↓ 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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
44 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
twitter
302 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
370 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
635 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

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 302 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 635 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 10 2%
Unknown 604 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 155 24%
Researcher 101 16%
Student > Master 73 11%
Student > Bachelor 73 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 45 7%
Other 107 17%
Unknown 81 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 265 42%
Environmental Science 62 10%
Psychology 41 6%
Social Sciences 25 4%
Computer Science 23 4%
Other 106 17%
Unknown 113 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 618. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#26,604
of 21,650,873 outputs
Outputs from Science
#1,261
of 76,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259
of 248,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#21
of 1,258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,650,873 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 76,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 60.5. 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 248,049 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 1,258 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 98% of its contemporaries.