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 |
Cognitive Phenotypes and the Evolution of Animal Decisions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, September 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 States | 10 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 2 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 46% |
| Scientists | 15 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 191 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 25% |
| Researcher | 35 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 100 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 7% |
| Psychology | 11 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,578,284
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#929
of 3,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,824
of 330,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 330,432 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.