Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities

Abstract Expertise in science, particularly in animal behaviour, may provide people with the capacity to provide better judgments in contrast to lay people. Here we explore whether experts provide a more objective, accurate and coherent evaluation of a recently reported anecdote on Atlantic puffin (...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scientific Reports
Main Authors: Krisztina Sándor, Balázs Könnyű, Ádám Miklósi
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2021
Subjects:
R
Q
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x
https://doaj.org/article/48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483 2023-05-15T15:27:57+02:00 Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities Krisztina Sándor Balázs Könnyű Ádám Miklósi 2021-08-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x https://doaj.org/article/48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483 EN eng Nature Portfolio https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x 2045-2322 https://doaj.org/article/48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483 Scientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021) Medicine R Science Q article 2021 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x 2022-12-31T05:46:04Z Abstract Expertise in science, particularly in animal behaviour, may provide people with the capacity to provide better judgments in contrast to lay people. Here we explore whether experts provide a more objective, accurate and coherent evaluation of a recently reported anecdote on Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) “tool use” (recorded on video) which was published in a major scientific journal but was received with some scepticism. We relied on citizen science and developed a questionnaire to measure whether experts in ethology and ornithology and lay people agree or disagree on (1) the description of the actions that they observe (the bird takes a stick in its beak), (2) the possible goal of the action (nest-building or grooming) and (3) the intentional component of the action (the bird took the stick into its beak in order to scratch itself). We hypothesised that contrary to the lay people, experts are more critical evaluators that is they are more inclined to report alternative actions, like nest building, or are less likely to attributing goal-directedness to the action in the absence of evidence. In contrast, lay people may be more prone to anthropomorphise utilising a teleological and intentional stance. Alternatively, all three groups of subjects may rely on anthropomorphism at similar levels and prior expertise does not play a significant role. We found that no major differences among the evaluators. At the group levels, respondents were relatively uncertain with regard to the action of the bird seen on the video but they showed some individual consistency with regard to the description of the action. Thus, we conclude that paradoxically, with regard to the task our experts are typically not experts in the strict sense of the definition, and suggest that anecdotal reports should not be used to argue about mental processes. Article in Journal/Newspaper Atlantic puffin fratercula Fratercula arctica Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Scientific Reports 11 1
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Krisztina Sándor
Balázs Könnyű
Ádám Miklósi
Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
topic_facet Medicine
R
Science
Q
description Abstract Expertise in science, particularly in animal behaviour, may provide people with the capacity to provide better judgments in contrast to lay people. Here we explore whether experts provide a more objective, accurate and coherent evaluation of a recently reported anecdote on Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) “tool use” (recorded on video) which was published in a major scientific journal but was received with some scepticism. We relied on citizen science and developed a questionnaire to measure whether experts in ethology and ornithology and lay people agree or disagree on (1) the description of the actions that they observe (the bird takes a stick in its beak), (2) the possible goal of the action (nest-building or grooming) and (3) the intentional component of the action (the bird took the stick into its beak in order to scratch itself). We hypothesised that contrary to the lay people, experts are more critical evaluators that is they are more inclined to report alternative actions, like nest building, or are less likely to attributing goal-directedness to the action in the absence of evidence. In contrast, lay people may be more prone to anthropomorphise utilising a teleological and intentional stance. Alternatively, all three groups of subjects may rely on anthropomorphism at similar levels and prior expertise does not play a significant role. We found that no major differences among the evaluators. At the group levels, respondents were relatively uncertain with regard to the action of the bird seen on the video but they showed some individual consistency with regard to the description of the action. Thus, we conclude that paradoxically, with regard to the task our experts are typically not experts in the strict sense of the definition, and suggest that anecdotal reports should not be used to argue about mental processes.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Krisztina Sándor
Balázs Könnyű
Ádám Miklósi
author_facet Krisztina Sándor
Balázs Könnyű
Ádám Miklósi
author_sort Krisztina Sándor
title Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
title_short Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
title_full Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
title_fullStr Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
title_full_unstemmed Uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
title_sort uncertainty in experts’ judgments exposes the vulnerability of research reporting anecdotes on animals’ cognitive abilities
publisher Nature Portfolio
publishDate 2021
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x
https://doaj.org/article/48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483
genre Atlantic puffin
fratercula
Fratercula arctica
genre_facet Atlantic puffin
fratercula
Fratercula arctica
op_source Scientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021)
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x
https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322
doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x
2045-2322
https://doaj.org/article/48d6727db9464d16be180cfdf50d2483
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95384-x
container_title Scientific Reports
container_volume 11
container_issue 1
_version_ 1766358347463786496