↓ Skip to main content

Testing problem-solving capacities: differences between individual testing and social group setting

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Testing problem-solving capacities: differences between individual testing and social group setting
Published in
Animal Cognition, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0744-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anastasia Krasheninnikova, Jutta M. Schneider

Abstract

Testing animals individually in problem-solving tasks limits distractions of the subjects during the test, so that they can fully concentrate on the problem. However, such individual performance may not indicate the problem-solving capacity that is commonly employed in the wild when individuals are faced with a novel problem in their social groups, where the presence of a conspecific influences an individual's behaviour. To assess the validity of data gathered from parrots when tested individually, we compared the performance on patterned-string tasks among parrots tested singly and parrots tested in social context. We tested two captive groups of orange-winged amazons (Amazona amazonica) with several patterned-string tasks. Despite the differences in the testing environment (singly vs. social context), parrots from both groups performed similarly. However, we found that the willingness to participate in the tasks was significantly higher for the individuals tested in social context. The study provides further evidence for the crucial influence of social context on individual's response to a challenging situation such as a problem-solving test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 72 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 19%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 12 15%
Other 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 53%
Psychology 8 10%
Environmental Science 6 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,719,891
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,297
of 1,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,136
of 224,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 224,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.