Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30345570›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2019

What is animal happiness?

Laura E Webb, Ruut Veenhoven, Jes Lynning Harfeld, Margit Bak Jensen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Laura E WebbAnimal Production Systems Group, Department of Animal Science, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Ruut VeenhovenErasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organization (EHERO), Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jes Lynning HarfeldDepartment of Learning and Philosophy, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Margit Bak JensenDepartment of Animal Science - Behaviour and Stress Biology Group, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKAarhus University · DKVaal University of Technology · ZAWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, we see a growing concern for the quality of life of nonhuman animals and an accompanying call for viable means of assessing how well animals thrive. Past research focused on minimizing negatives such as stress, while more recent endeavors strive to promote positives such as happiness. But what is animal happiness? Although often mentioned, the term lacks a clear definition. With recent advances in the study of animal emotion, current interest into positive rather than negative experiences, and the call for captive and domesticated animals to have good lives, the time is ripe to examine the concept of animal happiness. We draw from the human and animal literature to delineate a concept of animal happiness and propose how to assess it. We argue that animal happiness depends on how an individual feels generally-that is, a typical level of affect.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareHappinessAnimalsHumansPleasurePleasure-Pain PrincipleQuality of Lifeaffect balanceanimal welfarehuman happinesstypical level of affect

Identifiers

PMID30345570
PMCPMC7379717
OpenAlexW2896159153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.