| Title |
Specificity and flexibility of social influence on spatial choice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Learning & Behavior, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13420-018-0322-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael F. Brown, Marie E. Saxon, Kelsey A. Heslin |
| Abstract |
Rats searched for food in a situation that allowed them to determine which locations contained food after searching a small number of them, but not which of the baited locations contained more-preferred food rather than a less-preferred food. During some experimental trials, the latter information was available from the choices of model rats making choices together with the subject rats, because some of the model rats tended to choose the locations baited with more-preferred food. On the surface, the results suggest that social influence specified the locations of more-preferred food to the subject rats. However, more detailed analysis and data from a second experiment indicate that the social influence can be explained by a general tendency to approach another rat making choices, acquired if rats are exposed to a contingency between social approach and increased foraging success. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 2 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#790
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,183
of 347,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 347,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.