↓ Skip to main content

Taking personality selection bias seriously in animal cognition research: a case study in capuchin monkeys (Sapajusapella)

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Taking personality selection bias seriously in animal cognition research: a case study in capuchin monkeys (Sapajusapella)
Published in
Animal Cognition, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0603-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Blake Morton, Phyllis C. Lee, Hannah M. Buchanan-Smith

Abstract

In most experimental work on animal cognition, researchers attempt to control for multiple interacting variables by training subjects prior to testing, allowing subjects to participate voluntarily, and providing subjects with food rewards. However, do such methods encourage selection bias from subjects' personalities? In this study, we trained eighteen zoo-housed capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) for two experiments, under conditions of positive reinforcement (i.e. food rewards) and free-choice participation. Using a combination of behavioral and rater-based methods, we identified and validated five personality dimensions in these capuchins (Assertiveness, Openness, Neuroticism, Sociability, and Attentiveness). Scores on Openness were positively related to individual differences in monkey task participation, reflecting previous work showing that such individuals are often more active, curious, and willing to engage in testing. We also found a negative relationship between scores on Assertiveness and performance on tasks, which may reflect the trade-offs between speed and accuracy in these animals' decision-making. Highly Assertive individuals (the most sociable within monkey groups) may also prioritize social interactions over engaging in research. Lastly, monkeys that consistently participated and performed well on both tasks showed significantly higher Openness and lower Assertiveness compared to others, mirroring relationships found between personality, participation, and performance among all participants. Participation and performance during training was clearly biased toward individuals with particular personalities (i.e. high Openness, low Assertiveness). Results are discussed in light of the need for careful interpretation of comparative data on animal cognition and the need for researchers to take personality selection bias more seriously.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 155 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 27%
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Professor 10 6%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 42%
Psychology 37 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 32 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#13,857,772
of 23,915,168 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,102
of 1,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,860
of 288,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,915,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.