4.7 Article

Assessing and Enhancing the Welfare of Animals with Equivocal and Reliable Cues

Journal

ANIMALS
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani9090680

Keywords

anticipatory behavior; cognitive bias; judgment bias; human animal relationship; affective state; appetitive behavior; agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Simple Summary Actions of human caretakers influence the experience of animals under their care, in zoos and elsewhere. These animals often learn to associate stimuli-sights, smells, sounds-with desirable outcomes such as feedings, training sessions, or other positive experiences. Here, we propose that a conscientious approach to providing reliable cues about daily events and observing animal behavior in response to both reliable and uncertain cues can help caretakers support and assess animal welfare. The actions of human caretakers strongly influence animals living under human care. Here, we consider how intentional and unintentional signals provided by caretakers can inform our assessment of animals' well-being as well as help to support it. Our aim is to assist in further developing techniques to learn animals' affective state from their behavior and to provide simple suggestions for how animal caretakers' behavior can support animal welfare. We suggest that anticipatory behavior towards expected rewards is related to decision-making behavior as viewed through the cognitive bias lens. By considering the predictions of the theories associated with anticipatory behavior and cognitive bias, we propose to use specific cues to probe the cumulative affective state of animals. Additionally, our commentary draws on the logic of reward sensitivity and judgement bias theories to develop a framework that suggests how reliable and equivocal signals may influence animals' affective states. Application of this framework may be useful in supporting the welfare of animals in human care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available