Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:01:44.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sensitivity of QBA assessments of sheep behavioural expression to variations in visual or verbal information provided to observers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2015

P. A. Fleming ,
S. L. Wickham ,
C. A. Stockman ,
E. Verbeek ,
L. Matthews  and
F. Wemelsfelder
P. A. Fleming*
Affiliation:
Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
S. L. Wickham
Affiliation:
Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
C. A. Stockman
Affiliation:
Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
E. Verbeek
Affiliation:
AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand
L. Matthews
Affiliation:
AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand
F. Wemelsfelder
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC, Roslin EH25 9RG, Scotland, UK
*
†E-mail: t.fleming@murdoch.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) is based on observers’ ability to capture the dynamic complexity of an animal’s demeanour as it interacts with the environment, in terms such as tense, anxious or relaxed. Sensitivity to context is part of QBA’s integrative capacity and discriminatory power; however, when not properly managed it can also be a source of undesirable variability and bias. This study investigated the sensitivity of QBA to variations in the visual or verbal information provided to observers, using free-choice profiling (FCP) methodology. FCP allows observers to generate their own descriptive terms for animal demeanour, against which each animal’s expressions are quantified on a visual analogue scale. The resulting scores were analysed with Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), generating two or more multi-variate dimensions of animal expression. Study 1 examined how 63 observers rated the same video clips of individual sheep during land transport, when these clips were interspersed with two different sets of video footage. Scores attributed to the sheep in the two viewing sessions correlated significantly (GPA dimension 1: rs=0.95, P<0.001, GPA dimension 2: rs=0.66, P=0.037) indicating that comparative rankings of animals on expressive dimensions were highly similar, however, their mean numerical scores on these dimensions had shifted (RM-ANOVA: Dim1: P<0.001, Dim2: P<0.001). Study 2 investigated the effect of being given different amounts of background information on two separate groups of observers assessing footage of 22 individual sheep in a behavioural demand facility. One group was given no contextual information regarding this facility, whereas the second group was told that animals were moving towards and away from a feeder (in view) to access feed. Scores attributed to individual sheep by the two observer groups correlated significantly (Dim1: rs=0.92, P<0.001, Dim2: rs=0.52, P=0.013). A number of descriptive terms were generated by both observer groups and used in similar ways, other terms were unique to each group. The group given additional information about the experimental facility scored the sheep’s behaviour as more ‘directed’ and ‘focused’ than observers who had not been told. Thus, in neither of the two studies did experimentally imposed variations in context alter the characterisations of animals relative to each other, but in Study 1 this did affect the mean numerical values underlying these characterisations, indicating a need for careful attention to the use of visual analogue scales.

Keywords

free-choice profilinggeneralised Procrustes analysis (GPA)qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA)sheepvisual analogue scale
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , May 2015 , pp. 878 - 887
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013. The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aviezer, H, Hassin, RR, Ryan, J, Grady, C, Susskind, J, Anderson, A, Moscovitch, M and Bentin, S 2008. Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science 19, 724–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, LF and Kensinger, EA 2010. Context is routinely encoded during emotion perception. Psychological Science 21, 595–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, LF, Mesquita, B and Gendron, M 2011. Context in emotion perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13, S3–S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feaver, J, Mendl, M and Bateson, P 1986. A method for rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic cats. Animal Behaviour 34, 1016–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, PA, Paisley, C, Barnes, AL and Wemelsfelder, F 2013. Application of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment to horses during an endurance ride. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2009. Animal behaviour, animal welfare and the scientific study of affect. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, S-M and Yang, L-X 2013. Sequential effects in facial expression categorization. Emotion 13, 573–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, DE and Shimamura, AP 2013. Contextual influences on dynamic facial expressions. The American Journal of Psychology 126, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meagher, RK 2009. Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Tosi, MV, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2009. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, M, Taylor, J and Blenkin, M 2012. Context effects and observer bias – implications for forensic odontology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 57, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plous, S 1993. The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006. Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Donald, RD, Lawrence, AB and Wemelsfelder, F 2012. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saks, MJ, Risinger, DM, Rosenthal, R and Thompson, WC 2003. Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice 43, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson-Hinde, J 1983. Individual characteristics: a statement of the problem. In Primate social relationships: an integrated approach (ed. RA Hinde), pp. 28–34. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2011. Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science 51, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2013. Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influence the behavioural expression of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Verbeek, E, Matthews, L, Ferguson, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2014. Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score. Animal Production Science 54, 922–929.Google Scholar
Stockman, CA, McGilchrist, P, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Wickham, SL, Greenwood, PL, Cafe, LM, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012. Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle pre-slaughter and relationship with cattle temperament and physiological responses to the slaughter process. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2011b. Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Dalmau, A, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2011a. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 6, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graaf, S, Heerkens, JLT, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014. Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbeek, E, Waas, JR, McLeay, L and Matthews, LR 2011. Measurement of feeding motivation in sheep and the effects of food restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 121–130.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1997. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2007. How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare 16, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009. The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000. The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001. Assessing the 'whole animal': a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, AE, Paul, ES and Lawrence, AB 2012. Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3652–3665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, N 2009. Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28, 545–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, CA, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA (in press). Qualitative behavioural assessment of sheep during manipulated transport altered ventilation, flooring and stop-start driving. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.Google Scholar
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, CA, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012. Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4523–4535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed