↓ Skip to main content

Subadult ravens generally don't transfer valuable tokens to conspecifics when there is nothing to gain for themselves

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, 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 (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
57 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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
Subadult ravens generally don't transfer valuable tokens to conspecifics when there is nothing to gain for themselves
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00885
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorg J. M. Massen, Megan Lambert, Martina Schiestl, Thomas Bugnyar

Abstract

The extent to which humans help each other is extraordinary in itself, and difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, there has been a recent surge in studies investigating the evolution of prosocial behavior using a comparative approach. Nevertheless, most of these studies have focused on primates only, and little is known about other animal orders. In a previous study, common ravens (Corvus corax) have been shown to be indifferent to the gains of conspecifics. However, this may have been due to the experimental set-up, as many studies that use different set-ups report conflicting results within the same species. We therefore tested ravens' prosocial tendencies in a different set-up; i.e., we tested whether sub-adult ravens would transfer a token to a partner and, thereby, provide the partner with the opportunity to exchange a token for a reward. To control and test for effects of partner identity, we tested eight individuals both in a dyadic and in a group setting. Our results show that in general the ravens in our experiment did not show other-regarding preferences. However, some acts of helping did occur spontaneously. We discuss what could be the causes for those sporadic instances, and why in general prosocial tendencies were found to be almost lacking among the ravens in this set-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 2 4%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 43%
Psychology 6 11%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 478. 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 21 December 2021.
All research outputs
#51,624
of 24,313,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#86
of 32,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#475
of 267,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#3
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,313,168 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 32,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. 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 267,242 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 562 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.