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 |
The Reproductive Ecology of Industrial Societies, Part II
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-016-9272-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert Stulp, Rebecca Sear, Susan B. Schaffnit, Melinda C. Mills, Louise Barrett |
| Abstract |
Studies of the association between wealth and fertility in industrial populations have a rich history in the evolutionary literature, and they have been used to argue both for and against a behavioral ecological approach to explaining human variability. We consider that there are strong arguments in favor of measuring fertility (and proxies thereof) in industrial populations, not least because of the wide availability of large-scale secondary databases. Such data sources bring challenges as well as advantages, however. The purpose of this article is to illustrate these by examining the association between wealth and reproductive success in the United States, using the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979. We conduct a broad-based exploratory analysis of the relationship between wealth and fertility, employing both cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, and multiple measures of both wealth (income and net worth) and fertility (lifetime reproductive success and transitions to first, second and third births). We highlight the kinds of decisions that have to be made regarding sample selection, along with the selection and construction of explanatory variables and control measures. Based on our analyses, we find a positive effect of both income and net worth on fertility for men, which is more pronounced for white men and for transitions to first and second births. Income tends to have a negative effect on fertility for women, while net worth is more likely to positively predict fertility. Different reproductive strategies among different groups within the same population highlight the complexity of the reproductive ecology of industrial societies. These results differ in a number of respects from other analyses using the same database. We suggest this reflects the impossibility of producing a definitive analysis, rather than a failure to identify the "correct" analytical strategy. Finally, we discuss how these findings inform us about (mal)adaptive decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 Kingdom | 3 | 19% |
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Austria | 1 | 6% |
| Poland | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 19% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 18 | 38% |
| Psychology | 8 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 February 2023.
All research outputs
#3,225,211
of 25,365,817 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#228
of 548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,648
of 331,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,365,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 331,120 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 53% of its contemporaries.