↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Parental Autonomy Support in Two Cultures: The Moderating Effects of Adolescents’ Self‐Construals

Overview of attention for article published in Child Development, October 2017
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
24 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
5 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
Title
Parental Autonomy Support in Two Cultures: The Moderating Effects of Adolescents’ Self‐Construals
Published in
Child Development, October 2017
DOI 10.1111/cdev.12947
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine N. Marbell‐Pierre, Wendy S. Grolnick, Andrew L. Stewart, Jacquelyn N. Raftery‐Helmer

Abstract

Parental autonomy support has been related to positive adolescent outcomes, however, its relation to outcomes in collectivist cultural groups is unclear. This study examined relations of specific autonomy supportive behaviors and outcomes among 401 adolescents (Mage  = 12.87) from the United States (N = 245) and collectivist-oriented Ghana (N = 156). It also examined whether adolescents' self-construals moderated the relations of specific types of autonomy support with outcomes. Factor analyses indicated two types of autonomy support: perspective taking/open exchange and allowance of decision making/choice. In both countries, perspective taking/open exchange predicted positive outcomes, but decision making/choice only did so in the United States. With regard to moderation, the more independent adolescents' self-construals, the stronger the relations of decision making/choice to parental controllingness and school engagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Researcher 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 41%
Social Sciences 16 11%
Engineering 3 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 1%
Linguistics 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 49 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#627,372
of 25,362,520 outputs
Outputs from Child Development
#369
of 4,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,128
of 335,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Development
#10
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 335,219 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.