↓ Skip to main content

Calculated reciprocity? A comparative test with six primate species

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Calculated reciprocity? A comparative test with six primate species
Published in
Primates, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10329-014-0424-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federica Amici, Filippo Aureli, Roger Mundry, Alejandro Sánchez Amaro, Abraham Mesa Barroso, Jessica Ferretti, Josep Call

Abstract

Little evidence of calculated reciprocity has been found in non-human primates so far. In this study, we used a simple experimental set-up to test whether partners pulled a sliding table to altruistically provide food to each other in short-term interactions. We tested 46 dyads of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, brown capuchin monkeys and spider monkeys to examine whether a subject's tendency to provide food to a partner was directly affected by the partner's previous behaviour, by the species, by the condition (i.e., whether the partner could access the food provided by the subject) and by the social tolerance levels within each dyad. Chimpanzees and orangutans were the only species pulling significantly more when the partner could retrieve the food altruistically provided. However, no species reciprocated food exchanges, as subjects' probability to pull was not affected by the previous number of the partner's pulls, with the possible exception of one orangutan dyad. Although subjects clearly knew how the apparatus worked and easily obtained food for themselves, individuals did not usually take the opportunity to provide food to their partners, suggesting that calculated reciprocity is not a common behaviour and that food exchanges are usually not reciprocated in the short-term within dyads.

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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 72 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Psychology 17 22%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#8,241,975
of 25,515,042 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#485
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,143
of 241,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,515,042 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 241,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.