Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186326›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Out of sight out of mind: Psychological distance and opinion about the age of penal majority.

Ivete Furtado Ribeiro Caldas, Igor de Moraes Paim, Karla Tereza Figueiredo Leite, Harold Dias de Mello Junior, Patrícia Unger Raphael Bataglia, Raul Aragão Martins, Antonio Pereira

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

7 authors.

Ivete Furtado Ribeiro CaldasDepartment of Morphology and Physiological Sciences, Pará State University, Marabá, Brazil.
Igor de Moraes PaimFederal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Ceará, Maranguape, Brazil.
Karla Tereza Figueiredo LeiteDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Harold Dias de Mello JuniorDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Patrícia Unger Raphael BatagliaDepartment of Education and Human Development, Paulista State University, Marilia, Brazil.
Raul Aragão MartinsDepartment of Education, Paulista State University, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Antonio PereiraDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, Institute of Technology, Federal University of Pará, Belem, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growth of urban violence in Brazil, as in other countries, has led citizens to demand more severe and punitive measures to solve the problem of juvenile crime. One motion submitted to the Brazilian parliament, for instance, proposes to reduce the age of penal majority (APM) from 18 to 16 years. Our hypothesis is that popular opinions about this proposal are largely constrained by construal levels and psychological distance. Accordingly, we expect that the knowledge and proximity to the circumstances associated with juvenile transgression will influence opinions about the proposal. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated how opinion against or for the proposal can be explained by psychological distance and moral development theory. We studied two samples, composed of people who do not have a deep experience with the subject (passersby in a public square (

Indexed as

adolescencemoral developmentpsychological distancepublic opinionyouth justice

Identifiers

PMID36186326
PMCPMC9521616

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.