Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30104433›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018

An intraspecific appraisal of the social intelligence hypothesis.

Benjamin J Ashton, Alex Thornton, Amanda R Ridley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Tolerant and despotic macaques show divergent temperament but similar theory of mind.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Benjamin J AshtonCentre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, Western Australia 6009, Australia benjamin.ashton@research.uwa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3357-0395
Alex ThorntonCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Exeter TR10 9FE, UK.
Amanda R RidleyCentre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, Western Australia 6009, Australia.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H021817/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevailing hypotheses for the evolution of cognition focus on either the demands associated with group living (the social intelligence hypothesis (SIH)) or ecological challenges such as finding food. Comparative studies testing these hypotheses have generated highly conflicting results; consequently, our understanding of the drivers of cognitive evolution remains limited. To understand how selection shapes cognition, research must incorporate an intraspecific approach, focusing on the causes and consequences of individual variation in cognition. Here, we review the findings of recent intraspecific cognitive research to investigate the predictions of the SIH. Extensive evidence from our own research on Australian magpies (

Indexed as

Emotional IntelligenceAnimalsBiological Variation, IndividualInvertebratesSongbirdsVertebratesAustralian magpiescognitionindividual variationintraspecificsocial intelligence hypothesis

Identifiers

PMID30104433
PMCPMC6107571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.