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 |
Reproductive inequality in humans and other mammals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.2220124120 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cody T. Ross, Paul L. Hooper, Jennifer E. Smith, Adrian V. Jaeggi, Eric Alden Smith, Sergey Gavrilets, Fatema tuz Zohora, John Ziker, Dimitris Xygalatas, Emily E. Wroblewski, Brian Wood, Bruce Winterhalder, Kai P. Willführ, Aiyana K. Willard, Kara Walker, Christopher von Rueden, Eckart Voland, Claudia Valeggia, Bapu Vaitla, Samuel Urlacher, Mary Towner, Chun-Yi Sum, Lawrence S. Sugiyama, Karen B. Strier, Kathrine Starkweather, Daniel Major-Smith, Mary Shenk, Rebecca Sear, Edmond Seabright, Ryan Schacht, Brooke Scelza, Shane Scaggs, Jonathan Salerno, Caissa Revilla-Minaya, Daniel Redhead, Anne Pusey, Benjamin Grant Purzycki, Eleanor A. Power, Anne Pisor, Jenni Pettay, Susan Perry, Abigail E. Page, Luis Pacheco-Cobos, Kathryn Oths, Seung-Yun Oh, David Nolin, Daniel Nettle, Cristina Moya, Andrea Bamberg Migliano, Karl J. Mertens, Rita A. McNamara, Richard McElreath, Siobhan Mattison, Eric Massengill, Frank Marlowe, Felicia Madimenos, Shane Macfarlan, Virpi Lummaa, Roberto Lizarralde, Ruizhe Liu, Melissa A. Liebert, Sheina Lew-Levy, Paul Leslie, Joseph Lanning, Karen Kramer, Jeremy Koster, Hillard S. Kaplan, Bayarsaikhan Jamsranjav, A. Magdalena Hurtado, Kim Hill, Barry Hewlett, Samuli Helle, Thomas Headland, Janet Headland, Michael Gurven, Gianluca Grimalda, Russell Greaves, Christopher D. Golden, Irene Godoy, Mhairi Gibson, Claire El Mouden, Mark Dyble, Patricia Draper, Sean Downey, Angelina L. DeMarco, Helen Elizabeth Davis, Stefani Crabtree, Carmen Cortez, Heidi Colleran, Emma Cohen, Gregory Clark, Julia Clark, Mark A. Caudell, Chelsea E. Carminito, John Bunce, Adam Boyette, Samuel Bowles, Tami Blumenfield, Bret Beheim, Stephen Beckerman, Quentin Atkinson, Coren Apicella, Nurul Alam, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder |
| Abstract |
To address claims of human exceptionalism, we determine where humans fit within the greater mammalian distribution of reproductive inequality. We show that humans exhibit lower reproductive skew (i.e., inequality in the number of surviving offspring) among males and smaller sex differences in reproductive skew than most other mammals, while nevertheless falling within the mammalian range. Additionally, female reproductive skew is higher in polygynous human populations than in polygynous nonhumans mammals on average. This patterning of skew can be attributed in part to the prevalence of monogamy in humans compared to the predominance of polygyny in nonhuman mammals, to the limited degree of polygyny in the human societies that practice it, and to the importance of unequally held rival resources to women's fitness. The muted reproductive inequality observed in humans appears to be linked to several unusual characteristics of our species-including high levels of cooperation among males, high dependence on unequally held rival resources, complementarities between maternal and paternal investment, as well as social and legal institutions that enforce monogamous norms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 201 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 | 39 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 17 | 8% |
| Germany | 11 | 5% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 5 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 19 | 9% |
| Unknown | 97 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 132 | 66% |
| Scientists | 60 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 21% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 230. 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 29 April 2024.
All research outputs
#169,358
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#3,311
of 103,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,044
of 392,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#69
of 831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 392,894 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 831 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.