↓ Skip to main content

Exploring tool innovation: A comparison of Western and Bushman children

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring tool innovation: A comparison of Western and Bushman children
Published in
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.05.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Nielsen, Keyan Tomaselli, Ilana Mushin, Andrew Whiten

Abstract

A capacity for constructing new tools, or using old tools in new ways, to solve novel problems is a core feature of what it means to be human. Yet current evidence suggests that young children are surprisingly poor at innovating tools. However, all studies of tool innovation to date have been conducted with children from comparatively privileged Western backgrounds. This raises questions as to whether or not previously documented tool innovation failure is culturally and economically specific. In the current study, thus, we explored the innovation capacities of children from Westernized urban backgrounds and from remote communities of South African Bushmen. Consistent with past research, we found tool innovation to occur at extremely low rates and that cultural background had no bearing on this. The current study is the first to empirically test tool innovation in children from non-Western backgrounds, with our data being consistent with the view that despite its key role in human evolution, a capacity for innovation in tool making remains remarkably undeveloped during early childhood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 31%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,276,973
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
#910
of 1,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,449
of 240,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 240,612 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.