Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35570312›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2022

Children's social evaluation toward prestige-based and dominance-based powerholders.

Masahiro Amakusa, Xianwei Meng, Yasuhiro Kanakogi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2022. 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

3 authors.

Masahiro AmakusaGraduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Xianwei MengGraduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. mokeni1211@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7873-7518
Yasuhiro KanakogiGraduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 20H04495Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 20K20156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSocial scientists have suggested two typical ways of acquiring social power: dominance approach (gaining social power by applying violence, coercion, threat, and punishment) and prestige approach (gaining admiration and liking by demonstrating competence and sharing experience and knowledge). However, little is known about how people recognize and evaluate the differentiated process of the approaches, and even less about the early development of these processes. In the current study, 5-6-year old children heard stories about pairs comprising a dominance-based and a prestige-based powerholder, chose one of the powerholders as their friend and leader, and predicted which powerholder will gain the contested resources.

resultsCompared to a dominance-based powerholder, children were more likely to choose a prestige-based powerholder as a friend and leader in different situations. Moreover, children predicted that prestige-based powerholders, and not dominance-based powerholders, would gain contested resources. These findings suggest that since childhood, human beings tend to be biased to not only judge prestige-based aspects as socially preferable, but also endorse the prestige-based powerholders' priority to possess valuable resources, which subsequently strengthens their high social status. These early childhood preferences can be instrumental in providing more harmonious environments for children in educational and daily contexts.

Indexed as

Power, PsychologicalSocial DominanceChildChild, PreschoolCoercionEmotionsFriendsHumansChildrenDominancePrestigeSocial evaluationSocial hierarchy

Identifiers

PMID35570312
PMCPMC9107631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.