↓ Skip to main content

More Lessons from the Hadza about Men’s Work

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
More Lessons from the Hadza about Men’s Work
Published in
Human Nature, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12110-014-9212-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristen Hawkes, James F. O’Connell, Nicholas G. Blurton Jones

Abstract

Unlike other primate males, men invest substantial effort in producing food that is consumed by others. The Hunting Hypothesis proposes this pattern evolved in early Homo when ancestral mothers began relying on their mates' hunting to provision dependent offspring. Evidence for this idea comes from hunter-gatherer ethnography, but data we collected in the 1980s among East African Hadza do not support it. There, men targeted big game to the near exclusion of other prey even though they were rarely successful and most of the meat went to others, at significant opportunity cost to their own families. Based on Hadza data collected more recently, Wood and Marlowe contest our position, affirming the standard view of men's foraging as family provisioning. Here we compare the two studies, identify similarities, and show that emphasis on big game results in collective benefits that would not be supplied if men foraged mainly to provision their own households. Male status competition remains a likely explanation for Hadza focus on big game, with implications for hypotheses about the deeper past.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 27%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 15%
Arts and Humanities 9 12%
Psychology 7 9%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 12 December 2014.
All research outputs
#1,864,993
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#161
of 547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,047
of 263,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 263,060 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.