Cited by 118Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAttachment and Relationship DynamicsGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Imprinting: empirical basis and theoretical significance

Moltz, Howard·1960·Psychological Bulletin

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0041214

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–117 of 117

Metadata

Authors
Moltz, H.
Affiliations
Brooklyn College (US)
Corresponding author
Moltz, Howard
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1960-07
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
291-314
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2047505028
Cited by
118
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Keywords
imprinting, critical period, animal learning, innate behavior, behavioral development
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review