↓ Skip to main content

Groupwise information sharing promotes ingroup favoritism in indirect reciprocity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2012
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Groupwise information sharing promotes ingroup favoritism in indirect reciprocity
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 54 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Physics and Astronomy 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#3,856,428
of 19,315,866 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#963
of 2,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,076
of 138,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,315,866 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 138,591 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them