The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment
Open accessAbstract
The amount of risk animals perceive in a given circumstance (i.e. their degree of ‘fear’) is a difficult motivational state to study. While many studies have used flight initiation distance as a proxy for fearfulness and examined the factors influencing the decision to flee, there is no general understanding of the relative importance of these factors. By identifying factors with large effect sizes, we can determine whether anti-predator strategies reduce fear, and we gain a unique perspective on the coevolution of predator and anti-predator behaviour. Based on an extensive review and formal meta-analysis, we found that predator traits that were associated with greater risk (speed, size, directness of approach), increased prey distance to refuge and experience with predators consistently amplified the perception of risk (in terms of flight initiation distance). While fish tolerated closer approach when in larger schools, other taxa had greater flight initiation distances when in larger groups. The presence of armoured and cryptic morphologies decreased perception of risk, but body temperature in lizards had no robust effect on flight initiation distance. We find that selection generally acts on prey to be sensitive to predator behaviour, as well as on prey to modify their behaviour and morphology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions
Lima, S. L. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02393-x · Cited by 748
Hawks and Doves: Factors Affecting Success and Selection in Goshawk Attacks on Woodpigeons
Kenward, R. E. (1978) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/3793 · Cited by 539
Cited by
Stress, corticosterone responses and avian personalities
Cockrem, J. F. (2007) · Journal of Ornithology · doi:10.1007/s10336-007-0175-8 · Cited by 478
Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method
Mason, G. J. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.011 · Cited by 470
Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas
Blumstein, D. T. (2016) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.05.012 · Cited by 426
Self-citationUnmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: A systematic review
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Strebel, N., Sattler, T., Negro, J. J., & Tablado, Z. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178448 · Cited by 319
The Social Structure and Strategies of Delphinids: Predictions Based on an Ecological Framework
Gowans, S., Würsig, B., & Karczmarski, L. (2007) · Advances in Marine Biology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2881(07)53003-8 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Stankowich, T., & Blumstein, D. T.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2005-09-29
- Volume
- 272
- Issue
- 1581
- Pages
- 2627-2634
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2139160204
- Cited by
- 981
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2005.3251
- The paper
- Stankowich, T., & Blumstein, D. T. (2005). Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3251
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.