↓ Skip to main content

Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons

Overview of attention for article published in Science, June 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
324 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
331 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons
Published in
Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.aaa5099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariana Strandburg-Peshkin, Damien R. Farine, Iain D. Couzin, Margaret C. Crofoot, Strandburg-Peshkin, Ariana, Farine, Damien R, Couzin, Iain D, Crofoot, Margaret C, A. Strandburg-Peshkin, D. R. Farine, I. D. Couzin, M. C. Crofoot

Abstract

Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 324 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 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Germany 5 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 294 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 26%
Researcher 69 21%
Student > Master 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 40 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 8%
Other 69 21%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 163 49%
Environmental Science 32 10%
Unspecified 29 9%
Psychology 19 6%
Computer Science 16 5%
Other 71 21%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 509. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,480
of 12,008,146 outputs
Outputs from Science
#591
of 53,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294
of 236,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#17
of 770 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,008,146 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 53,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 236,612 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 770 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 97% of its contemporaries.