Jane was accused many times that her way of observing wasn’t scientific. She gave names to the apes instead of numbering them and assumed that they have personalities, emotions and feelings. She also used feeding stations at the beginning. Naming wasn’t accepted with the reason to avoid any potential emotional attachment what could change the observations. The standard methods require the avoidance of any interference in order to keep objectivity. The artificial feeding was criticized  that it may altered the normal behavior patterns of chimpanzees. Margaret Power argued that the feeding stations increased the amount of emerging conflicts and cause a higher level of aggression. Craig Stanford claimed that intervention is highly necessary to observe intergroup conflicts. The results of other studies were contradictory – Some of it didn’t show the same observations of aggression but some other even showed it without intervention. Jane stated that the intervention was necessary to attract them and it may changed the intensity but not the nature of chimpanzees’ conflicting behavior. Jane said the following (sarcastic) response for the negative reception of her outstanding anthropomorphic approach:

“When, in the early 1960s, I brazenly used such words as ‘childhood’, ‘adolescence’, ‘motivation’, ‘excitement’, and ‘mood’ I was much criticized. Even worse was my crime of suggesting that chimpanzees had ‘personalities’. I was ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman animals and was thus guilty of that worst of ethological sins -anthropomorphism.”