Assessing the psychological health of captive and wild apes: a response to Ferdowsian et al. (2011)

A. Rosati, E. Herrmann, Juliane Kaminski, C. Krupenye, A. Melis, K. Schroepfer, J. Tan, F. Warneken, V. Wobber, B. Hare

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


As many studies of cognition and behavior involve captive animals, assessing any psychological impact of captive conditions is an important goal for comparative researchers. Ferdowsian and colleagues (2011) sought to address whether captive chimpanzees show elevated signs of psychopathology relative to wild apes. They modified a checklist of diagnostic criteria for major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder in humans, and applied these criteria to various captive and wild chimpanzee populations. We argue that measures derived from human diagnostic criteria are not a powerful tool for assessing the psychological health of nonverbal animals. In addition, we highlight certain methodological drawbacks of the specific approach used by Ferdowsian and colleagues (2011). We propose that research should (1) focus on objective behavioral criteria that account for species-typical behaviors and can be reliably identified across populations; (2) account for population differences in rearing history when comparing how current environment impacts psychological health in animals; and (3) focus on how changes in current human practices can improve the well-being of both captive and wild animals.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)329-336
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Comparative Psychology
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2013


Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing the psychological health of captive and wild apes: a response to Ferdowsian et al. (2011)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this