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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Groupwise information sharing promotes ingroup favoritism in indirect reciprocity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2148-12-213 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Naoki Masuda |
| Abstract |
Indirect reciprocity is a mechanism for cooperation in social dilemma situations. In indirect reciprocity, an individual is motivated to help another to acquire a good reputation and receive help from others afterwards. Another aspect of human cooperation is ingroup favoritism, whereby individuals help members in their own group more often than those in other groups. Ingroup favoritism is a puzzle for the theory of cooperation because it is not easily evolutionarily stable. In the context of indirect reciprocity, ingroup favoritism has been shown to be a consequence of employing a double standard when assigning reputations to ingroup and outgroup members. An example of such a double standard is the situation in which helping an ingroup member is regarded as good, whereas the same action toward an outgroup member is regarded as bad. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,212,396
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,339
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,158
of 199,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#10
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 199,446 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.