↓ 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
33 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
twitter
312 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
279 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
555 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

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 312 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 555 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Belize 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 10 2%
Unknown 522 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 140 25%
Researcher 97 17%
Student > Master 66 12%
Student > Bachelor 64 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 7%
Other 92 17%
Unknown 55 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 249 45%
Environmental Science 55 10%
Psychology 34 6%
Social Sciences 23 4%
Computer Science 20 4%
Other 91 16%
Unknown 83 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 546. 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 15 December 2020.
All research outputs
#23,228
of 17,455,239 outputs
Outputs from Science
#1,249
of 70,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283
of 239,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#22
of 1,258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,455,239 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 70,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.0. 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 239,712 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.