↓ Skip to main content

Young children's capacity to imagine and prepare for certain and uncertain future outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Young children's capacity to imagine and prepare for certain and uncertain future outcomes
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0202606
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Redshaw, Talia Leamy, Phoebe Pincus, Thomas Suddendorf

Abstract

The current study used a minimalist paradigm to examine young children's capacity to imagine and prepare for certain and uncertain immediate future outcomes. In a counterbalanced order, 2.5-year-old children (N = 32) completed twelve trials each of two tasks: (1) the forked tube task, which assessed their ability to cover two possible tube exits to ensure they would catch a single target with an uncertain future trajectory, and (2) the double tube task, which assessed their ability to cover two separate tube exits to ensure they would catch two targets with certain future trajectories. Even though the optimal preparatory action was the same across both tasks, children were much more likely to spontaneously and consistently demonstrate this action in the double tube task than the forked tube task. Children's responses were unaffected by the number of targets seen in the demonstration phase, and instead appeared to be based on the particular contingencies of each apparatus. These results are consistent with the possibility that young children specifically struggle to imagine and prepare for mutually exclusive versions of uncertain future events.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 23%
Lecturer 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 42%
Linguistics 2 8%
Philosophy 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,648,325
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#157,267
of 197,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,498
of 335,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,679
of 3,397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 335,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.