↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike

Tools

Summary News Blogs Twitter Facebook Google+ Dimensions citations
Title
Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs
Published in
Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.aab2012
Pubmed ID
26315434
Authors

Amanda M. Lea, Michael J. Ryan

Abstract

Mate choice models derive from traditional microeconomic decision theory and assume that individuals maximize their Darwinian fitness by making economically rational decisions. Rational choices exhibit regularity, whereby the relative strength of preferences between options remains stable when additional options are presented. We tested female frogs with three simulated males who differed in relative call attractiveness and call rate. In binary choice tests, females' preferences favored stimulus caller B over caller A; however, with the addition of an inferior "decoy" C, females reversed their preferences and chose A over B. These results show that the relative valuation of mates is not independent of inferior alternatives in the choice set and therefore cannot be explained with the rational choice models currently used in sexual selection theory.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Hungary 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Unknown 186 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 27%
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 14%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 23 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 49%
Environmental Science 15 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 35 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 193. 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 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#177,168
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Science
#5,300
of 78,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,227
of 269,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#94
of 1,229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 78,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 269,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.