The systematic exploration of emotional states in non-human organisms represents one of the most transformative frontiers in modern comparative psychology and evolutionary biology. Far from being passive biological automatons, animals across divergent phylogenetic lineages exhibit multifaceted, coordinated affective responses that evolved to negotiate environmental challenges, secure resources, and preserve physiological homeostasis. Unraveling the nature of animal emotionality illuminates not only the shared evolutionary heritage binding human experience to the natural world, but also fundamentally redefines our ethical paradigms regarding non-human welfare and cognitive sentience.
Animal Emotionality
1. Concise Definition
Animal emotionality refers to the organized suite of physiological, neural, behavioral, and subjective affective states through which non-human animals evaluate, react to, and navigate adaptively significant environmental stimuli. In ethological and psychological contexts, it denotes a cross-species capacity to experience valence-driven neurobiological processes—spanning unconditioned defensive reactions, social bonding, playfulness, and appetitive seeking—that modulate behavioral output in response to perceived survival challenges or rewards.
Rather than presuming identical cognitive parity with complex human subjective feelings, contemporary science operationalizes animal emotionality through observable phenotypic markers, endocrine profiles, autonomic adjustments, and specialized limbic neurocircuitry. It encompasses both acute emotional reactions (such as fear evoked by a predator’s silhouette) and stable, trait-like emotional dispositions (such as individual variation in boldness, reactivity, or neophobia), which collectively drive individual fitness and evolutionary adaptation.
2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin
The term derives from the confluence of late Latin and Classical roots adapted within early comparative psychology. “Animal” traces to the Latin animalis, meaning “having breath” or “living being,” which stems from anima (“breath,” “soul,” or “life principle”). “Emotionality” originates from the Latin verb emovere, constructed from the prefix ex- (“out,” “away”) and movere (“to move”), literally signifying to stir up, agitate, or drive outward. In seventeenth-century French, émotion denoted physical movement, disturbance, or public agitation, before seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophical discourse adapted it to describe internal mental agitations or turbulent states of feeling.
The compound construct “animal emotionality” entered empirical research during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, catalyzed by evolutionary biologists and early experimental psychologists. Pioneers such as Calvin S. Hall operationalized “emotionality” in laboratory rodents during the 1930s, transitioning the term from philosophical conjecture about the animal “soul” into a measurable psychometric and behavioral construct within experimental laboratory science.
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form
Phonetic Pronunciation: /ˈæn.ɪ.məl ɪˌmoʊ.ʃəˈnæl.ə.ti/ (American English), /ˈæn.ɪ.məl ɪˌməʊ.ʃəˈnæl.ɪ.ti/ (British English).
Grammatical Form: Compound noun phrase, uncountable. The term operates primarily as an overarching theoretical construct (e.g., “the assessment of animal emotionality”). It can also take plural forms in specific taxonomical or trait-oriented contexts (“differential emotionalities across strains”). Associated grammatical derivations include the adjective phrase emotionally reactive and the base noun animal emotion.
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation
To fully grasp animal emotionality, researchers distinguish between three interrelated tiers of affective processing: emotional behavior, physiological activation, and subjective affective experience. Emotional behavior comprises overt, observable actions that possess functional value, including fleeing, freezing, vocalizing, threat displays, grooming, and social solicitations. These behaviors are not isolated motor reflexes; they are coordinated responses governed by centralized motivational networks within the central nervous system that dynamically adjust based on environmental feedback and individual learning history.
The second tier involves internal autonomic and neuroendocrine adaptations. When an organism detects a biologically salient stimulus, the sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) axis and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis trigger rapid systemic adjustments. Heart rate variability shifts, glucocorticoid levels fluctuate, blood flow redirects to major skeletal muscle groups, and metabolic resources mobilize. These physiological changes prepare the organism for adaptive action—whether escaping a threat, engaging in territorial defense, or attending to vulnerable offspring. Importantly, these autonomic patterns display striking evolutionary conservation across mammalian, avian, and even certain reptilian clades.
The third and most fiercely debated tier pertains to phenomenal consciousness or subjective valence (affect). Historically, radical behaviorism dismissed the internal states of animals as inaccessible “black boxes,” warning against the perils of unscientific anthropomorphism. However, contemporary affective neuroscience demonstrates that mammalian subcortical structures generate felt affective states that drive reinforcement learning. Animals do not merely exhibit physiological perturbations; they appear to experience positive states (reward, comfort, playfulness) and negative states (distress, pain, loneliness), which serve as proximate proximate mechanisms guiding survival behaviors.
The scope of animal emotionality extends beyond transient affective reactions to encompass broader temperament profiles and mood states. Chronic environmental deprivation, social defeat, or persistent stress can alter an animal’s cognitive appraisal mechanisms, leading to generalized states analogous to human anxiety or depressive-like anhedonia. Consequently, modern researchers conceptualize animal emotionality as a multi-layered biological system that bridges instantaneous evolutionary reflexes with enduring psychological adaptations.
5. Historical Development
The academic study of animal emotionality has undergone dramatic conceptual paradigm shifts over the past two centuries. Prior to the Darwinian revolution, Western Cartesian philosophy largely viewed non-human animals as non-sentient biological mechanisms—bêtes machines—lacking conscious perception, rational intellect, and genuine emotional capacity. Rene Descartes posited that because animals lacked an immortal, rational mind, their responses to injury or distress were merely complex mechanical reflexes devoid of experiential feeling.
This mechanistic doctrine was overturned in 1872 by Charles Darwin with the publication of his seminal treatise, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin established that human emotional expressions are evolutionary homologues of ancestral animal displays. By comparing facial musculature, vocalizations, and postural shifts across diverse species—including dogs, domestic cats, non-human primates, and humans—Darwin demonstrated continuity in affective manifestation. He argued that emotions are biologically functional traits preserved through natural selection because they facilitate social communication and enhance survival probability.
During the early-to-mid twentieth century, the rise of Watsonian and Skinnerian behaviorism curtailed research into the experiential dimension of animal emotion. Behaviorists rejected the attribution of subjective emotional states to animals as unscientific anthropomorphism, arguing that researchers must confine their inquiries strictly to observable stimulus-response contingencies. Concurrently, comparative psychologists like Calvin S. Hall (1934) developed operationalized assays—such as the open field test—to measure rodent “emotionality” through quantifiable somatic metrics, specifically defecation and urination in novel environments, without addressing subjective affect.
The late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries witnessed a profound renaissance, driven by ethology, cognitive biology, and neuroscience. Ethologists like Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen revived interest in naturalistic animal behavior, while Donald Griffin founded cognitive ethology, arguing that animals possess conscious mental states. Concurrently, neuroscientists like Jaak Panksepp mapped subcortical mammalian affective circuits through electrical brain stimulation, empirically disproving the behaviorist tabula rasa view and firmly establishing animal emotionality as an objective neurobiological reality.
6. Theoretical Foundations
Modern analyses of animal emotionality draw upon several foundational theoretical frameworks that integrate evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology:
The foremost neurobiological framework is Jaak Panksepp’s Affective Neuroscience model. Panksepp demonstrated that all mammals share homologous, deeply seated subcortical emotional circuits located in ancient limbic and brainstem regions (such as the periaqueductal gray, hypothalamus, and amygdala). Panksepp classified these primary emotional systems into seven foundational networks: SEEKING (expectancy and exploratory foraging), FEAR (defensive avoidance), RAGE (territorial and resource defense), LUST (sexual drive), CARE (maternal nurturance), PANIC/GRIEF (separation distress), and PLAY (rough-and-tumble social joy). Because these circuits can be activated via deep brain stimulation to yield conditioned place preferences or aversions in non-human subjects, the framework establishes that core emotional feelings originate from evolutionary subcortical brain systems rather than advanced neocortical cognition.
A second pillar is Functional Evolutionary Theory. Rooted in evolutionary biology, this framework asserts that emotional states represent specialized adaptations to recurring evolutionary challenges. Emotions serve as overarching coordination systems: an encounter with a predator activates the fear system, which concurrently suppresses digestion, accelerates heart rate, focuses sensory attention, triggers freezing or flight responses, and modulates memory consolidation. In this light, emotions are cognitive and somatic short-cuts designed by natural selection to make rapid, fitness-maximizing decisions without requiring slow, deliberate cognitive computation.
A third contemporary model is Cognitive Appraisal Theory adapted for comparative psychology. Pioneered in animal contexts by researchers like Michael Mendl and Elizabeth Paul, this approach conceptualizes emotions as valenced outcomes of an animal’s cognitive evaluation of an event relative to its expectations and past experiences. Cognitive bias paradigms demonstrate that an animal’s prevailing emotional state directly influences its sensory interpretation of ambiguous cues. For instance, animals subjected to chronic stress exhibit “pessimistic” cognitive processing, categorizing ambiguous stimuli as threats or non-rewarding, whereas animals in enriched environments exhibit “optimistic” appraisal tendencies.
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions
Animal emotionality is not a monolithic trait; rather, it breaks down into specific dimensions, subcortical circuits, and observable response modalities:
- Primary Core Emotional Systems: Direct subcortical circuits (SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, PANIC/GRIEF, CARE, LUST, PLAY) operating across mammals and birds that generate raw, unconditioned affective responses without requiring higher-order reflection.
- Physiological Reactivity: Autonomic and neuroendocrine parameters, including sympathetic nerve firing, vagal nerve tone, plasma corticosterone/cortisol concentrations, pupil dilation, and skin conductance changes.
- Behavioral Action Tendencies: Motor manifestations designed to engage or evade environmental stimuli, including freezing (tonic immobility), escape locomotions, agonistic displays, social grooming, and postural submissions.
- Valence and Arousal Dimensions: The two-dimensional affective space wherein emotional states can be mapped: valence (positive/pleasurable vs. negative/aversive) and arousal (high metabolic activation vs. low metabolic quiescence).
- Acoustic and Chemical Signatures: Species-specific communication patterns, such as 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations in rats signaling positive affect, high-frequency alarm barks in primates, distress vocalizations in isolated chicks, and alarm pheromones secreted by social insects and rodents.
- Temperament and Personality Traits: Enduring individual variations in emotional reactivity, often cataloged along axes such as boldness–shyness, exploration–avoidance, and aggressiveness–docility.
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases
The manifestation of animal emotionality spans a vast spectrum of ecological and laboratory settings, illustrating complex social and individual affective dynamics:
Rodent Play and Ultrasonic Laughter: In groundbreaking experimental studies, Jaak Panksepp and colleagues discovered that juvenile laboratory rats engage in intense rough-and-tumble play accompanied by high-frequency 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs). These vocalizations reflect positive affective states akin to primitive laughter. When experimenters gently tickled rats, the animals emitted bursts of 50-kHz calls, formed conditioned place preferences for the tickling arena, and actively pursued the researcher’s hand to solicit further tactile interaction. Conversely, when exposed to predator odors or experiencing social defeat, rats emit distinct 22-kHz ultrasonic cries, signaling intense negative affect, fear, and sustained apprehension.
Primate Grief and Mourning Displays: Field studies conducted by Jane Goodall and subsequent primatologists have thoroughly documented profound behavioral and physiological disruptions in chimpanzees experiencing the death of a close relative. When the prominent Gombe chimpanzee Flo died of old age, her eight-year-old son, Flint, exhibited deep behavioral despair, cessation of feeding, social withdrawal, and lethargy. Flint’s physiological decline rapidly culminated in his own death just weeks later. Similar mourning rituals, prolonged physical contact with deceased infants, and altered cortisol patterns have been documented in elephants, orcas, and baboons, underscoring the deep evolutionary continuity of the PANIC/GRIEF separation distress circuit.
Canine Separation Anxiety: Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) provide clear everyday illustrations of acute and chronic emotional pathology. When separated from their human attachment figures, dogs afflicted with separation distress demonstrate physiological hyperarousal, persistent distress vocalizations (whining, howling), destructive behavior targeted at points of egress, inappropriate urination, and elevated salivary cortisol levels. This condition represents a dysregulation of the evolved social attachment circuitry, confirming that domesticated companion animals experience severe distress when separated from primary social bonds.
9. Measurement & Assessment
Evaluating emotionality in non-verbal organisms necessitates sophisticated, non-invasive, and multi-modal methodologies designed to eliminate subjective human bias while capturing true behavioral and physiological phenomena:
Behavioral Assays: In laboratory settings, comparative psychologists utilize standardized ethological tests. The Open Field Test assesses an animal’s conflict between the natural drive to explore a novel environment and its innate agoraphobia; time spent in the peripheral zones (“thigmotaxis”) versus the central area reflects elevated fear and emotional reactivity. The Elevated Plus Maze (EPM) exploits the conflict between rodent curiosity and fear of open, elevated spaces. Other validated behavioral tests include the Light-Dark Box, Novel Object Recognition, and the Forced Swim Test (a measure of behavioral despair and coping strategy).
Cognitive Bias Paradigms: Developed to measure subjective emotional valence, these tests evaluate whether an animal’s underlying mood state biases its decision-making under ambiguity. Animals are trained that one stimulus (e.g., a specific auditory tone or spatial location) yields a reward, while an alternate stimulus yields an aversive outcome or no reward. Once trained, the subject is presented with an ambiguous, intermediate stimulus. Animals housed in enriched, low-stress environments reliably treat the ambiguous cue as a predictor of reward (“optimistic” judgment), whereas animals exposed to chronic stressors assume the ambiguous cue heralds an aversive outcome (“pessimistic” judgment).
Physiological and Neuroimaging Biomarkers: Researchers quantify autonomic activation via telemetric heart rate monitoring and heart rate variability (HRV), which indexes autonomic parasympathetic regulation and vagal tone. Endocrine testing monitors glucocorticoid concentrations (cortisol or corticosterone) extracted from blood plasma, saliva, urine, or fecal samples. High-resolution infrared thermography measures rapid shifts in surface eye and facial temperatures driven by sympathetic vasoconstriction during acute distress. In advanced non-human primate and canine studies, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) reveals real-time amygdalar and caudate activation patterns in response to social, olfactory, and verbal stimuli.
10. Applications & Practical Significance
The systematic study of animal emotionality carries profound applications across modern science, agriculture, veterinary medicine, and legal jurisprudence:
Veterinary Medicine and Animal Welfare: Understanding affective neurobiology has revolutionized contemporary veterinary practices and shelter medicine. By recognizing that fear, territorial anxiety, and social isolation are underlying drivers of problem behaviors (such as feline spraying, canine aggression, or stereotypic feather-plucking in psittacines), clinicians can apply target-specific behavioral modifications alongside psychopharmacological interventions (e.g., SSRIs, gabapentin). The “Five Domains” model of animal welfare now elevates mental and affective well-being as equally critical to physical health, demanding that captive environments provide positive experiences rather than merely avoiding physical harm.
Agricultural Ethology: In production farming, assessing livestock emotionality directly influences facilities design, slaughter protocols, and herd productivity. Temple Grandin’s pioneering work utilized insights into mammalian fear dynamics—such as hypersensitivity to rapid shadow contrasts, high-pitched metal clatter, and isolation from conspecifics—to redesign livestock handling facilities worldwide. Reducing fear and distress not only satisfies ethical mandates but also significantly mitigates stress-induced physiological pathologies that compromise immune health and meat quality.
Translational Neuroscience and Psychiatric Modeling: Laboratory animals serve as critical translational models for investigating human affective disorders. Rodent models of chronic mild stress, maternal separation, and social defeat paradigms provide crucial insights into the neurobiology of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Understanding how subcortical emotional systems become dysregulated under prolonged environmental adversity informs the synthesis and testing of novel psychiatric medications.
Ethics, Legislation, and Animal Rights: Globally, scientific validation of animal emotionality and sentience is transforming legal frameworks. The European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon formally recognizes animals as sentient beings rather than mere property, prohibiting practices that induce gratuitous negative affective states. Jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and several Canadian provinces have introduced statutory requirements to account for the cognitive and emotional capacities of animals in agricultural, companion, and scientific domains.
11. Research & Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence documenting animal emotionality spans a vast literature across neurobiology, comparative cognition, and evolutionary ecology:
In affective neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp’s decades of empirical work demonstrated that stimulating specific subcortical regions reliably evokes organized emotional actions accompanied by positive or negative valence. By mapping the deep subcortical structures of the mammalian brain, Panksepp showed that localized electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus, ventral striatum, and periaqueductal gray produces unconditioned emotional displays—such as predatory stalking, defensive flight, or play vocalizations—independent of any prior learning. This confirmed that affective states are wired into the mammalian brainstem and limbic machinery rather than being modern cognitive human inventions.
Cognitive ethology research conducted by Frans de Waal and colleagues at Emory University has demonstrated empathetic reactivity, consolation behaviors, and emotional contagion in non-human primates and other mammals. De Waal documented that chimpanzees routinely approach distressed, defeated conspecifics following violent agonistic conflicts to offer physical embrace, grooming, and tactile reassurance—a phenomenon known as consolation. Subsequent empirical studies by Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal and colleagues (2011) revealed empathetic helping behavior in laboratory rats: free rats repeatedly learned to open a complex restrainer door solely to liberate a trapped, distressed cagemate, even when offered competing access to chocolate rewards.
Studies in canine cognition led by Gregory Berns utilized wakeful fMRI on unrestrained domestic dogs to assess neurochemical and neural responses to emotional stimuli. Berns and his team demonstrated that the canine caudate nucleus—a key node in the brain’s reward pathway associated with positive anticipation and pleasure in humans—activates significantly when dogs smell the scent of their familiar human caretakers or hear praise-inflected vocal intonations. These controlled imaging trials verify that emotional responses in companion animals mirror neurobiological reward patterns historically viewed as uniquely human.
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations
Human conceptualizations and interpretations of animal emotionality diverge substantially across diverse cultural, philosophical, and regional contexts:
In Western industrial societies, cultural views of animal emotionality have undergone dramatic shifts over the past century. While historical paradigms framed animals through utilitarian and Cartesian lenses, contemporary Western society exhibits high levels of anthropomorphic attribution, often elevating companion animals to full family members. However, this creates a profound cultural paradox: companion species (dogs, cats) are granted rich emotional lives and high moral status, whereas livestock species (swine, cattle, poultry) with equivalent or superior cognitive and emotional capacities are industrialized within intensive agricultural systems.
In contrast, many Indigenous traditions and non-Western cosmologies have historically operated from premises of ecological egalitarianism and animism. Indigenous North American, Amazonian, and circumpolar traditions conceptualize animals as distinct “peoples” endowed with their own interior emotional lives, conscious agency, and spiritual presence. In these systems, hunting and harvesting demand reciprocal respect, gratitude, and ritual protocols designed to appease the emotional and spiritual essence of animal communities.
In Eastern philosophical traditions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, the doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence toward all living beings) is fundamentally rooted in the recognition of animal sentience and shared vulnerability to suffering. Because all sentient beings are viewed as subject to the cycles of rebirth (samsara) and capable of experiencing pain, terror, and grief, compassion is extended across species lines, fundamentally shaping agricultural, dietary, and cultural traditions throughout East and South Asia.
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations
Despite robust empirical advancements, the scientific study of animal emotionality remains subject to intense theoretical debate, methodological criticism, and conceptual controversies:
A primary debate centers on the risk of anthropomorphism versus “anthropodenial.” Ethologists such as Frans de Waal caution against anthropodenial—the dogmatic refusal to accept that humans and other animals share homologous emotional states despite identical evolutionary origins and neural anatomy. Conversely, behavioral purists and evolutionary skeptics argue that uncritical anthropomorphism risks projecting complex, culturally constructed human feelings (such as spite, existential dread, romantic love, or guilt) onto species whose evolutionary niches require fundamentally different cognitive adaptations.
A major neurobiological debate involves the necessity of the neocortex for subjective emotional experience. Prominent neuroscientists such as Joseph LeDoux argue that a clear demarcation must be maintained between “survival circuits” (which control defensive, appetitive, and reproductive behaviors without requiring conscious awareness) and “emotional feelings.” LeDoux contends that true subjective emotional feelings require higher-order cortical processing and self-awareness, which are likely unique to humans or restricted to advanced primates. In this view, while a rat exhibits defensive behaviors via the amygdala, we cannot empirically declare that it “feels” fear in the cognitive human sense.
Methodological limitations further complicate the discipline. Animals cannot provide introspective, self-reported verbal validation of their inner experiences. Scientists must infer internal affect entirely from proxy metrics—such as cortisol secretions, behavioral variations, autonomic responses, or neural firings. Many of these biological markers are non-specific; for example, high cortisol levels indicate intense arousal, but they do not automatically identify whether that arousal is valenced negatively (e.g., predator terror) or positively (e.g., mating pursuit or play). Navigating these inferential leaps remains a central challenge for comparative psychology.
14. Related Terms & Distinctions
To avoid conceptual conflation within academic discourse, animal emotionality must be clearly differentiated from several closely aligned constructs:
- Animal Sentience: The overarching capacity of an organism to have subjective experiences, including physical sensations (pain, thermal discomfort) and affective states. Emotionality is an active functional component of sentience, focusing specifically on dynamic valenced motivational states rather than raw sensory detection.
- Animal Personality / Behavioral Syndromes: Enduring, consistent individual differences in behavior across time and varying ecological contexts. While emotionality refers to the immediate affective processing capacity, personality reflects the stable, lifetime disposition of an individual’s emotional reactivity (e.g., high vs. low boldness).
- Affective Contagion: The primitive, automatic reflex wherein an organism automatically mirrors the emotional vocalizations, postures, or panic of conspecifics without necessarily understanding the cognitive cause of their distress.
- Empathy: A more sophisticated psychological process involving affective contagion coupled with cognitive perspective-taking and consolation, documented primarily in higher primates, cetaceans, and elephants.
- Anthropomorphism: The psychological attribution of distinct human qualities, motivations, intentions, and emotional states to non-human entities. While naive anthropomorphism can mislead scientific inquiry, evolutionary critical anthropomorphism uses shared biological lineage to generate testable hypotheses about animal internal states.
15. Summary / Key Takeaways
Animal emotionality represents an essential, evolutionarily conserved biological system that drives non-human behavior, physiological homeostasis, and survival across the animal kingdom. Far from simple Cartesian reflex machines, non-human species possess homologous subcortical neural circuits that generate distinct, valenced affective states—including fear, rage, social distress, parental care, and play. These affective mechanisms are systematically measured through validated behavioral assays, cognitive bias tests, autonomic tracking, and functional neuroimaging.
Modern science recognizes that emotional reactivity varies across species, temperaments, and developmental histories. By moving past outdated behaviorist prohibitions against studying animal subjective states, affective neuroscience and cognitive ethology have bridged the conceptual divide separating human experience from the animal kingdom. The ongoing empirical exploration of animal emotionality not only deepens our fundamental understanding of evolutionary biology and neural circuitry, but also compels a comprehensive reassessment of veterinary practice, agricultural policy, ecological conservation, and international animal welfare law.
References
- Bartal, I. B. A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427–1430. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210789
- Berns, G. S., Brooks, A. M., & Spivak, M. (2012). Functional MRI in awake unrestrained dogs. PLOS ONE, 7(5), e38027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038027
- Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. John Murray.
- de Waal, F. B. M. (2019). Mama’s last hug: Animal emotions and what they tell us about ourselves. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Griffin, D. R. (2001). Animal minds: Beyond cognition to consciousness. University of Chicago Press.
- Hall, C. S. (1934). Drive and emotionality: Factors associated with emotionality in the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070114
- LeDoux, J. (2012). Evolution of human emotion: A view through fear. Progress in Brain Research, 195, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00021-0
- Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., & Paul, E. S. (2010). An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1696), 2895–2904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0303
- Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford University Press.
- Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2003). “Laughing” rats and the evolutionary antecedents of human joy? Physiology & Behavior, 79(3), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00159-8