↓ Skip to main content

The effects of being watched on resource acquisition in chimpanzees and human children

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
The effects of being watched on resource acquisition in chimpanzees and human children
Published in
Animal Cognition, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0920-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan M. Engelmann, Esther Herrmann, Michael Tomasello

Abstract

Animals react in many different ways to being watched by others. In the context of cooperation, many theories emphasize reputational effects: Individuals should cooperate more if other potential cooperators are watching. In the context of competition, individuals might want to show off their strength and prowess if other potential competitors are watching. In the current study, we observed chimpanzees and human children in three experimental conditions involving resource acquisition: Participants were either in the presence of a passive observer (observed condition), an active observer who engaged in the same task as the participant (competition condition), or in the presence of but not directly observed by a conspecific (mere presence condition). While both species worked to acquire more resources in the competition condition, children but not chimpanzees also worked to acquire more resources in the observer condition (compared to the mere presence condition). These results suggest evolutionary continuity with regard to competition-based observer effects, but an additional observer effect in young children, potentially arising from an evolutionary-based concern for cooperative reputation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 29%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 17%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 11 16%
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 11 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,461,879
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#863
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,119
of 268,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 268,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 60% of its contemporaries.