Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34408510›Full record

ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2021

The Effects of Prosocial Cartoon Examples on Children's Donating Behavior.

Qian Zhang, ZheMin Duan, Dan Xiang, Yue Yu, JingJin Tian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Qian ZhangCenter for Studies of Education and Psychology of Minorities in Southwest Area & Faculty of Education, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
ZheMin DuanCenter for Studies of Education and Psychology of Minorities in Southwest Area & Faculty of Education, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Dan XiangCenter for Studies of Education and Psychology of Minorities in Southwest Area & Faculty of Education, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Yue YuCenter for Studies of Education and Psychology of Minorities in Southwest Area & Faculty of Education, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
JingJin TianDawn Innovation Kindergarten, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this study, we examined whether prosocial cartoons could inspire children to donate toys to others immediately upon exposure. PARTICIPANTS AND

methodsCartoons were rated as prosocial or control via 80 adults. One hundred and fifty-six children participated in the study (

resultsThe empirical results indicated that watching cartoons specifically depicting charitable donations (and not cartoons with other prosocial content) increased donations for charitable causes, whilst watching the control cartoons (cartoons without prosocial content) which did not depict characters acting in an antisocial way did not increase donating behavior. Specifically, 5-year-old female children reported more donating behavior than 6-year-old female children and 4-year-old female children, whilst no significant age effects were found among male children. Here, 4-6-year-old female children and 4-5-year-old male children in the prosocial cartoon condition reported more donating behavior than those in the control cartoon condition.

conclusionThese findings indicated an accumulating positive effect of watching cartoons with donating content on children's donating behavior, especially for 4-6-year-old female children and 4-5-year-old male children.

Indexed as

childrendonating behaviorprosocial cartoonstoy donation task

Identifiers

PMID34408510
PMCPMC8364968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.