CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 504Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 119 of the 119 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of positive welfare: A review

Yeates, J.W., Main, D.C.J.·2008·The Veterinary Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a complement to the concentration on negative states in welfare science, scientists are increasingly considering the desirability of measuring positive outcomes. Since evaluation of an animal's mental state is a critical goal for welfare assessment, considerations of both positive feelings (what an animal "likes") and resources that an animal is motivated to obtain (what an animal "wants") appear to be important. However, since animals may make choices that are not in their long-term interests, an assessment of positive feelings and resources should include an evaluation of any associated actual or potential harms, such as fear, distress, pain, injury and disease. A review of current evidence suggests that positive welfare can be best assessed by evaluation of resources (i.e. inputs) that are valued by an animal and by positive outcomes such as behavioural responses, influences on cognitive processes and physiological markers. Since negative welfare is often inversely correlated with positive welfare measures, current welfare policy will have been achieving some positive welfare outcomes, however the explicit inclusion of positive welfare outcomes in the framework allows for analyses that are both deeper and more in tune with commonsense, which can hopefully yield more objective policies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 116 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. van Furth, W.R., 1993. Brain opioids and masculine sexual behaviour in the rat. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Cited in Spuijt et al., 2001, p. 157.
  2. Wilson, 2006, Development of a behavioural task measuring reward “wanting” and “liking” in rats, Psychology and Behaviour, 87, 154

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 503

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yeates, J. W., & Main, D. C. J.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Main, D.C.J.
ORCID
Venue
The Veterinary Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-03
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
293-300
ISSN
1090-0233 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009
OpenAlex
W2089394830
Cited by
504
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • The Veterinary Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
positive welfare, animal welfare assessment, animal mental states, animal motivation, animal preferences, behavioral responses, physiological markers, cognitive processes, fear and distress, welfare policy
MeSH terms
Affect, Animals, Animal Welfare, Behavior, Animal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review