Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.
- Journal
- Developmental Psychology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1037/dev0000140 →Countries where authors are citing Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.
This map shows the geographic impact of Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.
This network shows the impact of Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review..
About Theory of mind and prosocial behavior in childhood: A meta-analytic review.
This paper, published in 2016, received 287 indexed citations . Written by Kana Imuta, Julie D. Henry, Virginia Slaughter, Bilge Selçuk and Ted Ruffman covering the research area of Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Social Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Developmental and Educational Psychology (140 citations), Social Psychology (129 citations) and Clinical Psychology (121 citations). Published in Developmental Psychology.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1037/dev0000140.