↓ Skip to main content

Vicarious Learning and Reduction of Fear in Children via Adult and Child Models

Overview of attention for article published in Emotion, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs

Readers on

mendeley
48 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.
Article details
Title
Vicarious Learning and Reduction of Fear in Children via Adult and Child Models
Published in
Emotion, June 2018
DOI 10.1037/emo0000341
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Children can learn to fear stimuli vicariously, by observing adults' or peers' responses to them. Given that much of school-age children's time is typically spent with their peers, it is important to establish whether fear learning from peers is as effective or robust as learning from adults, and also whether peers can be successful positive models for reducing fear. During a vicarious fear learning procedure, children (6 to 10 years; N = 60) were shown images of novel animals together with images of adult or peer faces expressing fear. Later they saw their fear-paired animal again together with positive emotional adult or peer faces. Children's fear beliefs and avoidance for the animals increased following vicarious fear learning and decreased following positive vicarious counterconditioning. There was little evidence of differences in learning from adults and peers, demonstrating that for this age group peer models are effective models for both fear acquisition and reduction. (PsycINFO Database Record

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 42%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 18 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 246. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#170,915
of 28,812,439 outputs
Outputs from Emotion
#51
of 2,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,303
of 348,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emotion
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,812,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 348,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.