↓ Skip to main content

Perception Accuracy of Affiliative Relationships in Elementary School Children and Young Adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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.
Title
Perception Accuracy of Affiliative Relationships in Elementary School Children and Young Adolescents
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01936
Pubmed ID
Authors

João R. Daniel, Rita R. Silva, António J. Santos, Jordana Cardoso, Leandra Coelho, Miguel Freitas, Olívia Ribeiro

Abstract

There has been a rapid growth of studies focused on selection and socialization processes of peer groups, mostly due to the development of stochastic actor-based models to analyze longitudinal social network data. One of the core assumptions of these models is that individuals have an accurate knowledge of the dyadic relationships within their network (i.e., who is and is not connected to whom). Recent cross-sectional findings suggest that elementary school children are very inaccurate in perceiving their classmates' dyadic relationships. These findings question the validity of stochastic actor-based models to study the developmental dynamics of children and carry implications for future research as well as for the interpretation of past findings. The goal of the present study was thus to further explore the adequacy of the accuracy assumption, analysing data from three longitudinal samples of different age groups (elementary school children and adolescents). Our results support the validity of stochastic actor-based models to study the network of adolescents and suggest that the violation of the accuracy assumption for elementary school children is not as severe as previously thought.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Lecturer 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 36%
Social Sciences 6 18%
Computer Science 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,574,814
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,476
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,979
of 329,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#515
of 613 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 613 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.