Cited by 391Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaAnimal testing and alternatives

Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare?

Mason, G, Mendi, M·1993·Animal Welfare

Abstract

Abstract Although the physiological and behavioural changes that can indicate poor welfare are generally agreed upon, using these measures in practice sometimes yields results that are hard to interpret. For example, different types of measure may suggest quite different things about an animal's welfare. Such contradictions are often due to the differing properties of the variables being measured. How each variable responds to a stressor can be affected by several factors - the type of unpleasant stimulus to which the animal is exposed; when and for how long exposure occurs; the animal's psychological state, eg does it feel that it is in control?; and the time at which the measurement is made, relative to the stressor. Typical responses also often differ between species and between individuals, and may even change in a single individual over time. Furthermore, some responses used to assess welfare lack specificity: they can be elicited by neutral or even pleasant events as well as by aversive ones. Appreciating these factors is vital when designing experiments, when choosing what to measure along with each welfare variable, and when interpreting results. Even after taking these factors into consideration, interpreting a result can still be difficult. One approach then is to consider the effects on welfare of the changes measured, eg if there is immunosuppression, does the animal succumb to disease? Another is to use the animal's behaviour to indicate its preference for, or aversion to, particular environments. Ultimately, however, interpreting welfare measures involves subjective judgements which will be influenced by the nature of our concern for the animal under consideration. By raising these problems, we hope that this review will highlight and clarify the apparent contradictions that sometimes emerge in scientific studies of animal welfare, and help researchers improve the designs of their experiments for the benefit of the animals concerned.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0962728600016092

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mason, G., & Mendi, M.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Mason, G
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
1993-11
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
301-319
ISSN
  • 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-1538
OpenAlex
W2620308027
Cited by
391
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
FWCI
11.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
  • The Atrium (University of Guelph) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
animal welfare assessment, stress response, individual differences in stress response, immunosuppression

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