You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Imitation and Innovation: The Dual Engines of Cultural Learning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristine H. Legare, Mark Nielsen |
| Abstract |
Imitation and innovation work in tandem to support cultural learning in children and facilitate our capacity for cumulative culture. Here we propose an integrated theoretical account of how the unique demands of acquiring instrumental skills and cultural conventions provide insight into when children imitate, when they innovate, and to what degree. For instrumental learning, with an increase in experience, high fidelity imitation decreases and innovation increases. By contrast, for conventional learning, imitative fidelity stays high, regardless of experience, and innovation stays low. We synthesize cutting edge research on the development of imitative flexibility and innovation to provide insight into the social learning mechanisms underpinning the uniquely human mind. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 24% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 18 | 55% |
| Members of the public | 14 | 42% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 480 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 475 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 109 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 56 | 12% |
| Researcher | 55 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 25 | 5% |
| Other | 91 | 19% |
| Unknown | 96 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 172 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 45 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 15 | 3% |
| Other | 71 | 15% |
| Unknown | 119 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 196. 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 28 May 2023.
All research outputs
#201,522
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Cognitive Sciences
#84
of 2,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,609
of 286,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Cognitive Sciences
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.8. 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 286,877 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.