↓ Skip to main content

Biases in Young Children's Communication about Spatial Relations: Containment versus Proximity

Overview of attention for article published in Child Development, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Biases in Young Children's Communication about Spatial Relations: Containment versus Proximity
Published in
Child Development, January 2003
DOI 10.1111/1467-8624.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M. Plumert, Aimee M. Hawkins

Abstract

Four experiments examined 3- and 4-year-olds' ability to communicate about containment and proximity relations. One hundred twenty-eight children either described where a miniature mouse was hiding in a dollhouse or they searched for the mouse after the experimenter described where it was hiding. The mouse was always hidden with a small landmark that was either in or next to a large landmark. When describing where the mouse was hiding, children were more likely to successfully disambiguate the small landmark when it was in the large landmark (e.g., under the plant in the dresser) than when it was next to the large landmark (e.g., under the plant next to the dresser). When searching for the mouse, 3-year-olds were faster to initiate their searches when the small landmark was in the large landmark than when it was next to the large landmark. Together, these results suggest that there are informational biases in young children's spatial communication.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 53%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Linguistics 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 March 2012.
All research outputs
#7,605,073
of 28,841,988 outputs
Outputs from Child Development
#2,249
of 4,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,659
of 161,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Development
#141
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,841,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 161,353 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.