↓ Skip to main content

Wild vervet monkeys copy alternative methods for opening an artificial fruit

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Wild vervet monkeys copy alternative methods for opening an artificial fruit
Published in
Animal Cognition, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0830-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica van de Waal, Nicolas Claidière, Andrew Whiten

Abstract

Experimental studies of animal social learning in the wild remain rare, especially those that employ the most discriminating tests in which alternative means to complete naturalistic tasks are seeded in different groups. We applied this approach to wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops) using an artificial fruit ('vervetable') opened by either lifting a door panel or sliding it left or right. In one group, a trained model lifted the door, and in two others, the model slid it either left or right. Members of each group then watched their model before being given access to multiple baited vervetables with all opening techniques possible. Thirteen of these monkeys opened vervetables, displaying a significant tendency to use the seeded technique on their first opening and over the course of the experiment. The option preferred in these monkeys' first successful manipulation session was also highly correlated with the proportional frequency of the option they had previously witnessed. The social learning effects thus documented go beyond mere stimulus enhancement insofar as the same door knob was grasped for either technique. Results thus suggest that through imitation, emulation or both, new foraging techniques will spread across groups of wild vervet monkeys to create incipient foraging traditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 95 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 21%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 37%
Psychology 18 18%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,845,624
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#888
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,748
of 362,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 362,187 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.