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
. 2017 Dec 14:8:2197.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02197. eCollection 2017.

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

Affiliations

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

Camille M C Raoult et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Affective states are known to influence behavior and cognitive processes. To assess mood (moderately long-term affective states), the cognitive judgment bias test was developed and has been widely used in various animal species. However, little is known about how mood changes, how mood can be experimentally manipulated, and how mood then feeds back into cognitive judgment. A recent theory argues that mood reflects the cumulative impact of differences between obtained outcomes and expectations. Here expectations refer to an established context. Situations in which an established context fails to match an outcome are then perceived as mismatches of expectation and outcome. We take advantage of the large number of studies published on non-verbal cognitive bias tests in recent years (95 studies with a total of 162 independent tests) to test whether cumulative mismatch could indeed have led to the observed mood changes. Based on a criteria list, we assessed whether mismatch had occurred with the experimental procedure used to induce mood (mood induction mismatch), or in the context of the non-verbal cognitive bias procedure (testing mismatch). For the mood induction mismatch, we scored the mismatch between the subjects' potential expectations and the manipulations conducted for inducing mood whereas, for the testing mismatch, we scored mismatches that may have occurred during the actual testing. We then investigated whether these two types of mismatch can predict the actual outcome of the cognitive bias study. The present evaluation shows that mood induction mismatch cannot well predict the success of a cognitive bias test. On the other hand, testing mismatch can modulate or even inverse the expected outcome. We think, cognitive bias studies should more specifically aim at creating expectation mismatch while inducing mood states to test the cumulative mismatch theory more properly. Furthermore, testing mismatch should be avoided as much as possible because it can reverse the affective state of animals as measured in a cognitive judgment bias paradigm.

Keywords: affective states; animal welfare; cognitive bias; judgment bias; mood.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Success of independent cognitive bias tests (dark gray: fitting with the hypothesis, light gray: none, white: contrary to the hypothesis) in function of the mood induction mismatch (–: negative, 0: none, +: positive) and the testing mismatch (–: negative, 0: none, +: positive). N: number of independent tests in each combination. Black lines: model estimates that reflect the probability of the switches from one level in the outcome variable to the next.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anderson M. H., Munafo M. R., Robinson E. S. (2013). Investigating the psychopharmacology of cognitive affective bias in rats using an affective tone discrimination task. Psychopharmacology 226 601–613. 10.1007/s00213-012-2932-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baciadonna L., McElligott A. G. (2015). The use of judgement bias to assess welfare in farm livestock. Anim. Welf. 24 81–91. 10.7120/09627286.24.1.081 - DOI
    1. Barker T. H., Howarth G. S., Whittaker A. L. (2016). The effects of metabolic cage housing and sex on cognitive bias expression in rats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 177 70–76. 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.018 - DOI
    1. Bateson M., Desire S., Gartside S. E., Wright G. A. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Curr. Biol. 21 1070–1073. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bateson M., Matheson S. M. (2007). Performance on a categorisation task suggests that removal of environmental enrichment induces ‘pessimism’ in captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim. Welf. 16(Suppl.), 33–36.