Abstract
Judgement bias testing has emerged as a potential tool for assessing affective states in animals. Researchers infer an animal's affective state based on an animal's response to an ambiguous stimulus that is intermediate to both the rewarded and punished conditioned stimuli. Animals can be classified as "optimistic" or having a positive affective state if the animal displays behaviors that suggest an increased expectation of reward in the face of ambiguous stimuli. Alternatively, animals can be classified "pessimistic" or having a negative affective state if the animal displays behaviors that suggest an increased expectation of punishment in the face of ambiguous stimuli. Recent reports in multiple species question what factors influence performance in judgement bias testing, and which may allow for erroneous conclusions regarding individual affective state. In order to better understand this concern, 25 female swine were subjected to behavioral assessments at critical rearing stages to determine response variability. These same individuals were then assessed for physical measures of welfare and judgement bias using the "go/no-go" task as breeding adults. Sows which were more aggressive approached the ambiguous, but not the positive, stimulus significantly faster than others. Both optimistic and pessimistic biases were observed despite all sows living in enriched housing, and, sows with more positive physical welfare measures (fewer skin lesions and healthy body condition) did not exhibit more optimistic judgement biases. Our data demonstrate that behavior traits, such as aggressiveness, can affect a sow's performance in a judgement bias test, while measures of physical health did not. We suggest that individual differences in behavior (e.g., bold-aggressive behavioral syndrome, or, proactive coping style) generate different emotional responses and can contribute to the animal's overall affective state more so than physical ailment. Our findings highlight the complexity of how different factors impact an animal's overall affective state and support the need for complementary measures in future JBT studies, including personality assessment.
Highlights
Researchers often assess the welfare of individual sows in a pen by using physical metrics of poor welfare, with little attention being given to the subjective psychological experience of the sows
We found that sows which were determined to be more resistant during restraint as a piglet, more aggressive toward humans as an adult when their piglets were handled, and more aggressive to conspecifics during social mixing, were more likely to display optimistic biases as compared to nonresponsive gilts and non-aggressive sows. These results suggest that the judgement bias paradigm used in the present study more likely was evaluating a sow’s response to risk as it relates to consistent individual differences in behavior and raises the question of how personality attributes contribute to the subjective mood state of the sow
The individuals of this study were housed in same enriched environment, both optimistic and pessimistic biases were observed and these judgement bias outcomes did not correlate with contemporaneous physical measures of animal welfare
Summary
Due to both government legislation and consumer demands, limitations have been established on the use of individual stalls to house gestating gilts and sows in many developed countries, including the EU [1], Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and ten states in the United States [2,3]. The evaluation of the emotional states in non-human animals rely on physiological and behavioral indicators of arousal, as well as measures of conditioned responses to infer pain or pleasure experience (e.g., motivation and aversion testing) [6] This evaluation can be expanded to include the cognitive component of an emotional state, such as, the impact of emotions on information processing (e.g., attention, memory, and judgement/appraisal) [7,8]. Rats, piglets, and starlings in barren, crowded, or unpredictable housing conditions will display pessimistic cognitive bias in their appraisal of ambiguous stimuli, and are inferred to experience more negative affective states [11–13] While this assessment of ambiguous cue interpretation allows researchers to infer how an individual’s emotional state may influence information processing, it typically does not consider the influence of individual differences in behavioral response (i.e., personality) or individual sensitivity to reinforcer [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
