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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Figure 1 The 1994 Five Domains Model, redrawn from Reference [1].
Figure 1 The 1994 Five Domains Model, redrawn from Reference [1].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Domain 1: Nutrition. Examples of nutritional imbalances and opportunities and their associated negative and positive affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.
Figure 2 Domain 1: Nutrition. Examples of nutritional imbalances and opportunities and their associated negative and positive affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Domain 2: Physical Environment. Examples of unavoidable and enhanced physical conditions and their associated negative and positive affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.
Figure 3 Domain 2: Physical Environment. Examples of unavoidable and enhanced physical conditions and their associated negative and positive affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Domain 3: Health. Examples of negative and positive health conditions and their corresponding affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.
Figure 4 Domain 3: Health. Examples of negative and positive health conditions and their corresponding affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Domain 4: Behavioural Interactions. Examples of interactions with the environment, other (non-human) animals and humans, where animals’ capability to freely exercise agency would be impeded or enhanced, and examples of the corresponding affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State. Also provided for human–animal interactions are examples of negative and positive attributes which influence the behaviour of humans towards animals.
Figure 5 Domain 4: Behavioural Interactions. Examples of interactions with the environment, other (non-human) animals and humans, where animals’ capability to freely exercise agency would be impeded or enhanced, and examples of the corresponding affects assigned to Domain 5: Mental State. Also provided for human–animal interactions are examples of negative and positive attributes which influence the behaviour of humans towards animals.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Some general circumstances in which the presence of humans at a distance, close to or in direct contact with animals may lead the animals to have negative or positive affective experiences, and some specific examples of those circumstances. The examples provide an indication of the negative-to-positive range of human–animal interactions. These, when considered together with the negative-to-positive range of influential human attributes illustrated in Figure 5, are provided to help Model users to evaluate in more detail the impacts of interactions at and between these extremes.
Figure 6 Some general circumstances in which the presence of humans at a distance, close to or in direct contact with animals may lead the animals to have negative or positive affective experiences, and some specific examples of those circumstances. The examples provide an indication of the negative-to-positive range of human–animal interactions. These, when considered together with the negative-to-positive range of influential human attributes illustrated in Figure 5, are provided to help Model users to evaluate in more detail the impacts of interactions at and between these extremes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Examples of graded negative affective impacts due to different human interactions with animals of different types and in different situations. For each type of interaction, grades indicated in each row relate to variations in relevant factors of the interaction, such as the animal’s prior contact with humans or the training regime. Also noted for each sub-scenario is the degree to which behavioural and/or physiological indicators of the affective experience are expressed by the animal, as well as the intensity of specific inferred negative affects, e.g., fear. The approach here is therefore similar to the grading of other negative impacts.
Figure 7 Examples of graded negative affective impacts due to different human interactions with animals of different types and in different situations. For each type of interaction, grades indicated in each row relate to variations in relevant factors of the interaction, such as the animal’s prior contact with humans or the training regime. Also noted for each sub-scenario is the degree to which behavioural and/or physiological indicators of the affective experience are expressed by the animal, as well as the intensity of specific inferred negative affects, e.g., fear. The approach here is therefore similar to the grading of other negative impacts.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Examples of relative positive affective impacts on animals due to human interactions graded separately according to the frequency, variety, duration and form of congenial contacts. As these four features interact, they all need to be graded for each situation, and their grades amalgamated into an overall grade. For this purpose, a numerical score is applied to each feature in each column. Note that this is a numerical aid to the qualitative assessment of positive impacts. If any feature receives a zero score, none of the other levels apply and the overall score is zero. The minimum overall score above zero is 4 (1 for each feature), an intermediate score is 8 (2 for each feature) and the maximum is 12 (3 for each feature). The range of possible overall scores above zero in each situation would therefore be 4 to 12. As each feature is graded qualitatively before amalgamation, each overall numerical score is merely a guide for prospectively or retrospectively comparing outcomes of proposed or completed changes by undertaking a succession of such assessments. Note that such comparisons within specific situations is qualitatively meaningful, whereas such comparisons between different situations is not.
Figure 8 Examples of relative positive affective impacts on animals due to human interactions graded separately according to the frequency, variety, duration and form of congenial contacts. As these four features interact, they all need to be graded for each situation, and their grades amalgamated into an overall grade. For this purpose, a numerical score is applied to each feature in each column. Note that this is a numerical aid to the qualitative assessment of positive impacts. If any feature receives a zero score, none of the other levels apply and the overall score is zero. The minimum overall score above zero is 4 (1 for each feature), an intermediate score is 8 (2 for each feature) and the maximum is 12 (3 for each feature). The range of possible overall scores above zero in each situation would therefore be 4 to 12. As each feature is graded qualitatively before amalgamation, each overall numerical score is merely a guide for prospectively or retrospectively comparing outcomes of proposed or completed changes by undertaking a succession of such assessments. Note that such comparisons within specific situations is qualitatively meaningful, whereas such comparisons between different situations is not.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 95 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Mellor, D.J., Patterson-Kane, E., and Stafford, K.J. (2009). Animal welfare, grading compromise and mitigating suffering. The Sciences of Animal Welfare, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
  2. Mellor, 2012, Affective states and the assessment of laboratory-induced animal welfare impacts, ALTEX Proc., 1, 445
  3. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context, Wiley-Blackwell.
  4. Broom, 2008, Welfare assessment and relevant ethical decisions: Key concepts, ARBS Ann. Rev. Biomed. Sci., 10, T79
  5. Beausoleil, N.J. (2017, January 2–4). 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. 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.
  6. McMillan, F.D. (2005). The mental health of laboratory animals. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals, Blackwell Publishing. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A., Olsson, I.A.S., and Hughes, B.O. (2011). Environmental challenge and animal agency. Animal Welfare, CAB International. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  8. McMillan, F.D. (2005). The concept of quality of life in animals. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals, Blackwell Publishing. · DOI · Paper page
  9. McMillan, F.D. (2020). Mental health and well-being benefits of personal control in animals. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals, CAB International. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  10. Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2008). A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
  11. Sharp, T., and Saunders, G.A. (2011). Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. [2nd ed.].
  12. Beausoleil, 2012, Complementary roles for systematic analytical evaluation and qualitative whole animal profiling in welfare assessment for Three Rs applications, ALTEX Proc., 1, 455
  13. Mellor, 2012, Species-specific approaches are needed for effective implementation of the Three Rs in farm animal research, ALTEX Proc., 1, 469
  14. Mellor, D.J., Patterson-Kane, E., and Stafford, K.J. (2009). Human-animal interactions and animal welfare. The Sciences of Animal Welfare, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
  15. Grandin, T. (2015). Animal well-being and behavioural needs on the farm. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach, CAB International. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  16. Heleski, C., and Wickens, C. (2013, January 17–20). Arousal, attachment and affective state. Proceedings of the 9th International Equitation Science Conference, Newark, NJ, USA. Available online: https://www.esi-education.com/arousal-attachment-and-affective-state/.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › 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