Todd M. Freeberg, Scott A. Benson, Gordon M. Burghardt
{"title":"动物行为研究中观察者偏差最小化再探:有所改进,但任重道远","authors":"Todd M. Freeberg, Scott A. Benson, Gordon M. Burghardt","doi":"10.1111/eth.13446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For decades, texts on methods in animal behavior research have stressed the need for observers of behavior to work to minimize potential unconscious biases in their coding of data. Two major ways of minimizing these biases are to carry out data coding blind to the key comparisons being made in the study and to have high inter-observer reliability. Over 10 years ago, Burghardt et al. (2012, <i>Ethology</i>, 118, 511) reviewed five major journals in the field of animal behavior and coded randomly selected articles from five decadal volumes (1970 to 2010). That earlier article found poor rates of reporting these two common methods for minimizing potential biases. Here, we carried out similar coding for the 2020 volumes from those same five journals. We found that rates of reporting have increased in all five journals – some substantially. However, rates of reporting still lag behind the journal <i>Infancy</i>, which publishes research on human infant development and relies on many of the same behavioral observation and coding methods used by animal behavior researchers. Given increased calls for transparency and reproducibility in many different fields of scientific study, we argue that we – researchers, reviewers, and editors – can and need to do better at making sure we are actively conducting research in ways to minimize potential observer biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":50494,"journal":{"name":"Ethology","volume":"130 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimizing observer bias in animal behavior studies revisited: Improvement, but a long way to go\",\"authors\":\"Todd M. Freeberg, Scott A. Benson, Gordon M. Burghardt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eth.13446\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>For decades, texts on methods in animal behavior research have stressed the need for observers of behavior to work to minimize potential unconscious biases in their coding of data. Two major ways of minimizing these biases are to carry out data coding blind to the key comparisons being made in the study and to have high inter-observer reliability. Over 10 years ago, Burghardt et al. (2012, <i>Ethology</i>, 118, 511) reviewed five major journals in the field of animal behavior and coded randomly selected articles from five decadal volumes (1970 to 2010). That earlier article found poor rates of reporting these two common methods for minimizing potential biases. Here, we carried out similar coding for the 2020 volumes from those same five journals. We found that rates of reporting have increased in all five journals – some substantially. However, rates of reporting still lag behind the journal <i>Infancy</i>, which publishes research on human infant development and relies on many of the same behavioral observation and coding methods used by animal behavior researchers. Given increased calls for transparency and reproducibility in many different fields of scientific study, we argue that we – researchers, reviewers, and editors – can and need to do better at making sure we are actively conducting research in ways to minimize potential observer biases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethology\",\"volume\":\"130 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.13446\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.13446","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Minimizing observer bias in animal behavior studies revisited: Improvement, but a long way to go
For decades, texts on methods in animal behavior research have stressed the need for observers of behavior to work to minimize potential unconscious biases in their coding of data. Two major ways of minimizing these biases are to carry out data coding blind to the key comparisons being made in the study and to have high inter-observer reliability. Over 10 years ago, Burghardt et al. (2012, Ethology, 118, 511) reviewed five major journals in the field of animal behavior and coded randomly selected articles from five decadal volumes (1970 to 2010). That earlier article found poor rates of reporting these two common methods for minimizing potential biases. Here, we carried out similar coding for the 2020 volumes from those same five journals. We found that rates of reporting have increased in all five journals – some substantially. However, rates of reporting still lag behind the journal Infancy, which publishes research on human infant development and relies on many of the same behavioral observation and coding methods used by animal behavior researchers. Given increased calls for transparency and reproducibility in many different fields of scientific study, we argue that we – researchers, reviewers, and editors – can and need to do better at making sure we are actively conducting research in ways to minimize potential observer biases.
期刊介绍:
International in scope, Ethology publishes original research on behaviour including physiological mechanisms, function, and evolution. The Journal addresses behaviour in all species, from slime moulds to humans. Experimental research is preferred, both from the field and the lab, which is grounded in a theoretical framework. The section ''Perspectives and Current Debates'' provides an overview of the field and may include theoretical investigations and essays on controversial topics.