↓ Skip to main content

When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size
Published in
Animal Cognition, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0674-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrey E. Parrish, Michael J. Beran

Abstract

We investigated whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceived food portion sizes depending upon the context in which they were presented, something that often affects how much humans serve themselves and subsequently consume. Chimpanzees judged same-sized and smaller food portions to be larger in amount when presented on a small plate compared to an equal or larger food portion presented on a large plate and did so despite clearly being able to tell the difference in portions when plate size was identical. These results are consistent with data from the human literature in which people misperceive food portion sizes as a function of plate size. This misperception is attributed to the Delboeuf illusion which occurs when the size of a central item is misperceived on the basis of its surrounding context. These results demonstrate a cross-species shared visual misperception of portion size that affects choice behavior, here in a nonhuman species for which there is little experience with tests that involve choosing between food amounts on dinnerware. The biases resulting in this form of misperception of food portions appear to have a deep-rooted evolutionary history which we share with, at minimum, our closest living nonhuman relative, the chimpanzee.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,007,735
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#237
of 1,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,274
of 208,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.