Animal emotions and consciousness: a preliminary assessment of researchers' perceptions and biases and prospects for future progress.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2024-11-13 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.241255
Matthew N Zipple, Caleb Hazelwood, Mackenzie F Webster, Marcela E Benítez
{"title":"Animal emotions and consciousness: a preliminary assessment of researchers' perceptions and biases and prospects for future progress.","authors":"Matthew N Zipple, Caleb Hazelwood, Mackenzie F Webster, Marcela E Benítez","doi":"10.1098/rsos.241255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientists and philosophers have long struggled with the question of whether non-human animals experience emotions or consciousness. Yet, it is unclear where the scientific consensus on these topics lies today. To address this gap, we administered a survey of professional animal behaviour researchers to assess perceptions regarding (i) the taxonomic distribution of emotions and consciousness in non-human animals, (ii) respondents' confidence in this assessment, and (iii) attitudes towards pitfalls and potential for progress when addressing these questions. Respondents (<i>n</i> = 100) ascribe emotionality and consciousness to a broad swath of the animal taxonomy, including non-human primates, other mammals, birds and cephalopods. Respondents' attribution of these phenomena was strongly associated with their confidence in their assessments (<i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> > 0.9), with respondents assuming an absence of emotions and consciousness when they were unsure. We also identify an emergent consensus of the components involved in a functional definition of emotions. Researchers are optimistic that tools either currently exist or will exist in the future to rigorously address these questions (>85%) and that animal behaviour, as a field, should do more to encourage research works on emotions (>70%). We discuss implications for publication bias and future work in this area as well as ethical considerations regarding animal care and use.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"11 11","pages":"241255"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11558068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241255","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientists and philosophers have long struggled with the question of whether non-human animals experience emotions or consciousness. Yet, it is unclear where the scientific consensus on these topics lies today. To address this gap, we administered a survey of professional animal behaviour researchers to assess perceptions regarding (i) the taxonomic distribution of emotions and consciousness in non-human animals, (ii) respondents' confidence in this assessment, and (iii) attitudes towards pitfalls and potential for progress when addressing these questions. Respondents (n = 100) ascribe emotionality and consciousness to a broad swath of the animal taxonomy, including non-human primates, other mammals, birds and cephalopods. Respondents' attribution of these phenomena was strongly associated with their confidence in their assessments (R 2 > 0.9), with respondents assuming an absence of emotions and consciousness when they were unsure. We also identify an emergent consensus of the components involved in a functional definition of emotions. Researchers are optimistic that tools either currently exist or will exist in the future to rigorously address these questions (>85%) and that animal behaviour, as a field, should do more to encourage research works on emotions (>70%). We discuss implications for publication bias and future work in this area as well as ethical considerations regarding animal care and use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动物情感与意识:对研究人员的看法和偏见的初步评估以及对未来进展的展望。
长期以来,科学家和哲学家一直在为非人类动物是否具有情感或意识这一问题而苦苦挣扎。然而,目前在这些问题上的科学共识尚不明确。为了填补这一空白,我们对专业动物行为研究人员进行了一项调查,以评估他们对以下问题的看法:(i) 非人类动物中情感和意识的分类分布;(ii) 受访者对这一评估的信心;(iii) 在解决这些问题时对陷阱和进步潜力的态度。受访者(n = 100)将情感和意识归因于动物分类中的广泛领域,包括非人灵长类、其他哺乳动物、鸟类和头足类动物。受访者对这些现象的归因与他们对自己评估的信心密切相关(R 2 > 0.9),受访者在不确定的情况下会假设没有情感和意识。我们还发现,在情绪的功能性定义中,人们对情绪的组成部分已达成共识。研究人员乐观地认为,目前已有或将来会有严格解决这些问题的工具(>85%),而且动物行为学作为一个领域,应该做更多工作来鼓励有关情绪的研究工作(>70%)。我们讨论了发表偏差和该领域未来工作的影响,以及有关动物护理和使用的伦理考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
Animal emotions and consciousness: a preliminary assessment of researchers' perceptions and biases and prospects for future progress. Assessing the measurement invariance of Free Will and Determinism Plus scale across four languages: a registered report. Demographics of co-ageing complex systems: from infected worms to chess games. Directionality theory and the origin of life. Enhancement of reactive oxygen species production by ultra-short electron pulses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1