The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Heritability of decisions and outcomes of public goods games
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00373 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kai Hiraishi, Chizuru Shikishima, Shinji Yamagata, Juko Ando |
| Abstract |
Prosociality is one of the most distinctive features of human beings but there are individual differences in cooperative behavior. Employing the twin method, we examined the heritability of cooperativeness and its outcomes on public goods games using a strategy method. In two experiments (Study 1 and Study 2), twin participants were asked to indicate (1) how much they would contribute to a group when they did not know how much the other group members were contributing, and (2) how much they would contribute if they knew the contributions of others. Overall, the heritability estimates were relatively small for each type of decision, but heritability was greater when participants knew that the others had made larger contributions. Using registered decisions in Study 2, we conducted seven Monte Carlo simulations to examine genetic and environmental influences on the expected game payoffs. For the simulated one-shot game, the heritability estimates were small, comparable to those of game decisions. For the simulated iterated games, we found that the genetic influences first decreased, then increased as the numbers of iterations grew. The implication for the evolution of individual differences in prosociality is discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 7 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,297,841
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,113
of 32,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,487
of 269,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#119
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,249 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 well, scoring higher than 81% 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 269,257 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.