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 |
Explaining the U-Shaped Development of Intent-Based Moral Judgments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00219 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Margoni, Luca Surian |
| Abstract |
When preschoolers evaluate actions and agents, they typically neglect agents' intentions and focus on action outcomes instead. By contrast, intentions count much more than outcomes for older children and adults. This phenomenon has traditionally been seen as evidence of a developmental change in children's concept of what is morally good and bad. However, a growing number of studies shows that infants are able to reason about agents' intentions and take them into account in their spontaneous socio-moral evaluations. Here we argue that this puzzling U-shaped trajectory in children's judgments is best accounted for by a model that posits developmental continuity in moral competence and emphasizes the effect of immature executive function skills on preschoolers' performance. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 44 | 59% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,609,947
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,982
of 29,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,826
of 298,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#121
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,869 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 298,010 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.