Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:33:22.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

F Wemelsfelder
F Wemelsfelder*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PO, UK
*
Correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The notion ‘quality of life’ (QoL) suggests that welfare in animals encompasses more than just an absence of suffering; it concerns the quality of an animal's entire relationship with its environment, of how it lives its life. Judgements of such quality are based on the integration of perceived details of how animals behave over time in different contexts. The scientific status of such judgements has long been ambiguous, but in recent decades has begun to be addressed by animal scientists. This paper starts with a brief review of qualitative approaches to the study of animal behaviour, which tend to address characteristics such as individuality, personality, and emotionality. The question then arises whether such characteristics involve a subjective, experiential aspect, and identify animals as sentient beings. The second half of this paper argues that taking the integrative nature of qualitative judgements seriously enables a ‘whole animal’ perspective, through which it becomes possible to view behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language that provides a basis for assessing the quality of an animal's experience (eg contented, anxious). Judging this quality is a skill that requires knowledge of species-specific behaviour, experience in observing and interacting with animals in different contexts, and a willingness to communicate with animals as sentient beings. A substantial body of research indicates that this skill can function reliably in a scientific context, and can be applied usefully as a practical welfare assessment tool. Thus qualitative approaches to the study of animal behaviour should make an important contribution to the growing interest in animal QoL.

Keywords

animal emotionanimal personalityanimal sentienceanimal welfarequalitative behaviour assessmentquality of life
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue S1: Quality of Life: the heart of the matter: Proceedings of the UFAW/BVA Ethics Committee International Symposium, The Royal Society, London, 13-14 September 2006. , May 2007 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anderson, DL 2007 Consciousness and realism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14: 1–18Google Scholar
Arluke, A and Sanders, CR 1996 Regarding Animals. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Bavidge, M and Ground, I 1994 Can We Understand Animal Minds? Bristol Classical Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M 2006a Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating Nature. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M 2006b The public lives of animals — a troubled scientist, pissy baboons, angry elephants, and happy hounds. Journal of Consciousness Studies 13: 115–131Google Scholar
Brown, C, Jones, F and Braithwaite, V 2005 In situ examination of boldness–shyness traits in the tropical poeciliid, Brachyraphis episcopi. Animal Behaviour 70: 1003–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buirski, P, Plutchik, R and Kellerman, H 1978 Sex differences, dominance, and personality in chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour 26: 123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlstead, K, Fraser, J, Bennet, C and Kleiman, DG 1999 Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in US zoos. II: Behavior, breeding success, and mortality in relation to housing facilities. Zoo Biology 18: 35–523.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, D and Andersson, M 2002 Personality in Royal Pythons and the human–snake relationship. Anthrozoös 15: 243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, D and Williams, C 2004 A view from the bridge: subjectivity, embodiment and animal minds. Anthrozoös 17: 210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagen, R and Fagen, JM 1996 Individual distinctiveness in Brown Bears, Ursus arctos L. Ethology 102: 212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagen, R, Conitz, J and Kunib, E 1997 Observing behavioral qualities. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 10: 167–179Google Scholar
Feaver, J, Mendl, M and Bateson, P 1986 A method for rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic cats. Animal Behaviour 34: 1016–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, JP 1935 Judgement of facial expression of emotion in the chimpanzee. Journal of Social Psychology 6: 31–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, J 1990 Through a Window: Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe. Phoenix: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B 1999 Reclaiming a life of quality. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 229–235Google Scholar
Gosling, SD 1998 Personality dimensions in spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). Journal of Comparative Psychology 112: 107–118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosling, SD 2001 From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin 127: 45–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearne, V 1986 Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name. Heinemann: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hinde, RA (ed) 1972 Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Keeley, BL 2004 Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: understanding cross-species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy 19: 521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, MR and Turner, DC 1997 Stress and adaptation of cats (Felis silvestris catus) housed singly, in pairs and in groups in boarding catteries. Animal Welfare 6: 243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, MR and Turner, DC 1999 Effects of density and cage size on stress in domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) housed in animal shelters and boarding catteries. Animal Welfare 8: 259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, JE 1999 Personality and the happiness of the chimpanzee. In: Dolins, F (ed) Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare pp 101–113. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K 1975 Year of the Greylag Goose. Eyre Methuen: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Midgley, M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. The University of Georgia Press: Athens, USAGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines for the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, C 1988 Elephant Memories: Thirteen Years in the Life of an Elephant Family. William Morrow: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T 1974 What is it like to be a bat? Psychological Review 83: 435–451Google Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Braghieri, A, Grasso, F, Bordi, A and Wemelsfelder, F 2007 The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science: in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Normando, S, Stefanini, C, Meers, L, Adamelli, S, Coultis, D and Bono, G 2006 Some factors influencing adoption of sheltered dogs. Anthrozoös 19: 211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskovich, DC, Klein, BP and Sutherland, JW 1991 Procrustes Analysis and its applications to free-choice and other sensory profiling. In: Lawless, HT and Klein, BP (eds) Sensory Science: Theory and Applications in Foods pp 353–393. Marcel Dekker: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Plutchik, R 1980 A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In: Plutchik, R and Kellerman, H (eds) Emotion, Theory, Research and Experience pp 3–33. Academic Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punch, KF 2005 Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. SAGE Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scully, M 2002 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. St Martin's Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Segerdahl, P, Fields, W and Savage-Rumbaugh, S 2005 Kanzi's Primal Language: The Cultural Initiation of Primates into Language. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, JA 2003 Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection — beyond the ‘cure response’. Society & Animals 11: 83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, K 1990 Understanding dogs through kinesthetic empathy, social construction and history. Anthrozoös 3: 184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, L 2005 Creatures Like Us? A Relational Approach to the Moral Status of Animals. Imprint Academic: Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
Smuts, B 2001 Encounters with animal minds. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8: 293–309Google Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J 1983 Individual characteristics: a statement of the problem. In: Hinde, RA (ed) Primate Social Relationships: An Integrated Approach pp 28–34. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J and Zunz, M 1978 Subjective assessment of individual rhesus monkeys. Primates 19: 473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J, Stillwell-Barnes, R and Zunz, M 1980 Subjective assessment of rhesus monkeys over four successive years. Primates 21: 66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, AL and Corbin, JM 1998 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Thomas, EM 1995 The Hidden Life of Dogs. Orion: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Van Hooff, JARAM 1972 A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In: Hinde, R (ed) Non-Verbal Communication pp 209–241. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Weiss, A, King, JE and Perkins, L 2006 Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 501–511CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F 1997 The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2001 The inside and outside aspects of consciousness: complementary approaches to the study of animal emotion. Animal Welfare 10: S129–S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2005 The reliability of qualitative behaviour assessment in on-farm conditions (Abstract). Third International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level p 18. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Birke, LI 1997 Environmental challenge. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 35–47. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Farish, M 2002 The qualitative assessment of pig behaviour and welfare in litter groups (Abstract). Second International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group level p 27. School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol: Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Farish, M 2004 Qualitative categories for the interpretation of sheep welfare: a review. Animal Welfare 13: 261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Batchelor, C, Jarvis, S, Farish, M and Calvert, S 2003 The relationship between qualitative and quantitative assessments of pig behaviour. Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 42. Fondazione Iniziative Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche: Brescia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Lawrence, AB and Mendl, MT 2001 Assessing the ‘whole-animal’: a Free-Choice-Profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieder, DL 1980 Behavioristic operationalism and the life-world: chimpanzees and chimpanzee researchers in face-to-face interaction. Sociological Inquiry 50: 75–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Scott, EM, Reid, J and Nolan, AM 2006 Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life. American Journal of Veterinary Research 67: 1826–1836CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed