A consideration of the role of biology and test design as confounding factors in judgement bias tests

Whittaker, Alexandra L.; Barker, Timothy Hugh

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105126

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 142 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This renders the goal of creating a welfare assessment tool, with a broad range of positive and negative descriptors, currently challenging. There clearly needs to be more focused research on this topic utilizing methods such as judgement bias [46,49], or preference testing [50], to corroborate determinations on positive emotions associated with behaviors identified. Alternately, the employment of habitat modifications expected to be positive, with evaluation of a suite of indicators before and after the change might be an alternate validation strategy; see, e.g., [24].…”

Section: Welfare Indicators Identifiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Captive Reptiles: A Delphi Consultation Survey

Whittaker

Golder-Dewar

Triggs

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing focus on evidence-based welfare assessment by animal care staff in zoos, along with a strong interest in animal welfare by the zoo-visiting public, to the extent that this can influence their choice of institutions to visit. Regulatory oversight of animal welfare standards continues to strengthen across many jurisdictions. Zoos are increasingly formalizing their practices with the development and refinement of evidence-based welfare assessment tools. There has been a drive for welfare assessment tools to comprise both resource-based and animal-based measures. However, animal-based indicators are not always well characterized, in terms of their nature and whether they infer a positive or negative affective state. This is especially so for reptiles, which are often considered behaviorally inexpressive and are under-researched. In this study, a Delphi consultation approach was used to gather expert opinion on the suitability of potential animal-based indicators of welfare for inclusion in a welfare assessment tool across four families of reptiles: Agamidae, Chelidae, Pythonidae, and Testudinidae. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted eliciting responses from a global group of professionals who work with reptiles. In the first survey, respondents were provided with an author-derived list of potential animal-based indicators for consideration of their validity and practicality as welfare indicators. The indicators were refined for the second survey including only those indicators that were considered valid or practical on the first survey (≥4 on a 5-point Likert scale), and that achieved ≥70% consensus amongst experts. In the second survey, respondents were asked to re-evaluate the reliability and practicality of the indicators and to rank them on these facets. Eight to ten assessment indicators for each family of reptiles were identified from Survey 2. These indicators were often health related, for example, presence of oculo-nasal discharge or wounds. However, some true behavioral indicators were identified, such as showing species-specific interest and alertness. These indicators should now be incorporated into taxon-tailored welfare assessment tools for trial and validation in captive reptile populations. This study provides a next step towards developing reptile-specific animal welfare assessment tools for these often-overlooked animals.

show abstract

Section: Welfare Indicators Identifiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Captive Reptiles: A Delphi Consultation Survey

Whittaker

Golder-Dewar

Triggs

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, animals that mostly experience negative affective states such as pain or fear, are described as having poor welfare [19]. As previously discussed, in spite of the availability of a wide variety of physiological and other biological methods for ascertainment of the nature of affective states [20], these are commonly invasive or impractical to implement in a zoo setting on a regular basis. Consequently, behavioral and resource-based measures predominate and are the focus of this review as a basis for performing institutional based welfare assessments of animals.…”

Section: Defining Welfare and Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice

jones¹,

Sherwen²,

Robbins³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zoos are increasingly putting in place formalized animal welfare assessment programs to allow monitoring of welfare over time, as well as to aid in resource prioritization. These programs tend to rely on assessment tools that incorporate resource-based and observational animal- focused measures since it is rarely feasible to obtain measures of physiology in zoo-housed animals. A range of assessment tools are available which commonly have a basis in the Five Domains framework. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to bring together recent studies examining welfare assessment methods in zoo animals. A summary of these methods is provided with advantages and limitations of the approach es presented. We then highlight practical considerations with respect to implementation of these tools into practice, for example scoring schemes, weighting of criteria, and innate animal factors for consideration. It is concluded that would be value in standardizing guidelines for development of welfare assessment tools since zoo accreditation bodies rarely prescribe these. There is also a need to develop taxon or species- specific assessment tools to inform welfare management.

show abstract

“…Males typically have poorer inhibitory control (when it comes to avoiding impulsive actions), but are better at inhibiting impulsive choices (i.e., waiting for a larger, delayed reward rather than going for an instant, small reward), than females (43). The nature of sex differences in affective states differs between species (44). Overall, while sex differences in the relationship between inhibitory control and affective states could be expected, they are less clear to predict the nature of.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Inhibitory Control Relates to Positive and Negative Affective States in Red Junglefowl

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in inhibitory control, an aspect of cognition, are found in many species. How this variation links to affective states is not much explored, and could be relevant for welfare. As less fearful, more optimistic, individuals may act more impulsively, inhibitory control could link to less negative, more positive, affective states. Alternatively, poorer inhibitory control could associate with more negative, less positive, affective states, as poorer inhibitory control can result in individuals being less able to adapt to changing environments and more likely to show stereotypies. We here explored in three cohorts (N = 209) of captive red junglefowl, the ancestor of domestic chickens, how inhibitory control associated with affective states. Specifically, we measured inhibitory control with a detour task, and negative and positive affective states with a tonic immobility test and a cognitive judgement bias test, respectively. Cognition and behaviour can differ between ages and sexes. Therefore, we investigated how inhibitory control related to affective states in younger chicks (≈2.5 weeks old), older chicks (≈5 weeks old) and sexually mature adults (≈28 weeks old) of both sexes. In younger chicks, poorer inhibitory control associated with less negative, more positive, affective states. We found no relationship between inhibitory control and affective states in older chicks or adults, nor sex differences regarding how inhibitory control related to affective states. Overall, our results suggest that inhibitory control can link to affective states and that the nature of these links can change over ontogeny.

show abstract

A consideration of the role of biology and test design as confounding factors in judgement bias tests

Cited by 15 publications

References 142 publications

Identification of Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Captive Reptiles: A Delphi Consultation Survey

Identification of Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Captive Reptiles: A Delphi Consultation Survey

Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice

How Inhibitory Control Relates to Positive and Negative Affective States in Red Junglefowl

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About