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 |
Ingroup-Outgroup Bias in Contagious Yawning by Chimpanzees Supports Link to Empathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0018283 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew W. Campbell, Frans B. M. de Waal |
| Abstract |
Humans favor others seen as similar to themselves (ingroup) over people seen as different (outgroup), even without explicitly stated bias. Ingroup-outgroup bias extends to involuntary responses, such as empathy for pain. However, empathy biases have not been tested in our close primate relatives. Contagious yawning has been theoretically and empirically linked to empathy. If empathy underlies contagious yawning, we predict that subjects should show an ingroup-outgroup bias by yawning more in response to watching ingroup members yawn than outgroup. Twenty-three chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) from two separate groups watched videos of familiar and unfamiliar individuals yawning or at rest (control). The chimpanzees yawned more when watching the familiar yawns than the familiar control or the unfamiliar yawns, demonstrating an ingroup-outgroup bias in contagious yawning. These results provide further empirical support that contagious yawning is a measure of empathy, which may be useful for evolutionary biology and mental health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 4 | 27% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| Turkey | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 87% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 4 | 1% |
| Italy | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| China | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 259 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 11% |
| Researcher | 28 | 10% |
| Professor | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 21% |
| Unknown | 42 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 113 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 33 | 11% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 496. 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 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#51,437
of 25,120,346 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#857
of 217,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109
of 114,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#5
of 1,477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,120,346 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 217,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 114,469 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,477 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 99% of its contemporaries.