↓ Skip to main content

Cooperation in an Uncertain World: For the Maasai of East Africa, Need-Based Transfers Outperform Account-Keeping in Volatile Environments

Overview of attention for article published in Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 458)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Cooperation in an Uncertain World: For the Maasai of East Africa, Need-Based Transfers Outperform Account-Keeping in Volatile Environments
Published in
Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10745-016-9823-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Athena Aktipis, Rolando de Aguiar, Anna Flaherty, Padmini Iyer, Dennis Sonkoi, Lee Cronk

Abstract

Using an agent-based model to study risk-pooling in herder dyads using rules derived from Maasai osotua ("umbilical cord") relationships, Aktipis et al. (2011) found that osotua transfers led to more risk-pooling and better herd survival than both no transfers and transfers that occurred at frequencies tied to those seen in the osotua simulations. Here we expand this approach by comparing osotua-style transfers to another type of livestock transfer among Maasai known as esile ("debt"). In osotua, one asks if in need, and one gives in response to such requests if doing so will not threaten one's own survival. In esile relationships, accounts are kept and debts must be repaid. We refer to these as "need-based" and "account-keeping" systems, respectively. Need-based transfers lead to more risk pooling and higher survival than account keeping. Need-based transfers also lead to greater wealth equality and are game theoretically dominant to account-keeping rules.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 38%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Unspecified 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 25%
Unspecified 8 17%
Psychology 4 8%
Philosophy 3 6%
Other 9 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 02 June 2019.
All research outputs
#435,880
of 13,393,427 outputs
Outputs from Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal
#17
of 458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,296
of 264,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,393,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 264,266 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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