↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of third-party reciprocity by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and the question of mechanisms

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of third-party reciprocity by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and the question of mechanisms
Published in
Animal Cognition, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-0980-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. Anderson, Benoit Bucher, Hika Kuroshima, Kazuo Fujita

Abstract

Social evaluation during third-party interactions emerges early in human ontogeny, and it has been shown in adult capuchin monkeys who witness violations of reciprocity in object exchanges: Monkeys were less inclined to accept food from humans who refused to reciprocate with another human. A recent study reporting similar evidence in marmoset monkeys raised the possibility that such evaluations might be based on species' inherent cooperativeness. We tested a species not renowned for cooperativeness-squirrel monkeys-using the procedure used with marmosets and found a similar result. This finding rules out any crucial role for cooperative tendencies in monkeys' responses to unfair exchanges. We then tested squirrel monkeys using procedures more similar to those used in the original study with capuchins. Squirrel monkeys again accepted food less frequently from non-reciprocators, but unlike capuchins, they also strongly preferred reciprocators. We conclude that neither squirrel monkeys nor marmoset monkeys engaged in emotional bookkeeping of the type that probably underlies social evaluation in capuchin monkeys; instead, they employed one or more simple behavioral rules. Further comparative studies are required to clarify the mechanisms underlying social evaluation processes across species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 20%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,613,583
of 25,046,944 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#725
of 1,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,774
of 307,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,944 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 307,309 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 78% 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 64% of its contemporaries.