Contact FutureLearn for Support
Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect

Wilhelm Von Osten, a German high school mathematics instructor, thought that people dramatically underestimated the intelligence and reasoning skills of animals.

A man of science, he set out to test his hypothesis by teaching mathematics to a horse called Hans. Hans quickly showed real aptitude; soon he could read a number written on a board and tap his hoof the correct number of times.

Von Osten moved from reading and counting to basic arithmetic and again Hans mastered the new tasks, learning how to correctly answer a variety of math problems including basic square roots and fractions. From 1891, Von Osten toured Germany, showing Hans’ skill before large crowds.

Now able to put questions to Hans orally, Van Osten would ask questions such as “If the first day of the month is a Wednesday, what is the date of the following Monday?” Hans would tap his foot six times. “What is the square root of sixteen?” Four taps.

Von Osten also demonstrated that Hans could answer simple questions in German, having learned to tap once for A, twice for B, and so on, and that he could also tap out the time. Though he made occasional mistakes, the horse was right almost 90% of the time: by some accounts, he had the mathematical skills of an average fourteen-year-old.

Alt text tag

When doubts were raised, Von Osten happily agreed to allow Germany’s board of education to conduct an independent investigation. In 1904, after extensive testing, the Hans Commission – which included two zoologists, a psychologist, a horse trainer, several schoolteachers and a circus manager – concluded that no trickery involved. So far as they could tell, the horse’s talents were genuine.

The Commission then passed the investigation to a young psychologist, Oskar Pfungst. Pfungst designed a careful set of experiments and began testing Hans.

He soon noticed that Hans performed well when questioned under his normal conditions. But the horse’s accuracy dropped when the questioner stood farther away than normal. And if the questioner didn’t know the answer to a question or was concealed from him, Hans’ accuracy plummeted to nearly zero. Pfungst hypothesized that Hans’ cleverness relied on him having a close, unobstructed view of a person who knew the correct answer.

With that in mind, Pfungst began watching the questioners, and he noticed that as Hans tapped his hoof in response to a question, their breathing, posture, and expression showed subtle signs of increasing tension, tension which disappeared when Hans made the correct tap. Innocently and without realizing they were doing so, Pfungst concluded, the questioners were giving Hans a cue when to stop tapping.

Discovery of the unconscious cueing

Pfungst had discovered ‘unconscious cueing’, the influence of researchers’ subtle and unintentional signals on their subjects, and it is now recognized as widespread in research involving human subjects as well as animals.

Unconscious cues introduce a form of bias into experiments, leading subjects to give answers that seem right to the researchers. Blinding and double blinding trials is one response. In a blind drug trial of a new drug, for instance, one group of participants receives the drug while a second group receives a placebo.

Participants do not know which group they are in. Still, the doctor administering the drug may give some subtle, unconscious, cue about which drug the patient is getting: perhaps they check the reactions of participants in the active group just a little more carefully, or are more ready to attribute those of participants in the inactive group to something other than the drug.

Double-blind experiments – in which neither researcher nor participant – knows which group a participant is in - also keep the researcher in the dark, preventing them sending unconscious clues.

Share this article:

This article is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Course highlights Get a taste of this course before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.