Anthropocentric bias may explain research disparities between animal tool use and nest building

Scientists are not immune from bias. Studying nonhuman species objectively is inherently challenging, especially for ‘charismatic’ and ostensibly human-like behaviours. Animal tool use is a prime example: while often considered a hallmark of intelligence, the amount of research attention and public interest it generates seems disproportionate when compared with other behaviours involving similar manipulative skills, particularly nest building. Here, we reveal striking disparities in the treatment of tool use and nest building in the animal behaviour literature. We find that tool use publications are more highly cited, are more likely to be published in higher-impact journals and use more terminology suggestive of ‘intelligence’ and human-like cognition compared with nest building publications. Our findings are not confounded by taxonomic biases: these disparities persist even within studies of great apes and Corvus species. Further, we find that articles with more frequent use of ‘intelligent’ terminology are more highly cited, suggesting incentives for the use of anthropomorphic language in scientific articles. Finally, we find that tool use papers are more highly cited than nest building papers even when controlling for the use of ‘intelligent’ language, showing that both language use and behaviour have additive effects on research attention. We argue that these research disparities are partly driven by a widespread assumption that tool use requires more complex cognition than nest building. Since the cognitive mechanisms underpinning either behaviour are still not well understood, we suggest that the widespread appeal of animal tool use is partly due to anthropocentrism. • Animal tool use attracts widespread interest among academic and broader audiences. • Nest building, an arguably similar behaviour, rarely attracts the same attention. • We show that tool use attracts more research attention than nest building. • Researchers also describe tool use with more ‘intelligent’ language than nest building. • We conclude that the appeal of tool use is partly due to anthropocentric bias.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Animal Behaviour
Published
2025-06-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2025.123240
Primary Topic
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anthropocentric bias may explain research disparities between animal tool use and nest building

Susan D. Healy, Sally E. Street, Inga Hamilton
Animal Behaviour
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
article

Anthropocentric bias may explain research disparities between animal tool use and nest building

Susan D. Healy, Sally E. Street, Inga Hamilton
article en

Abstract

Scientists are not immune from bias. Studying nonhuman species objectively is inherently challenging, especially for ‘charismatic’ and ostensibly human-like behaviours. Animal tool use is a prime example: while often considered a hallmark of intelligence, the amount of research attention and public interest it generates seems disproportionate when compared with other behaviours involving similar manipulative skills, particularly nest building. Here, we reveal striking disparities in the treatment of tool use and nest building in the animal behaviour literature. We find that tool use publications are more highly cited, are more likely to be published in higher-impact journals and use more terminology suggestive of ‘intelligence’ and human-like cognition compared with nest building publications. Our findings are not confounded by taxonomic biases: these disparities persist even within studies of great apes and Corvus species. Further, we find that articles with more frequent use of ‘intelligent’ terminology are more highly cited, suggesting incentives for the use of anthropomorphic language in scientific articles. Finally, we find that tool use papers are more highly cited than nest building papers even when controlling for the use of ‘intelligent’ language, showing that both language use and behaviour have additive effects on research attention. We argue that these research disparities are partly driven by a widespread assumption that tool use requires more complex cognition than nest building. Since the cognitive mechanisms underpinning either behaviour are still not well understood, we suggest that the widespread appeal of animal tool use is partly due to anthropocentrism. • Animal tool use attracts widespread interest among academic and broader audiences. • Nest building, an arguably similar behaviour, rarely attracts the same attention. • We show that tool use attracts more research attention than nest building. • Researchers also describe tool use with more ‘intelligent’ language than nest building. • We conclude that the appeal of tool use is partly due to anthropocentric bias.

Animal BehaviourVol. 226
Andrews University (US), St. Andrews University (US), University of St Andrews (GB), Durham University (GB), University of Sunderland (GB)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.