↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2017
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-02903-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcela E. Benítez, David J. Pappano, Jacinta C. Beehner, Thore J. Bergman

Abstract

In aggressive interactions, game theory predicts that animals should assess an opponent's condition relative to their own prior to escalation or retreat. Despite the benefits of such mutual assessment, few studies have been able to reject simpler assessment strategies. Here we report evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate. Gelada (Theropithecus gelada) males have conspicuous loud calls that may function as a signal of male quality. "Leader" males with harems putatively use loud calls to deter challenges from non-reproductive "bachelor" males. By contrast, leader males pose no threat to each other and congregate in large groups for a dilution effect against bachelors. In playback experiments and natural observations, gelada males responded to loud calls according to both their own and their opponent's attributes. Although primates routinely classify others relative to themselves using individual attributes, this represents some of the first direct evidence for mutual assessment in primate signaling contests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 39%
Psychology 5 11%
Unspecified 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#773,842
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#8,359
of 133,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,609
of 321,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#276
of 4,130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 321,504 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 4,130 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 93% of its contemporaries.