↓ Skip to main content

Critical issues in experimental studies of prosociality in non-human species

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Critical issues in experimental studies of prosociality in non-human species
Published in
Animal Cognition, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-0973-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Marshall-Pescini, R. Dale, M. Quervel-Chaumette, F. Range

Abstract

Prosociality and acts of altruism are defined as behaviours which benefit another with either no gain or some immediate cost to the self. To understand the evolutionary origins of these behaviours, in recent years, studies have extended to primate species; however, studies on non-primates are still scarce. In light of the fact that phylogenetic closeness to humans does not appear to correlate with prosocial tendencies, but rather differences in the propensity towards prosociality may be linked to allomaternal care or collaborative foraging, it appears that convergent selection pressures may be at work in the evolution of prosociality. It would hence seem particularly important to extend such studies to species outside the primate clade, to allow for comparative hypothesis testing of the factors affecting the evolution of prosocial behaviours. In the current review, we focus on the experimental paradigms which have been used so far (i.e. the prosocial choice task, helping paradigms and food-sharing tests) and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each method. In line with the aim of encouraging a broader comparative approach to the topic of prosociality, particular emphasis is placed on the methodological issues that need to be taken into account. We conclude that although a number of the paradigms used so far may be successfully applied to non-primate species, there is a need to simplify the cognitive demands of the tasks and ensure task comprehension to allow for a 'fair' comparative approach of prosocial tendencies across species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 4 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 153 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 27 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 31%
Psychology 36 22%
Neuroscience 13 8%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 41 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,971,152
of 24,362,308 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#659
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,413
of 304,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#11
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,362,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 304,193 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 67% of its contemporaries.