↓ Skip to main content

Frontiers

Article Metrics

Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children's knowledge about animals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children's knowledge about animals
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00283
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia A. Ganea, Caitlin F. Canfield, Kadria Simons-Ghafari, Tommy Chou

Abstract

Many books for young children present animals in fantastical and unrealistic ways, such as wearing clothes, talking and engaging in human-like activities. This research examined whether anthropomorphism in children's books affects children's learning and conceptions of animals, by specifically assessing the impact of depictions (a bird wearing clothes and reading a book) and language (bird described as talking and as having human intentions). In Study 1, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children saw picture books featuring realistic drawings of a novel animal. Half of the children also heard factual, realistic language, while the other half heard anthropomorphized language. In Study 2, we replicated the first study using anthropomorphic illustrations of real animals. The results show that the language used to describe animals in books has an effect on children's tendency to attribute human-like traits to animals, and that anthropomorphic storybooks affect younger children's learning of novel facts about animals. These results indicate that anthropomorphized animals in books may not only lead to less learning but also influence children's conceptual knowledge of animals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 97 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 10 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 38%
Social Sciences 19 18%
Arts and Humanities 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 11 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 369. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#33,036
of 14,376,034 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#55
of 14,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#421
of 191,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#1
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,376,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 191,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 299 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.