Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42028321›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026

Facilitating perspective-taking with animals in human decision-making.

Erin B Ryan, Matthew I Billet, Daniel M Weary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Erin B RyanThe University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4133-2701
Matthew I BilletThe University of British Columbia, Canada.
Daniel M WearyThe University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-3982

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efforts to include animal perspectives in decision-making are gaining attention, yet how to meaningfully represent these perspectives remains underexplored. This study investigated how university students engaged in taking the perspective of dairy cows and calves when introduced to the practice of cow-calf separation - either through a verbal description or a visually immersive video capturing the animals' point of view. Focus groups were conducted to examine the range and depth of participants' responses, and transcripts were thematically analysed. Results revealed that participants across both treatments acknowledged the animals' experiences, particularly the emotional significance of the maternal bond. However, those exposed to the video condition engaged in more emotionally detailed and complex discussions, often referencing specific animal behaviours and vocalisations. The video appeared to enhance perspective-taking by increasing contextual richness, encouraging participants to interpret the animals' experiences more vividly. While many participants expressed empathy or sympathy, others reported distress or hesitancy, citing challenges, such as anthropomorphism or uncertainty about accurately accessing animal perspectives. These findings underscore the potential for visual interventions to deepen understanding of non-human perspectives, while also highlighting psychological and cultural barriers to animal-inclusive decision-making. Our results suggest that perspective-taking can be a valuable tool in promoting ethical engagement with animal welfare. However, further research is needed to explore how such engagement influences actual decision-making, and how to balance emotional connection with critical reflection.

Indexed as

Animal welfarecow-calf separationdecision-makingempathyfarm animalshuman-animal relationshipsperspective-taking

Identifiers

PMID42028321
PMCPMC13100920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.