Cited by 53Animal Behavior and ReproductionDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Seeing What We Want to See: Confirmation Bias in Animal Behavior Research

Marsh, David M., Hanlon, Teresa J.·2007·Ethology

Abstract

Confirmation bias is the tendency of observers to see what they expect to see while conducting scientific research. Although confirmation bias has been well‐studied by psychologists in the context of qualitative judgments, it has been much less studied with respect to the kinds of quantitative observations made by behavioral biologists. We carried out two experiments that used multiple observers of the aggression and foraging behaviors of red‐backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) to determine whether behavioral observations were influenced by the a priori expectations of observers. In both experiments, one group of observers was given a specific set of expectations with respect to sex differences in salamander behavior, while a second group was given the opposite set of expectations. In one experiment, observers collected data on variable sets of live salamanders, while in the other experiment, observers collected data from identical videotaped trials. Across experiments and observed behaviors, the expectations of observers did appear to bias observations, but only to a small or moderate degree. Confirmation bias never accounted for more than 13% of the observed variation in behavior, and was generally equivalent to <20% of the mean value of each variable. The estimated magnitude of confirmation bias was quite similar for men and women, suggesting no relationship between observer gender and susceptibility to confirmation bias. We believe that these results are largely optimistic with respect to confirmation bias in behavioral ecology, in that they suggest the bias may often be small relative to individual variation in behavior, even for relatively inexperienced observers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01406.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Confirmation bias is more pronounced with respect to social beliefs compared to non-social beliefs.

    “Finally, there is also evidence that confirmation bias is more pronounced with respect to social beliefs compared to non-social beliefs.”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Marsh and Hanlon 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Marsh, D. M., & Hanlon, T. J.
Affiliations
Washington and Lee University (US)
Corresponding author
Marsh, David M.
Venue
Ethology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-12
Volume
113
Issue
11
Pages
1089-1098
ISSN
  • 0179-1613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0310
OpenAlex
W2124201882
Cited by
53
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ethology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
confirmation bias, observer bias, animal behavior observation, Plethodon cinereus, foraging behavior, sex differences in behavior, observer expectations, observer gender, behavioral ecology

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