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 |
Age-Related Differences in Contribution of Rule-Based Thinking toward Moral Evaluations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00597 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simona C. S. Caravita, Lindamulage N. De Silva, Vera Pagani, Barbara Colombo, Alessandro Antonietti |
| Abstract |
This study aims to investigate the interplay of different criteria of moral evaluation, related to the type of the rule and context characteristics, in moral reasoning of children, early, and late adolescents. Students attending to fourth, seventh, and tenth grade were asked to evaluate the acceptability of rule breaking actions using ad hoc scenarios. Results suggest that the role of different moral evaluation criteria changes by age. During adolescence a greater integration of the moral criteria emerged. Moreover, adolescents also prioritized the evaluation of moral rule (forbidding to harm others) violations as non-acceptable when the perpetrator harms an innocent victim by applying a direct personal force. The relevance of these findings to increase the understanding of how moral reasoning changes by age for the assessment of impairments in moral reasoning of non-normative groups is also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,553
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,445
of 30,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,481
of 310,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#364
of 586 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,113 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 53% 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 310,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 586 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.