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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adolescent and adult risk-taking in virtual social contexts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01476 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anneke D. M. Haddad, Freya Harrison, Thomas Norman, Jennifer Y.F. Lau |
| Abstract |
There is a paucity of experimental data addressing how peers influence adolescent risk-taking. Here, we examined peer effects on risky decision-making in adults and adolescents using a virtual social context that enabled experimental control over the peer "interactions." 40 adolescents (age 11-18) and 28 adults (age 20-38) completed a risk-taking (Wheel of Fortune) task under four conditions: in private; while being observed by (fictitious) peers; and after receiving 'risky' or 'safe' advice from the peers. For high-risk gambles (but not medium-risk or even gambles), adolescents made more risky decisions under peer observation than adults. Adolescents, but not adults, tended to resist 'safe' advice for high-risk gambles. Although both groups tended to follow 'risky' advice for high-risk gambles, adults did so more than adolescents. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between the effects of peer observation and peer advice on risky decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 38 | 58% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 January 2015.
All research outputs
#13,068,473
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,261
of 29,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,412
of 353,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#228
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 353,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.