ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Assessment of help value affects reciprocation in Norway rats.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental evidence for social learning in semi-natural, wild-type Norway rats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Norway rats recruit cooperation partners based on previous receipt of help while disregarding kinship.iScience · 2024Article
- Assessment of help value affects reciprocation in Norway rats.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Evidence suggesting that reindeer mothers allonurse according to the direct reciprocity and generalized reciprocity decision rules.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild-type Norway rats reciprocate help received in a well-replicated experimental food-giving task, but the criteria to appraise the received help's value are unclear. We tested whether quality or quantity of received help is more important when deciding to return help, and whether partner familiarity and own current need affect this evaluation. We experimentally varied recipients of help's hunger state, and familiar or unfamiliar partners provided either higher caloric food (enhanced quantity; carrots) or food higher in protein and fat (enhanced quality; cheese). Reciprocation of received help was our criterion for the rats' value assessment. Familiarity, food type and hunger state interacted and affected help returned by rats. Rats returned less help to familiar partners than to unfamiliar partners. With unfamiliar partners, rats returned more help to partners that had donated preferred food (cheese) than to partners that had donated less preferred food (carrots), and they returned help earlier if they were satiated and had received cheese. With familiar partners, food-deprived rats that had received cheese returned more help than satiated rats that had received carrots. Our results suggest that Norway rats assess the received help's value based on its quality, their current need and partner familiarity before reciprocating received help.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.