↓ Skip to main content

Mobility and Navigation among the Yucatec Maya

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Mobility and Navigation among the Yucatec Maya
Published in
Human Nature, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12110-015-9250-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Cashdan, Karen L. Kramer, Helen E. Davis, Lace Padilla, Russell D. Greaves

Abstract

Sex differences in range size and navigation are widely reported, with males traveling farther than females, being less spatially anxious, and in many studies navigating more effectively. One explanation holds that these differences are the result of sexual selection, with larger ranges conferring mating benefits on males, while another explanation focuses on greater parenting costs that large ranges impose on reproductive-aged females. We evaluated these arguments with data from a community of highly monogamous Maya farmers. Maya men and women do not differ in distance traveled over the region during the mate-seeking years, suggesting that mating competition does not affect range size in this monogamous population. However, men's regional and daily travel increases after marriage, apparently in pursuit of resources that benefit families, whereas women reduce their daily travel after marriage. This suggests that parental effort is more important than mating effort in this population. Despite the relatively modest overall sex difference in mobility, Maya men were less spatially anxious than women, thought themselves to be better navigators, and pointed more accurately to distant locations. A structural equation model showed that the sex by marital status interaction had a direct effect on mobility, with a weaker indirect effect of sex on mobility mediated by navigational ability.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 19%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#473
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,827
of 389,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 389,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.