↓ Skip to main content

Fosterage as a System of Dispersed Cooperative Breeding

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Fosterage as a System of Dispersed Cooperative Breeding
Published in
Human Nature, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12110-014-9211-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brooke A. Scelza, Joan B. Silk

Abstract

Humans are obligate cooperative breeders, relying heavily on support from kin to raise children. To date, most studies of cooperative breeding have focused on help that supplements rather than replaces parental care. Here we propose that fosterage can act as a form of dispersed cooperative breeding, one that enhances women's fitness by allowing them to disinvest in some children and reallocate effort to others. We test this hypothesis through a series of predictions about the costs and benefits of fosterage for mothers, foster parents, and foster children using data from the Himba, a group of Namibian agro-pastoralists. We show that fostering out children enhances mothers' fitness, and we provide evidence for a causal link from fosterage to enhanced fitness by showing that fosterage of early-born children is associated with greater maternal reproductive success. Foster parents minimize the costs of fosterage by skewing their care toward their postreproductive years, and by mainly fostering close kin. However, the system is associated with some detrimental effects on foster children, who are more likely to be stunted and underweight than their non-fostered counterparts.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 04 April 2023.
All research outputs
#692,466
of 23,515,785 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#76
of 520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,195
of 236,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,515,785 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 236,989 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 96% 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 7 of them.