| Title |
Primate Sociality to Human Cooperation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-013-9184-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristen Hawkes |
| Abstract |
Developmental psychologists identify propensities for social engagement in human infants that are less evident in other apes; Sarah Hrdy links these social propensities to novel features of human childrearing. Unlike other ape mothers, humans can bear a new baby before the previous child is independent because they have help. This help alters maternal trade-offs and so imposes new selection pressures on infants and young children to actively engage their caretakers' attention and commitment. Such distinctive childrearing is part of our grandmothering life history. While consequences for other cooperative activities must surely follow, the novel rearing environments set up by helpful grandmothering can explain why natural selection escalated preferences and motivations for interactivity in our lineage in the first place, and why, unlike other aspects of infant development, social sensitivities are not delayed in humans compared with genus Pan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 31% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 29 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 August 2022.
All research outputs
#15,368,406
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#441
of 535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,131
of 317,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.