| Title |
Theory of mind in dogs? Examining method and concept
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Learning & Behavior, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13420-011-0041-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra Horowitz |
| Abstract |
In line with other research, Udell, Dorey, and Wynne's (in press) finding that dogs and wolves pass on some trials of a putative theory-of-mind test and fail on others is as informative about the methods and concepts of the research as about the subjects. This commentary expands on these points. The intertrial differences in the target article demonstrate how critical the choice of cues is in experimental design; the intersubject-group differences demonstrate how life histories can interact with experimental design. Even the best-designed theory-of-mind tests have intractable logical problems. Finally, these and previous research results call for the introduction of an intermediate stage of ability, a rudimentary theory of mind, to describe subjects' performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Brazil | 1 | 14% |
| Egypt | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hungary | 3 | 2% |
| Austria | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 173 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 18% |
| Researcher | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 65 | 35% |
| Psychology | 47 | 25% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 11 December 2022.
All research outputs
#980,628
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#25
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,882
of 130,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 130,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them