↓ Skip to main content

Why humans might help strangers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, February 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
35 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Why humans might help strangers
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nichola J. Raihani, Redouan Bshary

Abstract

Humans regularly help strangers, even when interactions are apparently unobserved and unlikely to be repeated. Such situations have been simulated in the laboratory using anonymous one-shot games (e.g., prisoner's dilemma) where the payoff matrices used make helping biologically altruistic. As in real-life, participants often cooperate in the lab in these one-shot games with non-relatives, despite that fact that helping is under negative selection under these circumstances. Two broad explanations for such behavior prevail. The "big mistake" or "mismatch" theorists argue that behavior is constrained by psychological mechanisms that evolved predominantly in the context of repeated interactions with known individuals. In contrast, the cultural group selection theorists posit that humans have been selected to cooperate in anonymous one-shot interactions due to strong between-group competition, which creates interdependence among in-group members. We present these two hypotheses before discussing alternative routes by which humans could increase their direct fitness by cooperating with strangers under natural conditions. In doing so, we explain why the standard lab games do not capture real-life in various important aspects. First, asymmetries in the cost of perceptual errors regarding the context of the interaction (one-shot vs. repeated; anonymous vs. public) might have selected for strategies that minimize the chance of making costly behavioral errors. Second, helping strangers might be a successful strategy for identifying other cooperative individuals in the population, where partner choice can turn strangers into interaction partners. Third, in contrast to the assumptions of the prisoner's dilemma model, it is possible that benefits of cooperation follow a non-linear function of investment. Non-linear benefits result in negative frequency dependence even in one-shot games. Finally, in many real-world situations individuals are able to parcel investments such that a one-shot interaction is turned into a repeated game of many decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
Japan 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 158 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 20%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 24 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 20%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Neuroscience 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 33 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,241,677
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#197
of 3,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,130
of 261,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#9
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 261,321 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.