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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241255
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.85

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Matthew N. Zipple, Marcela E. Benítez, Mackenzie F. Webster, Caleb Hazelwood
7 citations
Royal Society Open Science
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
3.85
article

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

Matthew N. Zipple, Marcela E. Benítez, Mackenzie F. Webster, Caleb Hazelwood
article en
7 citations

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 (<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.

Royal Society Open ScienceVol. 11(11)
Emory University (US), Duke University (US), Cornell University (US)
National Science Foundation, Cornell University, Animal Behavior Society
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
3.85
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.