Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29101728›Full record

ArticleLearning & behavior2018

Understanding social decision-making from another species' perspective.

Sarah F Brosnan

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?Ethology : formerly Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Comparative economics: how studying other primates helps us better understand the evolution of our own economic decision making.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sarah F BrosnanDepartments of Psychology, Philosophy & Neuroscience, Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, and Language Research Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. sarah.brosnan@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One challenge of studying cognition and behavior in other species is designing studies that are intuitive and motivating to the subjects; studies that lack these features may result in false negatives and other outcomes that bias our understanding of animals' abilities and choices. Here, Schmelz, Grueneisen, Kabalak, Jost, and Tomasello (PNAS, 114(28), 7462-7467, 2017) investigated prosocial behavior, in which animals may make decisions that benefit a conspecific, and found that, contrary to much earlier work, when chimpanzees are given a reason to do so, they do make prosocial choices.

Indexed as

Pan troglodytesSocial BehaviorAnimalsCognitionDecision MakingChimpanzeeExperimental methodologyProsocial behaviorReciprocity

Identifiers

PMID29101728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.