↓ Skip to main content

The Development of Sociobiology in Relation to Animal Behavior Studies, 1946–1975

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 493)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
The Development of Sociobiology in Relation to Animal Behavior Studies, 1946–1975
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10739-017-9491-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clement Levallois

Abstract

This paper aims at bridging a gap between the history of American animal behavior studies and the history of sociobiology. In the post-war period, ecology, comparative psychology and ethology were all investigating animal societies, using different approaches ranging from fieldwork to laboratory studies. We argue that this disunity in "practices of place" (Kohler, Robert E. Landscapes & Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) explains the attempts of dialogue between those three fields and early calls for unity through "sociobiology" by J. Paul Scott. In turn, tensions between the naturalist tradition and the rising reductionist approach in biology provide an original background for a history of Edward Wilson's own version of sociobiology, much beyond the William Hamilton's papers (Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16, 17-52, 1964) usually considered as its key antecedent. Naturalists were in a defensive position in the geography of the fields studying animal behavior, and in reaction were a driving force behind the various projects of synthesis called "sociobiology".

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 29%
Environmental Science 2 12%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Philosophy 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,934,469
of 23,504,791 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#25
of 493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,753
of 324,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 324,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.