↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Phenotypes and the Evolution of Animal Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Cognitive Phenotypes and the Evolution of Animal Decisions
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamra C. Mendelson, Courtney L. Fitzpatrick, Mark E. Hauber, Charles H. Pence, Rafael L. Rodríguez, Rebecca J. Safran, Caitlin A. Stern, Jeffrey R. Stevens

Abstract

Despite the clear fitness consequences of animal decisions, the science of animal decision making in evolutionary biology is underdeveloped compared with decision science in human psychology. Specifically, the field lacks a conceptual framework that defines and describes the relevant components of a decision, leading to imprecise language and concepts. The 'judgment and decision-making' (JDM) framework in human psychology is a powerful tool for framing and understanding human decisions, and we apply it here to components of animal decisions, which we refer to as 'cognitive phenotypes'. We distinguish multiple cognitive phenotypes in the context of a JDM framework and highlight empirical approaches to characterize them as evolvable traits.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Unknown 101 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 28%
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 16 15%
Unspecified 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 53%
Unspecified 21 19%
Environmental Science 7 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 14 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#513,453
of 12,130,261 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#369
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,794
of 261,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#13
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,130,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 261,717 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 46 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 71% of its contemporaries.