↓ Skip to main content

Human–Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) reciprocity: a follow-up study

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, January 2014
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Human–Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) reciprocity: a follow-up study
Published in
Animal Cognition, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0726-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franck Péron, Luke Thornberg, Brya Gross, Suzanne Gray, Irene M. Pepperberg

Abstract

In a previous study (Péron et al. in Anim Cogn, doi: 10.1007/s10071-012.05640 , 2012), Grey parrots, working in dyads, took turns choosing one of four differently coloured cups with differing outcomes: empty (null, non-rewarding), selfish (keeping reward for oneself), share (sharing a divisible reward), or giving (donating reward to other). When the dyads involved three humans with different specific intentions (selfish, giving, or copying the bird's behaviour), birds' responses only tended towards consistency with human behaviour. Our dominant bird was willing to share a reward with a human who was willing to give up her reward, was selfish with the selfish human, and tended towards sharing with the copycat human; our subordinate bird tended slightly towards increased sharing with the generous human and selfishness with the selfish human, but did not clearly mirror the behaviour of the copycat. We theorized that the birds' inability to understand the copycat condition fully-that they could potentially maximize reward by choosing to share-was a consequence of their viewing the copycat's behaviour as erratic compared with the consistently selfish or giving humans and thus not realizing that they were indeed being mirrored. We suggested that copycat trials subsequently be performed as a separate experiment, without being contrasted with trials in which humans acted consistently, in order to determine if results might have differed. We have now performed that experiment, and shown that at least one Grey parrot-our dominant-responded in a manner suggesting that he deduced the appropriate contingencies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 50 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 37%
Psychology 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,195,271
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#282
of 1,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,454
of 320,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 320,916 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.