↓ Skip to main content

A proximate perspective on reciprocal altruism

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, March 2002
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
267 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
369 Mendeley
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.
Title
A proximate perspective on reciprocal altruism
Published in
Human Nature, March 2002
DOI 10.1007/s12110-002-1017-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah F. Brosnan, Frans B. M. de Waal

Abstract

The study of reciprocal altruism, or the exchange of goods and services between individuals, requires attention to both evolutionary explanations and proximate mechanisms. Evolutionary explanations have been debated at length, but far less is known about the proximate mechanisms of reciprocity. Our own research has focused on the immediate causes and contingencies underlying services such as food sharing, grooming, and cooperation in brown capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees. Employing both observational and experimental techniques, we have come to distinguish three types of reciprocity. Symmetry-based reciprocity is cognitively the least complex form, based on symmetries inherent in dyadic relationships (e.g., mutual association, kinship). Attitudinal reciprocity, which is more cognitively complex, is based on the mirroring of social attitudes between partners and is exhibited by both capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees. Finally, calculated reciprocity, the most cognitively advanced form, is based on mental scorekeeping and is found only in humans and possibly chimpanzees.

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 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Austria 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Israel 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 340 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 20%
Student > Bachelor 66 18%
Researcher 61 17%
Student > Master 52 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 64 17%
Unknown 36 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 141 38%
Psychology 93 25%
Social Sciences 21 6%
Arts and Humanities 13 4%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 40 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,720,606
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#197
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,342
of 46,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 46,173 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.