How to Study Animal Minds

Andrews, Kristin

doi:10.1017/9781108616522

Cited by 60 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 150 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over 70% of our sample somewhat or strongly agreed that Morgan’s canon is important to use when interpreting the results of animal cognition experiments. Superficially, this contrasts with a large body of literature criticising the canon on the grounds that there is no reason to privilege “simpler” or “lower” explanations of animal cognition over more “complicated” or “higher” explanations [ 20 , 21 , 55 – 60 ]. However, participants qualitative responses revealed a more nuanced picture: Many of those who also provided free-text responses, a) recognised the inherent ambiguity and multiple interpretations of Morgan’s canon, and, b) cautioned against a blind application of Morgan’s canon.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists’ attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves—however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists’ attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a possible factor underlying poor performance and inconclusive evidence in many studies with non-primate species. Tasks optimally designed from a human viewpoint may not adequately consider the ecology and ways in which other animals perceive and interact with the world (Andrews, 2020; e.g., elephants use scent in quantity discrimination, Plotnik et al, 2019), thus not accurately testing cognitive processes. Another layer of complexity is added by idiosyncratic methods that emerge with each adaptation to a new species, making it difficult to evaluate the reason that different species succeed or fail on tasks lacking clear comparison points.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching high and low: Domestic dogs’ understanding of solidity

Espinosa¹,

Tecwyn²,

Buchsbaum³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical reasoning appears central to understanding how the world works, suggesting adaptive function across the animal kingdom. However, conclusive evidence for inferential reasoning about physical objects is limited to primates. We systematically tested a central feature—understanding of solidity—in domestic dogs, by adapting a validated procedure (the shelf task) previously used to test children and non-human primates. Dogs watched a treat dropped into an apparatus with a shelf either present (treat landing on the shelf) or absent (treat landing on the bottom surface) and chose where to search for it (above or below the shelf). Across four studies (N=64), we manipulated visual access to the trajectory of the treat and apparatus interior. Dogs showed a high level of accuracy after 12 trials when the shelf was present (Study 1), even when visual cues of continuity were eliminated (Study 2), and when the shelf was absent (Study 3). As with toddlers, fully occluding the apparatus and alternating the presence and absence of the shelf within subjects showed at-chance performance in dogs (Study 4). The findings of these four studies suggest that dogs may be able to make inferences using solidity and continuity and do not exhibit proximity or gravity biases. However, dogs failed to search correctly when the rewarded location varied within-subjects, suggesting possible limits to their ability to make inferences about physical objects. We discuss physical inferences in dogs in the context of ecological and evolutionary affordances, and its role in making sense of the physical world.

show abstract

“…Over 70% of our sample somewhat or strongly agreed that Morgan's canon is important to use when interpreting the results of animal cognition experiments. Superficially, this contrasts with a large body of literature criticising the canon on the grounds that there is no reason to privilege "simpler" or "lower" explanations of animal cognition over more "complicated" or "higher" explanations (Andrews, 2020;Bausman & Halina, 2018;Buckner, 2013;Fitzpatrick, 2008;Heyes, 2012;Meketa, 2014;Sober, 2005;Starzak, 2017). However, participants qualitative responses revealed a more nuanced picture: Many of those who also provided free-text responses, a) recognised the inherent ambiguity and multiple interpretations of Morgan's canon, and b) cautioned against a blind application of Morgan's canon.…”

Section: Morgan's Canonmentioning

confidence: 91%

The Hidden Side of Animal Cognition Research: Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Bias, Replicability and Scientific Practice

Farrar¹,

Ostojić²,

Clayton³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field as a whole, but less so in their own work. Despite sometimes (39.7% of responses) or often (38.8% of responses) hoping for one result over another, researchers reported that they could often (45.8% of responses) or always (38.4% of responses) detach from any biases to perform objectively fair tests of animal cognition. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses, and researchers self-reported that a median of 80% of their studies had been published. Their free-text responses suggested a stronger publication bias against negative and inconclusive results, and results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves — however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, and 44.7% of researchers agreed that their own area (44.7% of responses), or other areas (73.0% of responses) of research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, and highlighted many possible improvements. Overall, these data provide a picture of active researchers’ beliefs about the animal cognition research processes that can be used to inform debates on where and how the field can improve.

show abstract

How to Study Animal Minds

Cited by 60 publications

References 150 publications

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists’ attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists’ attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

Searching high and low: Domestic dogs’ understanding of solidity

The Hidden Side of Animal Cognition Research: Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Bias, Replicability and Scientific Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About