↓ Skip to main content

The development of the effect of peer monitoring on generosity differs among elementary school-age boys and girls

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
The development of the effect of peer monitoring on generosity differs among elementary school-age boys and girls
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00895
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haruto Takagishi, Takayuki Fujii, Michiko Koizumi, Joanna Schug, Fumihiko Nakamura, Shinya Kameshima

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of peer monitoring on generosity in boys and girls aged 6-12 years. A total of 120 elementary school students played a one-shot dictator game (DG) with and without peer monitoring by classmates. Children decided how to divide 10 chocolates between themselves and a classmate either in a condition in which their allocations were visible to their peers, or in private. While the effect of peer monitoring on the allocation amount in the DG was clearly present in boys, it was not observed in girls. Furthermore, the effect of peer monitoring in boys appeared at the age of 9 years. These results suggest that the motivation to draw peers' attention plays a stronger role for older boys than for girls or younger boys. The potential roles of higher-order theory of mind, social roles, and emergence of secondary sex characteristics on the influence of peer monitoring on generosity shown by boys are discussed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 20%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 46%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,816,612
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,085
of 29,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,847
of 263,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#379
of 556 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,745 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 263,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 556 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.