Abstract
The judgement bias test represents one of the most applied tools to evaluate animals’ optimistic/pessimistic attitude and to infer their emotional and welfare state accordingly. The judgement bias test (JBT) has been used several times with dogs (Canis familiaris), in most cases using a spatial test that evaluates the dog’s attitude towards a bowl placed in ambiguous positions (located between two unambiguous trained positions associated with opposite outcomes). Results are contrasting and methodological and statistical caveats emerged: dogs struggled to learn the association between unambiguous positions and their outcomes, they hardly discriminated between adjacent locations and they might be influenced by researchers. Therefore, we propose a novel paradigm, aimed at easing the learning process and at achieving more reliable measures. Improvements of the novel paradigm are the increased difference between payoffs of trained locations, the reduction of the number of trials and of their length and the removal of the potential influence of researchers. Results showed that 98% of dogs reached the learning criterion and that their learning appeared more stable: dogs behaved differently between the two trained stimuli and the variability of responses towards these stimuli was lower than the one towards ambiguous stimuli. Behavioural analyses confirmed that dogs fully learned outcomes associated with trained stimuli and that they were hesitant towards ambiguous stimuli. Furthermore, dogs managed to successfully discriminate between each pair of adjacent locations. These results suggest that this protocol is a promising tool to assess judgement biases in dogs and to evaluate their affective state.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from Zenodo repository (URL https://zenodo.org/record/5106452#.YPBTMegzZhE, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5106452).
References
Anderson MH, Hardcastle C, Munafò MR, Robinson ESJ (2012) Evaluation of a novel translational task for assessing emotional biases in different species. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 12:373–381. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0076-4
Barnard S, Wells DL, Milligan ADS et al (2018) Personality traits affecting judgement bias task performance in dogs (Canis familiaris). Sci Rep 8:6660. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25224-y
Bateson M, Desire S, Gartside SE, Wright GA (2011) Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Curr Biol 21:1070–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2011.05.017
Bethell EJ, Holmes A, MacLarnon A, Semple S (2012) Evidence that emotion mediates social attention in rhesus macaques. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044387
Blanchette I, Richards A (2010) The influence of affect on higher level cognition: a review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cogn Emot 24:561–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903132496
Boissy A, Arnould C, Chaillou E et al (2007) Emotions and cognition: a new approach to animal welfare. Anim Welf 16:37–43
Burani C, Barnard S, Wells D et al (2020) Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): methodological and statistical caveats. PLoS ONE 15:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241344
Burman O (2014) Do dogs show an optimistic or pessimistic attitude to life?: A review of studies using the “cognitive bias” paradigm to assess dog welfare. In: Kaminski J, Marshall-Pescini S (eds) The social dog: behavior and cognition. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 347–372
Burman O, McGowan R, Mendl M et al (2011) Using judgement bias to measure positive affective state in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 132:160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.04.001
Cockburn A, Smith M, Rusbridge C et al (2018) Evidence of negative affective state in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels with syringomyelia. Appl Anim Behav Sci 201:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.008
Crump A, Arnott G, Bethell E (2018) Affect-driven attention biases as animal welfare indicators: review and methods. Animals 8:136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080136
Douglas C, Bateson M, Walsh C et al (2012) Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 139:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.018
Doyle RE, Fisher AD, Hinch GN et al (2010) Release from restraint generates a positive judgement bias in sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci 122:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.003
Düpjan S, Stracke J, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B (2017) An improved design for the spatial judgement task in domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 187:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.11.012
Duranton C, Horowitz A (2019) Let me sniff! Nosework induces positive judgment bias in pet dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 211:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.009
Gotlib IH, Krasnoperova E (1998) Biased information processing as a vulnerability factor for depression. Behav Ther 29:603–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(98)80020-8
Gygax L (2014) The A to Z of statistics for testing cognitive judgement bias. Anim Behav 95:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.013
Hales CA, Stuart SA, Anderson MH, Robinson ESJ (2014) Modelling cognitive affective biases in major depressive disorder using rodents. Br J Pharmacol 171:4524–4538. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.12603
Hales CA, Robinson ESJ, Houghton CJ (2016) Diffusion modelling reveals the decision making processes underlying negative judgement bias in rats. PLoS ONE 11:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152592
Harding EJ, Paul ES, Mendl M (2004) Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427:312. https://doi.org/10.1038/427312a
Harvey ND, Moesta A, Wongsaengchan C et al (2020) Investigating putative depression-like states in the domestic dog: does greater time spent displaying waking inactivity in the home kennel co-vary with negative judgment of ambiguity? Appl Anim Behav Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105025
Hintze S, Melotti L, Colosio S et al (2018) A cross-species judgement bias task: integrating active trial initiation into a spatial Go/No-go task. Sci Rep 8:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3
Iigaya K, Jolivald A, Jitkrittum W et al (2016) Cognitive bias in ambiguity judgements: using computational models to dissect the effects of mild mood manipulation in humans. PLoS ONE 11:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165840
Karagiannis CI, Burman OHP, Mills DS (2015) Dogs with separation-related problems show a “less pessimistic” cognitive bias during treatment with fluoxetine (ReconcileTM) and a behaviour modification plan. BMC Vet Res 11:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0373-1
Kis A, Hernádi A, Kanizsár O et al (2015) Oxytocin induces positive expectations about ambivalent stimuli (cognitive bias) in dogs. Horm Behav 69:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.12.004
Lagisz M, Zidar J, Nakagawa S et al (2020) Optimism, pessimism and judgement bias in animals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 118:3–17
Lee JS, Mathews A, Shergill S, Yiend J (2016) Magnitude of negative interpretation bias depends on severity of depression. Behav Res Ther 83:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.05.007
Lefebvre D, Diederich C, Delcourt M, Giffroy J-M (2007) The quality of the relation between handler and military dogs influences efficiency and welfare of dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2006.05.004
Lenkei R, Alvarez Gomez S, Pongrácz P (2018) Fear vs. frustration—possible factors behind canine separation related behaviour. Behav Process 157:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BEPROC.2018.08.002
Loewenstein G, Lerner JS (2003) The role of affect in decision making. In: Davidson R, Goldsmith H, Scherer K (eds) Handbook of affective science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 619–642
MacLeod AK, Byrne A (1996) Anxiety, depression, and the anticipation of future positive and negative experiences. J Abnorm Psychol 105:286–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.2.286
MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P (1986) Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 95:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15
Matheson SM, Asher L, Bateson M (2008) Larger, enriched cages are associated with ‘optimistic’ response biases in captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 109:374–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2007.03.007
Mendl M, Paul ES (2020) Animal affect and decision-making. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 112:144–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.025
Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES (2009) Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl Anim Behav Sci 118:161–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023
Mendl M, Brooks J, Basse C et al (2010a) Dogs showing separation-related behaviour exhibit a “pessimistic” cognitive bias. Curr Biol 20:R839–R840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.030
Mendl M, Burman OHP, Paul ES (2010b) An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:2895–2904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0303
Mertens PA, Unshelm J (1996) Effects of group and individual housing on the behavior of kennelled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozoos 9:40–51. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279396787001662
Mogg K, Bradley BP (1998) A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety. Behav Res Ther 36:809–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00063-1
Müller CA, Riemer S, Rosam CM et al (2012) Brief owner absence does not induce negative judgement bias in pet dogs. Anim Cogn 15:1031–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0526-6
Murphy E, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ (2013) Responses of conventional pigs and Göttingen miniature pigs in an active choice judgement bias task. Appl Anim Behav Sci 148:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.011
Neave HW, Daros RR, Costa JHC et al (2013) Pain and pessimism: dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding. PLoS ONE 8:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080556
Neville V, Nakagawa S, Zidar J et al (2020) Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 108:269–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.008
Owczarczak-Garstecka SC, Burman OHP (2016) Can sleep and resting behaviours be used as indicators of welfare in shelter dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)? PLoS ONE 11:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163620
Paul ES, Harding EJ, Mendl M (2005) Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:469–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002
Paul ES, Cuthill I, Kuroso G et al (2011) Mood and the speed of decisions about anticipated resources and hazards. Evol Hum Behav 32:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.005
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer-Verlag, New York
Protopopova A (2016) Effects of sheltering on physiology, immune function, behavior, and the welfare of dogs. Physiol Behav 159:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.03.020
Raoult CMC, Moser J, Gygax L (2017) Mood as cumulative expectation mismatch: a test of theory based on data from non-verbal cognitive bias tests. Front Psychol 8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02197
Roelofs S, Boleij H, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ (2016) Making decisions under ambiguity: judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front Behav Neurosci 10:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119
Rygula R, Papciak J, Popik P (2013) Trait pessimism predicts vulnerability to stress-induced anhedonia in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 38:2188–2196. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2013.116
Rygula R, Golebiowska J, Kregiel J et al (2015) Effects of optimism on motivation in rats. Front Behav Neurosci 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00032
Schick A, Wessa M, Vollmayr B et al (2013) Indirect assessment of an interpretation bias in humans: neurophysiological and behavioral correlates. Front Hum Neurosci 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00272
Schoth DE, Liossi C (2017) A systematic review of experimental paradigms for exploring biased interpretation of ambiguous information with emotional and neutral associations. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00171
Scullion Hall LEM, Robinson S, Finch J, Buchanan-Smith HM (2017) The influence of facility and home pen design on the welfare of the laboratory-housed dog. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 83:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VASCN.2016.09.005
Skinner B (1938) The behavior of organisms an experimental analysis. D. Appleton-Century Company Incorporated, New York
Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA (2015) Learning versus performance: an integrative review. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
Taylor KD, Mills DS (2007) The effect of the kennel environment on canin welfare: a critical review of experimental studies. Anim Welf 16:435–447
Titulaer M, Blackwell EJ, Mendl M, Casey RA (2013) Cross sectional study comparing behavioural, cognitive and physiological indicators of welfare between short and long term kennelled domestic dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 147:149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.05.001
Uccheddu S, Mariti C, Sannen A et al (2018) Behavioral and cortisol responses of shelter dogs to a cognitive bias test after olfactory enrichment with essential oils. Dog Behav 4:1–14. https://doi.org/10.4454/db.v4i2.87
Valsecchi P, Pattacini O, Beretta V et al (2007) Effects of a human social enrichment program on behavior and welfare of sheltered dogs. J Vet Behav 94:88–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.04.017
Verbeek E, Ferguson D, Lee C (2014a) Are hungry sheep more pessimistic? The effects of food restriction on cognitive bias and the involvement of ghrelin in its regulation. Physiol Behav 123:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.09.017
Verbeek E, Ferguson D, Quinquet de Monjour P, Lee C (2014b) Generating positive affective states in sheep: the influence of food rewards and opioid administration. Appl Anim Behav Sci 154:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.02.011
Vieira de Castro AC, Fuchs D, Morello GM et al (2020) Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLoS ONE 15:e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
Walker JK, Waran NK, Phillips CJC (2014) The effect of conspecific removal on the behaviour and physiology of pair-housed shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 158:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.06.010
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070
Wells DL, Hepper PG, Milligan ADS, Barnard S (2017) Cognitive bias and paw preference in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 131:317–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000080
Willen RM, Schiml PA, Hennessy MB (2019) Enrichment centered on human interaction moderates fear-induced aggression and increases positive expectancy in fearful shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.05.001
Acknowledgements
We thank all the owners and their dogs for taking part in our study with willingness to help scientific research on canine welfare. We thank Alessandro Gallo, Tiziano Travain, Giulia Bagna and Fanel Coppola for their precious help in apparatus construction; we thank Giulia Bagna and Fanel Coppola also for protocol adjustments, data collection and behavioural analyses.
Funding
This study was supported by a doctoral grant to Carlotta Burani from the University of Parma.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: CB, PV; data curation and data collection: CB; formal analysis: CB, AP; resources: PV; writing—original draft: CB; writing—review and editing: PV, AP. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical approval
The ethical committee for animal testing of the University of Parma declared that a special permission to use pet dogs in this behavioural study is not required in Italy (Decreto legislativo 4 marzo 2014, n. 26, Art. 2). Furthermore, the committee reported that this study accomplishes ethical requirements in compliance with the law about the use of animals in clinical and zootechnical studies (PROT.N. 11/CE/2019). All the dogs’ owners consented to take part in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burani, C., Pelosi, A. & Valsecchi, P. A promising novel judgement bias test to evaluate affective states in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 25, 837–852 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01596-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01596-z