of 961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,642
of 334,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Genetics
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,972,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 334,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.