CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,000Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia

The 2020 five domains model: including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare

Open access
Mellor, David J., Beausoleil, Ngaio J., Littlewood, Katherine E., McLean, Andrew N., McGreevy, Paul D., Jones, Bidda, Wilkins, Cristina·2020·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani10101870PMC PMC7602120
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as “survival-critical affects”. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals’ behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as “situation-related affects”, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals’ aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human–animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani10101870

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many modern animal wellbeing models require animals to live in species-typical social groups and express normal, non-harmful social behaviours.

    “One element of many modern models of animal wellbeing is that animals should be able to live in species-typical social groups and express normal, non-harmful social behaviours.”

    From The Concept of Agency, Animal Wellbeing, and the Practical Realities of Ex Situ Breeding Programs in Zoos and Aquariums (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 2.4 says that opportunities for social species to bond and live with familiar conspecifics, and to engage in affiliative behaviours, can enhance welfare. Section 5.1 describes frustration or loneliness when social animals cannot join conspecifics. The paper supports this element of the Five Domains Model, but does not establish that many distinct modern models require species-typical groups or non-harmful social behaviour for animals generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Five Domains Model offers a holistic approach focusing on affective terms and recognizing the subjectivity in measuring mental experiences.

    “The Five Domains Model offers a holistic approach focusing on affective terms and recognizing the subjectivity in measuring mental experiences (10).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

  • A holistic animal wellbeing program includes access to appropriate nutrition, positive emotions, reduced negative emotions, and species-typical behaviours.

    “A holistic animal wellbeing program includes access to appropriate nutrition, experiencing positive emotions, reducing negative emotions, and performing species-typical behaviours [6,9].”

    From The Concept of Agency, Animal Wellbeing, and the Practical Realities of Ex Situ Breeding Programs in Zoos and Aquariums (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [4]Mellor D.J. Patterson-Kane E. Stafford K.J. Animal welfare, grading compromise and mitigating suffering The Sciences of Animal Welfare Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Oxford, UK 2009 72 94
  2. [5]Mellor D.J. Affective states and the assessment of laboratory-induced animal welfare impacts ALTEX Proc. 2012 1 445 449
  3. [13]Fraser D. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context Wiley-Blackwell Oxford, UK 2008
  4. [18]Webster J. Assessment of animal welfare: The five freedoms Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden Blackwell Science Oxford, UK 1994 10 14
  5. [31]Beausoleil N.J. Dissecting Distress: What is a humane death and how can we assess the humaneness of death? Proceedings of the ANZCCART Research and Teaching Conference Queenstown, New Zealand 2–4 September 2017 113 114 Available online: https://anzccart.org.nz/app/uploads/2017/03/Proceedings-of-the-2017-Australian-and-New-Zealand-Council-for-the-Care-of-Animals-in-Research-and-Teaching-part-2.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2020)
  6. [43]King L. Rowan A.N. The mental health of laboratory animals Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals McMillan F.D. Blackwell Publishing Oxford, UK 2005 259 276
  7. [61]McMillan F.D. The concept of quality of life in animals Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals McMillan F.D. Blackwell Publishing Oxford, UK 2005 183 200
  8. [77]Sharp T. Saunders G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Canberra, Australia 2008
  9. [78]Sharp T. Saunders G.A. Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods 2nd ed. Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Canberra, Australia 2011
  10. [79]Beausoleil N.J. Mellor D.J. Complementary roles for systematic analytical evaluation and qualitative whole animal profiling in welfare assessment for Three Rs applications ALTEX Proc. 2012 1 455 460
  11. [85]Mellor D.J. Hemsworth P.H. Barnett J.L. Young I.R. Species-specific approaches are needed for effective implementation of the Three Rs in farm animal research ALTEX Proc. 2012 1 469 476
  12. [104]Mellor D.J. Patterson-Kane E. Stafford K.J. Human-animal interactions and animal welfare The Sciences of Animal Welfare Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Oxford, UK 2009 113 130
  13. [116]McLean A. Henshall C. Starling M. McGreevy P. Arousal, attachment and affective state Proceedings of the 9th International Equitation Science Conference Newark, NJ, USA 17–20 July 2013 Heleski C. Wickens C. University of Delaware Newark, DE, USA 2013 Volume 50 Available online: https://www.esi-education.com/arousal-attachment-and-affective-state/ (accessed on 12 August 2020)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • Equitation Science International, 3 Wonderland Ave, Tuerong, VIC 3915, Australia
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Saddletops Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 557, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
Corresponding author
Mellor, David J.
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-14
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
1870
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani10101870
PMC
PMC7602120
OpenAlex
W3092689285
Cited by
985
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 219 · 2025: 222 · 2024: 197 · 2023: 165 · 2022: 115 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 2
FWCI
15.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Keywords
Five Domains Model, animal welfare assessment, human-animal interaction, animal welfare science, affective states, agency, mental states, behavioral interactions, nutrition, physical environment, positive and negative affect

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