↓ Skip to main content

The coevolution of recognition and social behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
The coevolution of recognition and social behavior
Published in
Scientific Reports, May 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep25813
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rory Smead, Patrick Forber

Abstract

Recognition of behavioral types can facilitate the evolution of cooperation by enabling altruistic behavior to be directed at other cooperators and withheld from defectors. While much is known about the tendency for recognition to promote cooperation, relatively little is known about whether such a capacity can coevolve with the social behavior it supports. Here we use evolutionary game theory and multi-population dynamics to model the coevolution of social behavior and recognition. We show that conditional harming behavior enables the evolution and stability of social recognition, whereas conditional helping leads to a deterioration of recognition ability. Expanding the model to include a complex game where both helping and harming interactions are possible, we find that conditional harming behavior can stabilize recognition, and thereby lead to the evolution of conditional helping. Our model identifies a novel hypothesis for the evolution of cooperation: conditional harm may have coevolved with recognition first, thereby helping to establish the mechanisms necessary for the evolution of cooperation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 38%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,406,158
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#12,883
of 93,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,346
of 272,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#435
of 3,263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 93,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 272,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.