SynthesisPloS one2013
Confirmation bias in studies of nestmate recognition: a cautionary note for research into the behaviour of animals.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Eyespots inEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Ant responses in a lycaenid-ant symbiosis are not facilitated by cuticular compounds alone.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Review
- Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Highly diverse cuticular hydrocarbon profiles but no evidence for aggression towards non-kin in the ambrosia beetleEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Human interventions in a behavioural experiment for Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus).Animal cognition · 2023Article
- A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021Article
- Replications, Comparisons, Sampling and the Problem of Representativeness in Animal Cognition Research.Animal behavior and cognition · 2021Article
- Biases in ecological research: attitudes of scientists and ways of control.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Perceived and actual fighting ability: determinants of success by decision, knockout or submission in human combat sports.Biology letters · 2020Article
- Confirmation Bias as a Factor in Pharmacy Student Assessment of Research Study Quality.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2019Article
- Insect Antennal Morphology: The Evolution of Diverse Solutions to Odorant Perception.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2018Review
- GCalignR: An R package for aligning gas-chromatography data for ecological and evolutionary studies.PloS one · 2018Article
- An Alpine ant's behavioural polymorphism: monogyny with and without internest aggression inEthology, ecology & evolution · 2018Article
- Logical fallacies in animal model research.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to interpret information in a way that confirms their expectations. A long recognized phenomenon in human psychology, confirmation bias can distort the results of a study and thus reduce its reliability. While confirmation bias can be avoided by conducting studies blind to treatment groups, this practice is not always used. Surprisingly, this is true of research in animal behaviour, and the extent to which confirmation bias influences research outcomes in this field is rarely investigated. Here we conducted a meta-analysis, using studies on nestmate recognition in ants, to compare the outcomes of studies that were conducted blind with those that were not. Nestmate recognition studies typically perform intra- and inter colony aggression assays, with the a priori expectation that there should be little or no aggression among nestmates. Aggressive interactions between ants can include subtle behaviours such as mandible flaring and recoil, which can be hard to quantify, making these types of assays prone to confirmation bias. Our survey revealed that only 29% of our sample of 79 studies were conducted blind. These studies were more likely to report aggression among nestmates if they were conducted blind (73%) than if they were not (21%). Moreover, we found that the effect size between nestmate and non-nestmate treatment means is significantly lower in experiments conducted blind than those in which colony identity is known (1.38 versus 2.76). We discuss the implications of the impact of confirmation bias for research that attempts to obtain quantitative synthesises of data from different studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.