↓ Skip to main content

Cumulative culture in nonhumans: overlooked findings from Japanese monkeys?

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, December 2017
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 (#39 of 1,073)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
72 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Cumulative culture in nonhumans: overlooked findings from Japanese monkeys?
Published in
Primates, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10329-017-0642-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel P. Schofield, William C. McGrew, Akiko Takahashi, Satoshi Hirata

Abstract

Cumulative culture, generally known as the increasing complexity or efficiency of cultural behaviors additively transmitted over successive generations, has been emphasized as a hallmark of human evolution. Recently, reviews of candidates for cumulative culture in nonhuman species have claimed that only humans have cumulative culture. Here, we aim to scrutinize this claim, using current criteria for cumulative culture to re-evaluate overlooked qualitative but longitudinal data from a nonhuman primate, the Japanese monkey (Macaca fuscata). We review over 60 years of Japanese ethnography of Koshima monkeys, which indicate that food-washing behaviors (e.g., of sweet potato tubers and wheat grains) seem to have increased in complexity and efficiency over time. Our reassessment of the Koshima ethnography is preliminary and nonquantitative, but it raises the possibility that cumulative culture, at least in a simple form, occurs spontaneously and adaptively in other primates and nonhumans in nature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 14 10%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 35 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 21%
Psychology 23 16%
Social Sciences 17 12%
Arts and Humanities 6 4%
Linguistics 5 4%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 35 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 23 June 2023.
All research outputs
#431,136
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#39
of 1,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,924
of 449,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. 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 449,597 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.