↓ Skip to main content

Chimpanzees strategically manipulate what others can see

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Chimpanzees strategically manipulate what others can see
Published in
Animal Cognition, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0875-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katja Karg, Martin Schmelz, Josep Call, Michael Tomasello

Abstract

Humans often strategically manipulate the informational access of others to their own advantage. Although chimpanzees know what others can and cannot see, it is unclear whether they can strategically manipulate others' visual access. In this study, chimpanzees were given the opportunity to save food for themselves by concealing it from a human competitor and also to get more food for themselves by revealing it to a human cooperator. When knowing that a competitor was approaching, chimpanzees kept more food hidden (left it covered) than when expecting a cooperator to approach. When the experimenter was already at the location of the hidden food, they actively revealed less food to the competitor than to the cooperator. They did not actively hide food (cover up food in the open) from the competitor, however. Chimpanzees thus strategically manipulated what another could see in order to maximize their payoffs and showed their ability to plan for future situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 23%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#5,253,046
of 24,877,869 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#784
of 1,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,760
of 269,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,877,869 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 269,757 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.