Abstract
Validated measures of animal affect are crucial to research spanning a number of disciplines including neuroscience, psychopharmacology, and animal welfare science. Judgement bias, which assesses decision-making under ambiguity, is a promising measure of animal affect. One way of validating this measure is to induce affective states using pharmacological manipulations and determine whether the predicted judgement biases are observed. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 19 published research articles that use this approach from which 440 effect sizes were extracted. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that pharmacological manipulations overall altered judgement bias as predicted. However, there were several moderating factors including the neurobiological target of the drug, whether the drug was hypothesised to induce a relatively positive or negative affective state, dosage, and the presented cue. This may partially reflect interference from adverse effects of the drug, such as sedation. Thus, while judgement bias can be used to measure pharmacologically-induced affective states, potential adverse effects of the drug should be considered when interpreting results.
