New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Know the Jargon: “Human Shield Effect”

Animals aren’t as vigilant for predators when they know humans are around

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

One morning in South Africa's mountainous Lajuma Research Center, an adult female samango monkey came down from the trees to search for peanuts in an experimental food dispenser. Every once in a while she scanned her surroundings for predators, but she never bothered to look behind her once she realized that Katarzyna Nowak was there.

Animals that are not at the top of their food chains are adept at avoiding their predators. Samango monkeys, for example, stay up in trees. But to retrieve peanuts from the center's dispensers, they have to be on the ground—and that makes them vulnerable. Only when it is certain that no predators are around will a monkey spend time looking for food. So why did this one stop checking for danger behind her? Nowak, a biological anthropologist at Durham University in England and at South Africa's University of the Free State, suspects that the monkey figured that if a human was around, then a leopard was probably not. “[It was] as if she was thinking that I had that area covered,” Nowak says.

Nowak put her suspicion to the test. She and her colleagues watched 100 individuals in all and found that they ate more food available on the ground when humans were present than when humans were absent (and observing them via camera). “Researchers were perceived as shields against terrestrial predators,” the team writes in the journal Behavioral Ecology.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although researchers have purported to see many animals change their behavior while being watched by humans—from zebras on the African savanna to moose in North American forests—Nowak's study is one of the first to subject the “observer effect” to scientific scrutiny.

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman
Scientific American Magazine Vol 311 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Know the Jargon” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 311 No. 4 (), p. 21
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1014-21

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe