↓ Skip to main content

‘The thieving magpie’? No evidence for attraction to shiny objects

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 1,552)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
10 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
‘The thieving magpie’? No evidence for attraction to shiny objects
Published in
Animal Cognition, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0794-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. V. Shephard, S. E. G. Lea, N. Hempel de Ibarra

Abstract

It is widely accepted in European culture that magpies (Pica pica) are unconditionally attracted to shiny objects and routinely steal small trinkets such as jewellery, almost as a compulsion. Despite the long history of this folklore, published accounts of magpies collecting shiny objects are rare and empirical evidence for the behaviour is lacking. The latter is surprising considering that an attraction to bright objects is well documented in some bird species. The present study aims to clarify whether magpies show greater attraction to shiny objects than non-shiny objects when presented at the same time. We did not find evidence of an unconditional attraction to shiny objects in either captive or free-living birds. Instead, all objects elicited responses indicating neophobia in free-living birds. We suggest that humans notice when magpies occasionally pick up shiny objects because they believe the birds find them attractive, while it goes unnoticed when magpies interact with less eye-catching items. The folklore may therefore result from observation bias and cultural inflation of orally transmitted episodic events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 5%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 39 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 41%
Psychology 5 11%
Environmental Science 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 251. 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 27 November 2023.
All research outputs
#147,400
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#49
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,176
of 243,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 243,086 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.