Cited by 7Cognitive Abilities and TestingIntelligence, Security, War StrategyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Apples and oranges: The pitfalls of comparative intelligence

Savage, Anne, Snowdon, Charles T.·1989·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x00057897

Cites

282 of 282 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is no single method that can be applied without bias across taxa.

    “Undoubtedly, there is no single method that can be applied without bias across taxa (Bitterman 1975; Savage and Snowdon 1989).”

    From How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology (2012) · cites this paper as Savage and Snowdon 1989

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Savage, A., & Snowdon, C. T.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
1989-09
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
605-606
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2095603527
Cited by
7
References
281
Citations by year
2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cross-species comparison, intelligence, animal cognition, methodological pitfalls

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