Cited by 811Language and cultural evolutionEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationChild and Animal Learning Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Copy Others? Insights from the Social Learning Strategies Tournament

Open access

Abstract

It Pays to Be a Copy Cat: Does it pay to copy what others do? Rendell et al. (p. 208 ) elected to copy Robert Axelrod's 1979 tournament in which strategies for playing the iterated prisoner's dilemma game were pitted against each other until an overall winner emerged—the tit-for-tat strategy. In the 2008 tournament, 100 social learning strategies designed to cope with a changing environment competed against each other; the winning strategy involved sampling the behaviors of other players periodically, rather than exploring the environment alone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1184719

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 811

Metadata

Authors
Rendell, L., Boyd, R., Cownden, D., Enquist, M., Eriksson, K., Feldman, M. W., Fogarty, L., Ghirlanda, S., Lillicrap, T., & Laland, K. N.
Affiliations
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rendell, L.
  • Laland, K. N.
Venue
Science
Published
2010-04-09
Volume
328
Issue
5975
Pages
208-213
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2038900621
Cited by
811
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 67
FWCI
1771.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM028016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
social learning, copying behavior, trial-and-error learning, information filtering, adaptive behavior, learning strategies, evolutionary game theory
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Cultural Evolution, Games, Experimental, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Learning, Problem Solving, Social Behavior, Software, Linear Models, Observation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review