ArticleApplied animal behaviour science2021
Once bitten, twice shy: Aggressive and defeated pigs begin agonistic encounters with more negative emotions.
Article in Applied animal behaviour science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive and non-cognitive factors predict pigs' positions in an aggression social network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Literature review of the use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment with a fixed list of terms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Pattern Mining-Based Pig Behavior Analysis for Health and Welfare Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A systematic approach to defining and verifying descriptors used in the Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of sows.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aggression between unfamiliar commercial pigs is common and likely invokes strong emotions in contestants. Furthermore, contest outcomes affect subsequent aggressive behaviour, suggesting a potential lasting influence on affective state. Here we used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the emotional expression of pigs in agonistic encounters. We investigated how recent victory or defeat influences emotions expressed in a subsequent contest, and the role of aggressiveness as a personality trait in emotional expression. We observed the pre-escalation contest behaviour (second contest; age 13 wks) in animals of different aggressiveness (categorised using two resident intruder tests as Agg+ or Agg-, age 9 wks), which had recently won or lost a contest (first contest; 10 wks). We measured gaze direction and ear position. Observers watched video clips of the initial 30 s of the second contest and evaluated the emotional expression of 57 pigs (25 contest 1 winners, 32 contest 1 losers) using qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) with a fixed list of 20 descriptive terms. QBA identified three principal components (PCs), accounting for 68% of the variation: PC1 (agitated/tense to relaxed/content), PC2 (fearful/aimless to confident/enjoying) and PC3 (listless/ indifferent). Agg- pigs and males showed a more positive emotionality (PC2). PC1 and PC3 were unaffected by first contest outcome and aggressiveness. Agg+ pigs were more likely to hold their ears back (X
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.