Animal emotions and consciousness: a preliminary assessment of researchers’ perceptions and biases and prospects for future progress
Résumé fourni par la source
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 ( n = 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 ( R 2 > 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.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Animal emotions and consciousness: a preliminary assessment of researchers’ perceptions and biases and prospects for future progress
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2024
- Éditeur
- The Royal Society
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.