Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov;12(11):20160402.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0402.

Mood and personality interact to determine cognitive biases in pigs

Affiliations

Mood and personality interact to determine cognitive biases in pigs

Lucy Asher et al. Biol Lett. 2016 Nov.

Abstract

Cognitive bias has become a popular way to access non-human animal mood, though inconsistent results have been found. In humans, mood and personality interact to determine cognitive bias, but to date, this has not been investigated in non-human animals. Here, we demonstrate for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, in a non-human animal, the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus), that mood and personality interact, impacting on judgement. Pigs with a more proactive personality were more likely to respond optimistically to unrewarded ambiguous probes (spatially positioned between locations that were previously rewarded and unrewarded) independent of their housing (or enrichment) conditions. However, optimism/pessimism of reactive pigs in this task was affected by their housing conditions, which are likely to have influenced their mood state. Reactive pigs in the less enriched environment were more pessimistic and those in the more enriched environment, more optimistic. These results suggest that judgement in non-human animals is similar to humans, incorporating aspects of stable personality traits and more transient mood states.

Keywords: animal welfare; cognitive bias; mood; personality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Cognitive bias training and testing arena. N, negative unrewarded location; NN, near negative probe location; M, middle probe location; NP, near positive probe location; P, positive rewarded location.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(ac) Latency to approach (standardized per individual) unrewarded probes (spatially positioned between locations that were previously rewarded and unrewarded) in a cognitive bias test in more proactive and reactive pigs. Higher standardized time ran scores indicate greater optimism. More proactive personalities were more likely to respond optimistically to unrewarded ambiguous probes. Reactive pigs' optimism/pessimism was affected by their housing conditions. (Online version in colour.)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Eysenck M, Mogg K, May J. 1991. Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 100, 144–150. (10.1037/0021-843X.100.2.144) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tiedens L, Linton S. 2001. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 973–988. (10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ellenbogen M. 2002. Stress and selective attention: The interplay of mood, cortisol levels, and emotional information processing. Psychophysiology 39, 723–732. (10.1111/1469-8986.3960723) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mathews A, Mackintosh B, Fulcher E. 1997. Cognitive biases in anxiety and attention to threat. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1, 340–345. (10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01092-9) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brilot BO, Asher L, Bateson M. 2010. Stereotyping starlings are more ‘pessimistic’. Anim. Cogn. 13, 721–731. (10.1007/s10071-010-0323-z) - DOI - PubMed

Publication types