Irresistible: Emotions affect choice of breed despite welfare issues

animal welfare breeds dogs research science

Irresistible: Emotions affect choice of breed despite welfare issues

Comment  

Knowing a breed of dog may have health problems does not stop people from wanting one, because emotions get in the way. 

A new Danish study by Peter S Sandøe (University of Copenhagen) et al investigates the reasons why people acquire particular small breeds of dog and how attached the owners feel to their pet. The research helps explain why some breeds are popular despite a high incidence of welfare problems. 

The study looked at people in Denmark with French Bulldogs, Chihuahuas, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, and Cairn Terriers.

The results suggest that even knowing a dog of a particular breed is likely to have health problems may not stop people from getting one, because of their emotional response to the breed. 

Lead author, Peter Sandøe told me in an email,

“In all, this study prompts the conclusion that the apparent paradox of people who love their dogs continuing to acquire dogs from breeds with breed-related welfare problems may not be perceived as a paradox from the point of view of prospective owners of breeds such as Chihuahuas and French Bulldogs.  

Thus apparently available information about the problems in these two breeds has not served to prevent their growing popularity because fundamental emotional responses to the phenotypic attributes of these breeds are highly effective positive motivators.”

Some owners did not prioritize health when getting their dog. As well, for owners of CKCS and Chihuahuas, those whose dog had more health/behaviour problems had a stronger attachment to the dog.

French Bulldogs and Chihuahuas were chosen for the study because of their tendency to have problems related to their conformation (or appearance). Cavalier King Charles Spaniels were chosen because they also tend to have health problems, but not related to what they look like. Finally, Cairn Terriers were picked because they are relatively healthy, so they make a good contrast.

There were differences in how people acquired the breeds. People with Chihuahuas were most likely to say there “wasn’t really any planning”, and they were also less likely than CKCS owners and French Bulldog owners to have put time into learning about dogs from books or dog professionals before getting it. Cairn Terrier owners were also less likely to have learned in this way, and more likely to rely on prior experience with the breed.

People were most likely to get Cairn Terriers and CKCS as puppies from breeders. (In Denmark most dogs come from small breeders with between 2 and 4 breeding bitches). Although breeders were still the most common source of Chihuahuas and French Bulldogs, these breeds had a greater tendency to be acquired from a previous owner (22% of Chihuahuas and 15% of French Bulldogs) or other sources. 

The researchers found that the dog’s distinctive appearance, breed attributes and convenience were all motivations in getting a dog. Personality was also important.

These motivations varied by breed. Distinctive appearance and personality were particularly important for owners of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and French Bulldogs. For Chihuahua owners, these were less important, but convenience played a bigger role. Owners of Cairn Terriers were less motivated by appearance and more by breed attributes. 

Interestingly, these motivations were also linked to attachment. People who were motivated by distinctive appearance and breed attributes were very attached to their dog. 

The scientists say it’s possible that appearance is directly linked to levels of attachment, because facial features that are baby-like may induce parenting behaviours in the owner. This has also been suggested by previous research (see e.g. children’s preferences for baby-like features in dogs and the role of eyebrow movements in adopting shelter dogs).

The scientists say the motivations to acquire a dog can be seen as intrinsic (as for Cairn Terriers) or extrinsic (for the three other breeds, where cuteness, baby-like features and fashion play a role).

The researchers also collected data on health and behaviour problems. French Bulldogs had the highest levels of problems and the greatest expenses. Although only 67% had visited a vet in the last year for a health check, 29% had had a sudden illness or injury, and almost 9% had a chronic illness. 12% of French Bulldog owners had spent the equivalent of more than US$760 on vet bills in the previous year. 

Chihuahuas were the most likely to have a behaviour problem (10%) and to have dental problems (33%). Most Cavalier King Charles Spaniels had been for a health check (81%), 19% had had a sudden illness or injury, and 5.5% had a chronic illness. Cairn Terriers had fewer problems and the lowest expenditure at the vet.

Interestingly, owners of Cairn Terriers had the lowest levels of attachment, and Chihuahuas the highest, with French Bulldog and CKCS owners in between. For example, if we take the statement, “I would do almost anything to take care of my dog”, 70% of Chihuahua owners strongly agreed. For French Bulldog owners it was 62%, CKCS owners 56%, and only 43% of Cairn Terrier owners.

But perhaps this reflects decisions that owners had already had to make about their dog. The scientists wondered if health or behaviour issues would affect people’s desire to get another dog of the same breed. 

French Bulldog owners were actually the most likely to say “yes, for sure” they would get the same breed again (29%). Only 10% of French Bulldog owners were keen to get a different breed next time, compared to 25% of Chihuahua owners. (This number is higher than the percentage of Chihuahua owners who "for sure" wanted the same breed again, 17.5%). 

For three of the breeds (Cairn Terrier, CKCS and Chihuahua), health and behaviour issues did not have an effect on the likelihood of wanting the same breed again. But for French Bulldog owners, health/behaviour issues reduced the number who said they wanted the same again, from 31% for the majority with no issues, to 20% for those with one problem and 12% for those with two problems.

Data from Swedish insurance company Agria, obtained by the researchers, provides sobering information about the median age of death, as shown in the table (just 2.5 years for male French Bulldogs and 3.8 for females). 

Reproduced from PLOSOne under Creative Commons licence

French Bulldogs are very popular but they are brachycephalic, i.e. short-muzzled, which can cause breathing difficulties (including brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome) and eye problems. But the French Bulldog can also have what is known as a screwed bobtail (a short curly tail). Sometimes this malformation affects the spine and causes spinal problems. 

Chihuahuas are very small and this tiny, frail shape can cause many problems, including an extremely high risk of injury, knee problems (patellar luxation), and aggression because of fear.

Cavalier King Charles Spaniels suffer health problems as a result of being bred from a very small stock. They are prone to heart problems and to a neurological condition called syringomyelia, in which fluid-filled cavities build up on the spinal cord. Early signs include excessive scratching, generalized pain, and weakness in the limbs.

The scientists sent questionnaires to a representative sample of owner of the four breeds, and 846 people took part. This study is well-designed and has an excellent response rate (up to 45% for the owners of Cairn Terriers). It incorporates small breeds with very different types of health problems and lifespans, which makes the results so interesting.

The results suggest there is a real challenge for people trying to promote improved welfare, since it seems that factors other than good health are important contributors to the decision to get a puppy. People’s motivations to get each breed were different, and in some cases the features of the breed that potentially cause problems also tug on our heart strings. Care-giving might also increase the attachment bond.

If people love their dogs, it makes sense they would want the same breed again. 

This important study makes a valuable contribution to animal welfare. It would be very interesting if the researchers could follow up with the owners at a later date to see if the desire to get the same breed again changes over time. 

The paper is open access. 

What factors did you take into account when choosing your dog?

You might also like: Why do people choose certain dogs? and How to choose the right puppy in four easy steps.

Reference

Sandøe P,, Kondrup SV,, Bennett PC,, Forkman B,, Meyer I,, Proschowsky HF,, Serpell, JA,, & Lund, TB (2017). Why do people buy dogs with potential welfare problems related to extreme conformation and inherited disease? A representative study of Danish owners of four small dog breeds. PLOSOne
Photos: Patryk Kosmider (top); Joy Brown (middle); Marina Plevako (bottom). All Shutterstock.com.

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

The Five Domains Model Aims to Help Animals Thrive

animal welfare cats dogs

The Five Domains Model Aims to Help Animals Thrive

Comment  

An updated approach to animal welfare includes opportunities for positive experiences for our companion (and other) animals.

 
“…the overall objective is to provide opportunities for animals to ‘thrive’, not simply ‘survive’” (Mellor, 2016)

The Five Freedoms

Animal welfare is traditionally defined by the Five Freedoms. These are

• Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort
• Freedom from pain, injury and disease
• Freedom to express normal behaviour
• Freedom from fear and distress

You can see the original list on the – now archived – page of the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Council’s 2009 report on farm animal welfare in Great Britain.

You will also find them listed on many SPCA and humane society websites, including by the BC SPCA and the ASPCA, because the Five Freedoms frame how they look after the animals in their care.

The Five Freedoms have defined animal welfare internationally, not just for farmed animals but also for our companion animals. Each of the Freedoms has a corresponding Provision that enables the Freedom to be met. For example, ‘freedom from hunger and thirst’ has the provision “by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.”

Updating the Five Freedoms

You might have already noticed that most of the Freedoms are ‘freedom from’ something unpleasant. Research by Professor David Mellor (Massey University) suggests improvements that include positive welfare as well.

There are two main disadvantages to the Five Freedoms approach, according to Mellor (2016).

The first is that some people have taken them to mean something that is an absolute, rather than an ideal. This is despite the fact the FAWC says “These freedoms define ideal states rather than standards for acceptable welfare.”

Mellor says that some people even see them as ‘rights’ for the animals. However, he says, some of these are biological drives – if animals did not feel thirst, they would never drink, for example. So we can’t expect that an animal would never feel thirst; it’s more that they should never get too thirsty, because water should be available to them when they do feel thirst.

The second disadvantage is that the approach focusses on problems. Mellor says it’s because that is what was important at the time, and that the Five Freedoms have been very successful.

However, now we are more aware of the idea of providing positive experiences, and so they should be incorporated into our model of good animal welfare.

The Five Provisions and Welfare Aims

The updated set of Five Provisions/Welfare Aims incorporates positive experiences as well as minimizing negative ones. It is designed to be easily understood and memorable, just like the original Five Freedoms.

Reproduced from Mellor (2016) under Creative Commons licence

Professor David Mellor told me in an email,

“An animal’s welfare refers to what it experiences. Experiences can be negative or positive. An early idea was that animals should be kept free of conditions inside and outside their bodies that lead to negative experiences. We now know that some internal conditions and related negative experiences are needed to keep animals alive. For example, breathlessness helps to regulate breathing, thirst ensures that animals drink enough water, hunger gets them to eat enough food, and pain drives them to avoid or withdraw from things that cause injuries. So we cannot eliminate these experiences, but we can avoid extremes of them. Thus, good care can ensure that such negative experiences stay at low levels, but are still available to get the animals to behave in particular ways that help to keep them alive. Regarding hunger, you should be careful not to overfeed your pet.

"Other negative experiences are due to an animal’s external circumstances. These may arise when animals are kept alone in a small, featureless area with little to do, or when they feel threatened in various ways. Loneliness, depression, boredom, fear and anxiety are examples of these experiences. Fortunately, if the animals are given congenial company, plenty of space, a variety of things to do and feel safe and secure, these negative experiences can be replaced by positive feelings of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control.

"The aims of animal care should therefore be both to keep the negative experiences generated within the body at low levels, and to replace various other negative experiences by providing comfortable, congenial, interesting and safe surroundings.

"The Five Provisions/Welfare Aims approach helps us to do this. The Provisions guide the way we care for animals by ensuring they have good nutrition, good environment, good health, appropriate behaviour and positive mental experiences. The Welfare Aims linked to the provisions direct our attention to the experiences we want to reduce to low levels and to the other experiences we want to encourage.”

The Five Provisions/Welfare Aims are consistent with the Five Domains Model of animal welfare that is an update to the Five Freedoms. The Five Domains are nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state, and you will notice that the names of the Five Provisions map onto these domains.

Illustrating the Five Domains Model

A paper by Kat Littlewood and David Mellor provides an example of how the new approach works. They take a fictional scenario of a working farm dog called Jess who gets injured. They walk the reader through the dog’s welfare at six different stages in her life. The scenario was chosen so that it does not present an ideal, and both positive and negative aspects of welfare are assessed. It is the first use of the new Five Domains model.

The paper follows Jess from her initial working role herding sheep on a farm, through a traumatic injury caused by getting stuck on a barbed wire fence, subsequent emergency veterinary care, having to have a front leg amputated, six weeks recovery time in a new home, and then her subsequent life as a tripod pet dog.

At each stage, Littlewood and Mellor illustrate how to assess Jess’s welfare in terms of both the compromises and enhancements that apply.  Compromises in each of the five domains are assessed using a letter scale from A (meaning no compromises) to E (very severe compromises). Compromises include states such as being hungry and thirsty, as well as affective responses such as fear, anxiety and boredom.

Enhancements in each domain are graded on a four-point scale from none to high level enhancement, and take account of the extent to which the animal has choices (“agency”).

They say enhancement “includes the genetically pre-programmed, or learned, affectively positive impulses to engage in rewarding behaviours, and it also includes positive affects related to anticipation, goal achievement and memory of success.”

Assessment in any domain involves looking at both compromises and enhancements.

Throughout the fictional scenario, there are times when some aspects of welfare are better than others. The time of the traumatic injury is the worst and several domains are graded as D (marked or severe compromise) with no enhancement.

In the final stage, after the leg amputation and recovery period, Jess is in her new home. She is allowed to sleep inside the house, has a Fox Terrier for companionship, and can even herd sheep from to time. Her welfare in her new home is not compromised, and is rated as having high level enhancement.

The paper provides a very detailed and helpful assessment of overall welfare, which shows how to apply the model to each stage of Jess’s life. This illustration will enable others to make good use of the Five Domains model in different situations.

Implications of the Five Domains Model

The Five Domains model has broad implications, including for animal cruelty investigations.

Kat Littlewood and David Mellor told me in an email,

“The Five Domains Model for welfare assessment recognises the dynamic integration of the basic functional processes within the body, the experiences animals may have and interactions between function and experience. Thus, biological function can affect animals’ subjective experiences, and their subjective experiences can affect their biological function. For example: shortage of oxygen can lead to breathlessness, dehydration to thirst and injury to pain; and emotionally threatening circumstances, giving rise to anxiety and/or fear, and injury-induced pain can lead to elevated heart rate, blood pressure and blood levels of stress hormones.

"In terms of prosecutions for ill treatment of animals it has been, and is still, common for biological function to be the basis of assessments of detrimental welfare impacts. This created difficulties for the Prosecution because Defence lawyers can and do challenge expert witness testimony based on interpreting such functional changes in terms of what the animals may have experienced: How can you be sure that this increase in heart rate or stress hormone level or other such measurement shows that the animal was actually experiencing severe suffering? And often, by the time these offences are brought before the court the animal has received the care and attention it needed so that its welfare state has improved significantly. In such cases, a retrospective welfare assessment is required.

"However, it is now possible to align the presumed welfare insult, the animal’s behaviour and our well-developed understanding of the brain processing involved in expressing these behaviours in ways that provide convincing support for animals having the particular negative experiences caused by the particular form(s) of ill treatment as described. The Five Domains Model and our understanding of the science that underlies it facilitate this process and as this paper shows, these assessments can be carried out retrospectively. Dr Rebecca Ledger in Canada has found this approach to be most successful.”

Dr. Rebecca Ledger spoke to Pete McMartin of the Vancouver Sun about her use of modern behavioural science in successful animal cruelty prosecutions. She told him, “I believe we are the first people in Canada to apply behavioural evidence in these kinds of cases and to infer emotional suffering based on behavioural evidence.

“I think the reason it’s taken up until now for these kinds of charges to be laid and accepted was that people were always concerned that we might be anthropomorphizing, because we can’t ask animals directly how they feel. But just like us, they can communicate in other ways. They can react to a negative situation with a physiological stress response, for example. And that physiological response is measurable.”

The New Five Domains Approach to Animal Welfare

Although the Five Freedoms have been around for some time, a recent UK report found that 65% of pet owners are not aware of their legal requirements regarding animal welfare, as explained in this article by Pete Wedderburn. So there is obviously work to do to inform pet owners about the Five Provisions/Welfare Aims and what it means for their responsibilities to their pets.

However, the idea that animals should have positive experiences is one that I think many pet owners will be happy to hear about and keen to adopt.

The Five Freedoms have made a tremendous contribution to animal welfare. Prof. Mellor’s approach updates them to take account of scientific advances in how we understand animals, and to incorporate positive experiences. The Five Domains model is a significant development in animal welfare that many people will be interested to learn about. The Five Provisions/Welfare Aims incorporate this model and are designed to help ordinary people understand this approach.

Both of these papers therefore make an important contribution to the literature in and of themselves, as well as showing how to communicate these new updates in a way that people can understand.

If you want more information on the research discussed in this post, you’ll be glad to know the articles are open access and you can read them via the links below. You can also learn more about the Five Domains model in another 2016 paper by David Mellor (also open access). And you can follow Kat Littlewood on twitter and Facebook.

What do you do to ensure your pet has positive experiences?



References
Littlewood, K., & Mellor, D. (2016). Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model Animals, 6 (9) DOI: 10.3390/ani6090058
Mellor DJ (2016). Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" by Updating the "Five Provisions" and Introducing Aligned "Animal Welfare Aims". Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 6 (10) PMID: 27669313
Photos: Dora Zett (top), Daz Stock (middle) and endlesssea2011 (Shutterstock.com).

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Pets May Help Children Learn About Animal Welfare

animal welfare children humane education pets research

Pets May Help Children Learn About Animal Welfare

Comment  

Children’s beliefs about animal welfare and sentience are linked to their own experiences with animals.

Surprisingly little is known about children’s beliefs and knowledge about animals. Yet this information could help to improve humane education programs for children. Two recent studies begin to fill this gap, with recommendations for how humane education is taught.

We know from previous research that even very young children like animals, and that children with pets are more likely to attribute biological concepts to animals than those without. Children’s experiences of caring for their pets mostly involve play, while the actual pet care is carried out by parents. Is it possible that even though these experiences are mostly social, children with pets will still have a better understanding of the care that pets need?

A series of group discussions with children aged 7 to 13 was conducted by Janine Muldoon (University of St. Andrews) et al (2016). The discussions lasted from 40 to 60 minutes, depending on school timetabling, and focussed on four types of animal: dogs, cats, guinea pigs and goldfish. Children were asked questions about how to care for the animals, how they knew when they needed care, and whether the animals have feelings.

 

Children’s answers showed a difference between what animals need in theory, and what was actually done in practice. Where they were unsure about an animal’s needs, their answers were framed in terms of their own experience, such as saying that a dog needed breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Answers also depended on the animal species. Dogs were seen as easier to understand if they needed something, although for all species the default position for an animal that needed something seemed to be ‘hunger’. Older children showed an understanding that some animals needed affection and interaction.

Children showed most knowledge about fish, and it seems that experiences of fish dying prompted them to consider what might have gone wrong. They also had knowledge about animals they did not themselves keep as pets. As you might expect, there were many gaps and variability in what they knew about animals and the five welfare needs.

Children talked about how they know what animals want. For instance, 11-year-old Caitlin* said,

“You can tell with a dog, because if they need the toilet they prance about and they brush up against your leg and they’ll go and sit at a door and then you kind of know. But then next they’ll be needing to be fed and he’ll go to this cupboard in the house and it’s where his biscuits sit. So he goes in and pulls the bags open and he’ll be able to get his head in and he brings it through in his mouth and he’ll drop it at my mum.”

Photos: Irina Kozorog (top) and Blend Images (Shutterstock.com)  

Muldoon et al conclude,

“Children often express confusion and report being able to identify hunger and injury, but recognize few other cues of welfare state in their pets. As certain types of animals may not have the behavioral repertoire or reinforcement history to give clear cues of need, it seems important that educators cultivate some form of emotional concern for the specific animal they want children to understand better. Perhaps most at risk of negative welfare experiences are animals that are not perceived by children to be reciprocal in their interactions or appear less dependent on them for daily care and attention.”

A large questionnaire study of children from 6 to 13 years old was conducted by Roxanne Hawkins and Joanne Williams (University of Edinburgh) (2016). They investigated the relationship between beliefs about animal minds (BAM), namely that animals are sentient and have feelings, and attachment, compassion and attitudes to animals. This study looked at a range of animals: humans, dogs, goldfish, cows, chimpanzees, robins, badgers and frogs.

Children rated humans as the most sentient animals, followed by dogs and chimpanzees. They rated frogs and goldfish as least sentient.

Children who lived with pets had higher scores for beliefs about animal minds (BAM) than those without, and those who had their own pet or more than one pet had higher scores still. Those with dogs specifically gave higher ratings for the sentience of dogs.

Hawkins and Williams write that,

“The results from the study confirmed the hypothesis that Child-BAM [beliefs about animal minds] is positively related to attachment to pets and compassion to animals, humane behavior toward animals, as well as attitudes toward animals. The findings also confirmed that Child-BAM was negatively associated with acceptance of intentional and unintentional animal cruelty and animal neglect.”

Neither study shows a causal relationship between children’s pet ownership and beliefs or knowledge. Further research would be needed to look at this.

Photo: AlohaHawaii (Shutterstock.com)

Dogs were most often considered to be sentient in both studies. Muldoon et al write that,

“the overwhelming emphasis on dogs throughout all phases of the focus groups suggests that they are the easiest animal with which to “connect.”” 

In Hawkins and Williams study, dogs were rated as having greater sentience than chimpanzees, though this could be because children were more familiar with dogs. In both studies, dogs were the most common pet.

These studies suggest that humane education should include developing emotional connections with animals and education about animal minds, as these are both likely to lead to more compassion toward animals and less tolerance of animal cruelty.

They also suggest that having a pet is a positive experience in terms of learning about animals and animal welfare. Further research can investigate the best ways to teach children about how to care for animals, whether or not they have a pet at home.

Do you think it’s important for children to have pets?




References

Hawkins, R., & Williams, J. (2016). Children’s Beliefs about Animal Minds (Child-BAM): Associations with Positive and Negative Child–Animal Interactions Anthrozoös, 29 (3), 503-519 DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1189749 

Muldoon, J., Williams, J., & Lawrence, A. (2016). Exploring Children’s Perspectives on the Welfare Needs of Pet Animals Anthrozoös, 29 (3), 357-375 DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1181359
*Not her real name; the children were given pseudonyms.

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Study Shows Just How Stressed Dogs Are at the Vet's

animal welfare dogs research stress vet

Study Shows Just How Stressed Dogs Are at the Vet's

Comment  

Most dogs show signs of impaired welfare at the vet, according to their owners.

A survey of 906 dog guardians in Italy found most people report their dog as being stressed at all stages of the visit to a vet clinic, from being in the waiting room to being examined by the vet. 6.4% of dogs had actually bitten their guardian at the vet and 11.2% had growled or snapped at the vet.

The report by Chiara Mariti (University of Pisa) et al draws important conclusions about what owners and vets need to do to help dogs at the vet, including teaching them to be handled.

The scientists write, “It is in fact alarming that only one third of dogs seemed to tolerate all kinds of clinical handling carried out by the vet.

“The proportion of guardians who resorted to scolding their dogs if they refused to be treated is also alarming. Veterinary surgeons have a duty to ensure their patients’ welfare, and therefore, they should take advantage of every situation to advise guardians that the use of punishment is not recommended due to its negative implications on dog welfare and behavior.”

Most of the dogs (89.9%) had had regular visits to the vet since they were a puppy, so you might think they were used to going to the vet.

But many owners (39.7%) said their dog already knew they were going to the vet while they were in the car, and 7.4% before they had even left home. Add in the dogs who showed signs of stress as soon as they arrived (52.9%), and over three quarters of dogs are said to show signs of stress before they even make it in to the waiting room.

Dogs who were stressed at the early stages of the visit were more likely to be stressed at the later stages too.

Most people were able to give at least some treatments to their dog at home (50.6%) and 47% said they could give all treatments. However, about two thirds said they had sometimes had difficulty.

Of those who struggled to give treatments, most scolded the dog and then did the treatment anyway (72.4%). This is unfortunate because scolding the dog does not teach them to accept the treatment and can make things worse in the future. Only 14% of owners did not scold the dog in these circumstances.

In fact there was a link between scolding the dog when owners found it hard to give a treatment and aggressive behaviour towards the vet. This was the case whether the owner scolded the dog and did the treatment anyway, or scolded the dog and abandoned treating them.

People’s assessments of their own dog at different stages of the vet clinic showed the majority had impaired welfare at each stage, except for the transition from waiting room to consultation room. Even then, 30% of dogs had to be encouraged and 16% had to be carried into the room.

The paper makes many important recommendations for both dog owners and vets.

Dr. Chiara Mariti, first author of the paper, told me in an email, “To the owners, I would suggest to get the dog becoming habituated to the veterinary clinic, to being handled, and to being exposed to common clinical practices. This means to gently, gradually and progressively familiarize puppies with manipulations (to being touched all over their bodies and used to the most unpopular treatments, such as temperature measurements and ear examinations), associating any kinds of handling with positive emotions and stimuli.

“Also a positive association with anything related with the travel can help. Courtesy visits to the clinic, just to familiarize with the place and the vet without any interventions, and real visits since puppyhood are strongly recommended.

“More importantly, in case dogs refuse to be treated by their owners, the latter should not scold the dog, but rather trying to understand the problem, being gentle, and maybe to ask for a behaviourist’s help.”

Photos: Tinxi (top) and melis (both Shutterstock.com)

Almost everyone said the vet tried to give their dog food, but 37% of dogs would not take it. Food is a very good way to help animals at the vet but an animal that is too stressed will not eat. This result suggests vets need to learn how to use food to help their patients, and how to keep their patients from getting so stressed they will not eat.

Only a third of owners said their dog would let the vet handle them anywhere.

Vets did make some attempt to talk to the dog (53%), use the dog’s name (40%) and pet them (53%) but this was not enough to make dogs comfortable. It was still helpful, because dogs whose vet did not do this were more likely to be stressed in the waiting room, on the exam table, and when the vet approached.

There are clear consequences for a vet’s business, because about a third of participants said they had previously changed vet. The most common reasons were because they did not think the vet was competent (24.5%) or because of the vet’s attitude to their dog (18%).

Dr. Mariti says, “My advice for the vets: make sure you are protecting your patients' welfare, that is a duty of your profession.

“Vets can work at different levels, from the education of owners (handling and habituation of puppies, appropriate treatments at home, avoiding any kinds of punishment, including scolding…) to the preparation of the clinic to make it as much dog-friendly as possible: the place, the kind of handling, noises, and the presence of conspecifics and strangers can be stressful for some dogs, and this may be a relevant welfare issue especially in cases where the dog has to visit the veterinary clinic regularly or if recovery is long.

“Vets behaviour is also relevant, as dogs feel calmer when the vet spends some time interacting with them before the visit.”

The finding that many dogs seem to know where they are going in advance of arriving at the vet has important implications too. The scientists say for some dogs there is a risk of developing a more generalized anxiety disorder. They also say it suggests dogs have learned when they are going in the car to the vet rather than somewhere else. For dog owners, this shows the importance of also taking the dog for pleasant outings, so they don’t learn to be afraid of the car.

This research confirms that vet visits are stressful for many dogs. An earlier study observed 45 dogs in the waiting room at the vet (Mariti et al 2015) and found that 29% were highly stressed according to signs noted by a veterinary behaviourist including trembling, low tail, lowered ears, and trying to leave. Taken together, these studies show that both dog owners and vets need to take steps to improve canine welfare at the vet.

Many cats also find vet visits stressful.

There is a lot we can do to make vet visits better for our canine and feline companions. These days, there are some excellent resources on how to help dogs and cats be less stressed at the vet.

What do you do to try and reduce stress for your dog at the vet?



Reference
Mariti C, Pierantoni L, Sighieri C, & Gazzano A (2016). Guardians' Perceptions of Dogs' Welfare and Behaviors Related to Visiting the Veterinary Clinic. Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS, 1-10 PMID: 27712096

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Are rabbits lagging behind in basic pet care practices?

animal welfare guest post pets rabbits

Are rabbits lagging behind in basic pet care practices?

Comment  

A recent study highlights pet rabbit management practices. Although some owners take extra steps to protect their rabbit, many do not.

Guest post by James Oxley (Independent Researcher, UK; Twitter) and Clare Ellis (Moulton College, UK; Twitter; Web).

Rabbits sometimes get labelled as an easy pet to keep, and some owners may not consider that common pet care practices used for dogs and cats may also be beneficial for rabbits. In fact, a recent study by Oxley et al. has highlighted how few pet rabbit owners take precautions such as microchipping and pet insurance for their furry bunny friends.

In the UK, it is now a legal requirement to microchip your pet dog and a recent call for compulsory microchipping of cats has been highlighted . Millions of pet owners are microchipping their pets, including dog, cats and smaller commonly kept pets. Compulsory dog microchipping in the UK came about as an effort to increase accountability of dog owners and to reduce the number of stray dogs that end up in rescue centres so that owners may be traced. But what about rabbits?

A recent internet survey explored rabbit management practices of pet rabbit owners to see how many pet rabbits were insured and microchipped and asked the owners for their opinions on the idea of compulsory microchipping for pet rabbits.

Oxley et al (2015) received 1183 responses from pet rabbit owners. They found that 78.3% of rabbit owners do not microchip their rabbits. Given that pet rabbits are commonly kept in some kind of enclosure, it may seem odd to suggest that rabbits would benefit from microchipping as they potentially have less chance to stray than pet dogs and cats might.

The Rabbit Welfare and Association Fund (RWAF) estimates that 67,000 rabbits pass through UK rescue centres each year. This is currently an area which is being researched by PhD student Clare Ellis as part of her PhD at Moulton College.

She states: “It is very difficult to quantify the number of rabbits that are being given up by owners or entering re-homing centres as strays. Research from the USA and my current area of study indicates that large numbers of rabbits are becoming 'stray', as in their owner cannot be traced.

"If more rabbits were microchipped it may help ease the burden on re-homing centres so that escaped pets can be reunited with their owners and the centres can focus more efforts on rabbits in more urgent need of care." 

Oxley, who led the study the rabbit management practice study, suggests that owners may not consider the long-term benefits of microchipping and insuring their pet rabbits.

“Rabbits are a commonly kept pet in many countries these days but the numbers entering rescue centres as strays are large for an animal that should be housed in a secure enclosure or building. Microchipping a pet gives the owner more chance of being reunited if the animal manages to escape the enclosure or garden. And it doesn’t cost as much as some people may think.”

“In comparison to dogs and cats it may be that people are less willing to make the financial commitment to microchip and insure a rabbit or simply not see the potential benefits. I definitely think more work is needed to educate potential pet rabbit owners about the cost and effort involved in having rabbits as pets. They should not be viewed as ‘an easy pet’ to keep.”

To help address this issue, Pets at Home have introduced a policy where all rabbits they sell are to be microchipped (RWAF, Rabbiting on, Winter 2014, p18).

Microchipping, is beneficial for a number of reasons, including tracing owners whilst also being a cheap, safe and permanent method of identification which is quick and generally a pain fee procedure, especially in comparison to other forms of rabbit identification methods such as tattooing or banding.

Furthermore the microchip records can hold a variety of important information such as vet contact details and medical information about the animal.

In comparison to other pet species, rabbits are less likely to be insured (73.9% of 1,174 respondents stated that their rabbits were not insured in Oxley et al). Insurance of pet animals is important to prevent paying large veterinary bills when a rabbit falls ill.

The RSPCA has previously stated that veterinary treatment for rabbits, such as a fractured limb, could cost £1,000 or more (RSPCA, 2012). It is important to ensure that the insurance conditions are read as insurance companies may differ about what they do and do not cover.

If thinking about microchipping and insuring your rabbit, it is important to gain guidance through your local veterinary practice.

Further rabbit related information can be offered through the relevant UK organisations such as the RWAF (Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund), RSPCA (Royal Society for the Protection of Animals), BVA (British Veterinary Association), Animal Welfare Foundation and PDSA (The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals).

Are your rabbits microchipped and insured?


About the authors

James Andrew Oxley is currently an independent researcher with a broad interest in research relating to human-animal interactions and animal welfare.  He has a BSc (Hons) in Animal Management and a Masters by Research which investigated Dog owners perceptions of English laws relating to dogs.

Clare Frances Ellis MSC BSc (Hons) PGCE is currently a PhD Animal Behaviour and Welfare candidate at the University of Northampton and Moulton College, UK. She is exploring factors surrounding the relinquishment of pet rabbits to re-homing centres in the UK and is developing a tool to assess individual behavioural differences in the species.







References
Oxley, J., Previti, A., Alibrandi, A., Briefer, E., & Passantino, A. (2015). A Preliminary internet survey of pet rabbit owners’ characteristics World Rabbit Science, 23 (4) DOI: 10.4995/wrs.2015.3771
RWAF 2014 Rabbiting On Magazine. Winter 2014. RWAF.
RSPCA. 2012. The time and costs involved in keeping rabbits: RSPCA companion animal pet care factsheet. RSPCA: West Sussex
Photos of rabbits: Francesco83 (top) and Serhii Ostapenko (both Shutterstock.com)
Propose a guest post to Companion Animal Psychology.

Why Do People Choose Certain Dogs?

animal welfare breeds dogs puppies science

Why Do People Choose Certain Dogs?

Comment  

Many factors go into people’s choice of dogs. Animal welfare isn’t always top of the list, but could this change?

English Bulldogs only live six years, according to a recent paper that highlights the lack of genetic diversity in this breed (Pederson et al 2016). Karin Brulliard of the Washington Post spoke to one of the authors of the study, Niels Pederson. “There are genetic diseases that [breeders] could test for, but they choose not to. Which means they’re more interested in the coat colors of their dogs,” Pedersen said. “The owners’ desire to own them, either as a status symbol or because they like them — and they are likable dogs — has exceeded their concern about the health and longevity of the dog.” (Read Brulliard’s full story).

Sean Wensley, President of the British Veterinary Association, says "The research released today reflects the seriousness of the health problems associated with English bulldogs that our members are seeing in practice. Revision of breed standards, to include evidence-based limits on physical features such as muzzle shortness, and full consideration of other approaches such as outcrossing, are now needed to ensure high risk breeds, such as the English bulldog, do not continue to suffer unnecessarily."

In common with other dogs with squashed faces, English Bulldogs can suffer from brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, which means they have difficulties breathing. The wrinkles of their faces are prone to skin infections if not cleaned often. They can have eye problems. Most English Bulldogs are born by Caesarian section because the puppies are too large for the birth canal.

Despite these problems, Bulldogs are the fourth-most popular breed of dog in the US, according to the AKC.

Bulldogs aren’t the only breed with genetic problems. A study of the top 50 dog breeds in the UK found that every single one had at least one inherited disorder related to its conformation (i.e. the physical characteristics that are a requirement of the breed) (Asher et al 2009). Inbreeding within dog breeds leads to a lack of genetic diversity.

Trends in popularity of dog breeds

Health problems with a breed can mean larger vet bills and the devastating loss of a pet far too soon. Doesn’t this put people off particular breeds?

This doesn’t seem to be the case, according to the results of a study by Stefano Ghirlanda et al (2013). They looked at how the popularity of dog breeds is affected by temperament (measured by C-BARQ scores) and health (assessed by lifespan and the number of inherited conditions associated with each breed).

“If anything, our results suggest that breeds can become popular despite problematic behaviour, rather than because of good behaviour,” they write.

“We found, likewise, that breeds with more inherited disorders have been more popular, rather than less popular, suggesting that health considerations have been secondary in the decision to acquire dogs as well as in dog breeding practices.”

An increasing trend for smaller, brachycephalic breeds has also occurred in Australia. According to Kendy Teng et al (2016), “Compared to taller and larger breeds, shorter and smaller breeds have become relatively popular over time. Also, the data suggest that Australians increasingly favour dogs with shorter and wider heads for whose welfare veterinarians often express concern.”

Fashions for dog breeds are affected by dogs that appear in the movies, although not as much as they used to be in the past, (as explained here by Julie Hecht writing about further research by Ghirlanda et al). On the other hand, if a breed wins ‘Best in Show’ at Westminster, this doesn’t affect the popularity of the breed, says Prof. Hal Herzog.

Problems with puppy mills

Another way in which animal welfare does not always play a part in people’s decisions to acquire a dog is the number of dogs obtained from commercial breeding establishments, also known as puppy mills. Dogs from pet stores come from puppy mills (and remember the internet is essentially a pet store too).

Many people know conditions in puppy mills can be very poor or even dire from an animal welfare perspective.

“Puppy mills usually house dogs in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, without adequate veterinary care, food, water and socialization,” says the ASPCA. “Puppy mill dogs do not get to experience treats, toys, exercise or basic grooming. Dogs are often kept in cages with wire flooring that injures their paws and legs—and it is not unusual for cages to be stacked up in columns.”

Fewer people realize they also affect the puppy’s behaviour in their new home. Dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores are more likely to be aggressive to their owner and have other behaviour problems than those obtained from breeders (McMillan et al, 2013). Owner-directed aggression is more common in puppies from pet stores even when owner differences are taken into account (Pirrone et al 2016).

People may continue to buy dogs from these sources due to lack of awareness. The sellers sometimes go to great lengths to disguise where the dogs really come from. Offering to meet the buyer in a convenient car park may look like great customer service (rather than a way to hide poor animal welfare) to someone who is not informed.

What do people look for in a dog?

So what are the factors that people take into account when choosing a puppy or dog?

It’s the whole package that counts, according to a study by Laurie Garrison and Emily Weiss (2014) that showed people profiles of dogs and asked how likely they would be to choose them. The fake profiles were created by the researchers to compare different aspects such as age, colour, breed, source, and euthanasia-risk.

They found that some less-appealing aspects of a dog’s profile could be mitigated by other aspects. For example, although people generally prefer puppies, a senior dog could still get a good response if other aspects of their profile were positive. Breed was part of people’s choices, with a rare or unusual breed preferred over other pedigrees or dogs of unknown parentage, but it was only a part of the package.

“Overall, these results show that people have complex preferences, and which features are important vary widely across people.”

What people look for in shelter dogs

Humane societies have an obvious need to find out what makes people more or less likely to adopt dogs, whether it’s features of the dog’s description or interactions with the dog at the shelter.

And here we know quite a lot. Great photographs can reduce adoption time for black Labrador Retrievers from 43 to 14 days (Lampe and Witte, 2014). Contrary to popular belief, black dogs are not adopted last after all  (Svoboda and Hoffman, 2015). Puppies are typically adopted very quickly compared to adult dogs (Brown et al 2013) and small dogs are generally adopted sooner than larger dogs.

Cuteness is a factor too. Many adult dogs have baby-like features. This ties in with a theory that cuteness may have been selected for in the domestication of dogs. Dogs can make an eyebrow movement that makes their eyes appear larger (a more baby-like feature). Dogs who made this movement more frequently were adopted more quickly, found Waller et al (2013). They say, “Our real world data show that domestic dogs who exhibit paedomorphic characteristics are preferentially and actively selected by humans as pets from rehoming shelters.”

Behaviour and temperament are also important. In a large-scale survey of adoptions from Dogs Trust in the UK, Siettou et al (2014) found that descriptions referring to the dog as friendly to children, friendly to other dogs, and/or friendly to other pets led to higher rates of adoption. If the description said a dog needed training or had behaviour problems, this led to lower rates of adoption (which translates as a longer wait time), despite the fact that behavioural advice was available. An existing medical condition did not make a difference to the likelihood of adoption, although this could be because Dogs Trust has a scheme to help with medical costs.

The dog’s behaviour when meeting people at the shelter is also important. If a dog lies down close to a potential adopter, and doesn’t ignore their attempts to engage in play, they are more likely to be adopted, according to Protopopova and Wynne (2014). These results were used to develop a promising structured interaction between shelter dog and potential adopter that led to increased rates of adoption (Protopopova et al 2016).

Humane societies have a potential hurdle to get over in that some people have a view of rescue dogs as having behaviour problems (Mornement et al 2012). Garrison and Weiss’s study found people were more likely to say they would consider a shelter as a source of dogs than to have actually obtained a dog from one.

Encouragingly, most people who adopt a dog from a shelter found it a positive process and would do so again (Mornement et al 2015).

What is an ideal dog like?

Another way to investigate people’s preferences is to ask about their ideal dog. Here there is considerable variation too, but also some common threads. A survey in Australia (King et al 2009) found some interesting results:

“In summary, the ideal dog in Australia is de-sexed, has short/straight hair, is of medium size (10–20 kg), is acquired as a puppy, and requires between 16 and 30 min exercise per day and between 1 and 15 min grooming per week. The ‘‘ideal dog’’ is also safe with children, housetrained, healthy, comes when called, does not escape the property, is not destructive when left alone, lives until at least 10 years old, and is obedient friendly and affectionate.”

These answers may vary by location. An Italian study found a much lower preference for dogs to be spayed/neutered (Diverio et al 2016). Of course, questions about an ideal will also show some distance from reality.

Nonetheless it seems that a friendly, sociable, healthy dog comes high up on the list for most people.

Not everyone wants a dog

We also know something about why people don’t want dogs, thanks to a survey by the American Humane Assocation and PetSmart. Veterinary expenses, general costs of dog ownership, and lack of time are common reasons.

The lack of availability of rental housing that allows pets may also be a factor, as it is certainly mentioned as a reason for people surrendering pets to animal shelters.

Should we be breeding for friendliness and good health instead?

We’ve seen that people have quite individual perceptions of what kind of dog is right for them, but at the same time there are certain characteristics that are widely preferred. Friendliness is important in people’s choice of shelter dogs and also features highly in descriptions of people’s ideal dog.

Does this mean dogs should be bred for good health and friendliness instead of for their looks?

King et al say, “if the public are more concerned about health and behaviour than physical characteristics, then it may be wise for dog breeders to select for these attributes rather than placing undue emphasis on physical qualities. This may enable them to breed dogs who are best suited to be human companions.”

It seems this could go a long way to improving animal welfare. At the same time, if dogs were friendlier (hence less likely to bite) and lived longer (less likely to cause grief with health problems and an early death) it would be better for human welfare too.

Individual choices, consumer protection and animal welfare

Variety is important so that people can find the right dog for them.

We don't know very much about people's perceptions of animal welfare issues in relation to getting a dog. We need more research into people’s decision-making and the emotional experience of choosing (and getting) a puppy from any kind of source. This would help design campaigns to influence people’s decisions when choosing puppies. Evaluating the success of those campaigns could also lead into better campaigns in future.

If movies can influence people’s choice of dog, perhaps widespread news coverage of health problems associated with particular breeds or sources of dogs will also influence consumer choice.

But understanding individual choices is only part of the solution. Better regulation of breeders is essential. Programs to improve the health of breeds are urgently needed too. Some people are making a lot of money from breeding and selling dogs with health and behaviour issues.

People don’t think, “I want to get a dog with eye problems who can hardly breathe.” They probably think, “This type of dog is cute!” When they go online to find out more about the breed, some of the first information they come across is likely from those with a vested interest in selling the breed.

Garrison and Weiss’s work suggests that if information about health problems was flagged up in the description of a dog, it would become part of the overall package on which people make decisions.

The BBC Panorama programme Puppy Dealers Exposed shows how hard it is for people to find (and know they have found) a good source of puppies.

This is a situation where better consumer protection for dog owners will also benefit animal welfare.

The APGAW report A healthier future for pedigree dogs says that “The success of irresponsible dog breeders in selling puppies often comes from buyers’ ignorance and also the fact that the buyer is limited in the action they can take if a puppy later suffers from physiological or genetic problems.”

It also says, “Generally consumers do not have a great deal of information about the health or welfare of the puppy or its parents, thus they are not in a position to be able to make an informed decision about their purchase.”

People get puppies because they love dogs and want a new family member. Choosing a dog is a complex decision and it seems people weigh up many factors. Hopefully a greater awareness of the problems some breeds face and the terrible state of puppy mills will lead people to give greater weight to animal welfare.

How did you choose your dog? Would you make the same choice today?

Further Reading

Death of the Bulldog by Jemima Harrison at Pedigree Dogs Exposed
What the pug is going on? by Mia Cobb at Do You Believe in Dog?
Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: A major welfare concern? RSPCA
Inside the puppy trade from start to finish by Janetta Harvey
What can I do to ensure I don’t buy from a puppy farm? by Pupaid
A closer look at puppy mills by ASPCA
Getting a puppy and getting a dog by Dogs Trust

This post was nominated in the 2016 Dog Writer's Association of America Annual Writing Competition in the category Article or Blog - Health or General Care.

Photos: everydoghasastory (top), Light Hound Pictures (midle), and Kristina Korotkova (bottom) (all Shutterstock.com)
References
Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J., McGreevy, P., & Collins, L. (2009). Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards The Veterinary Journal, 182 (3), 402-411 DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033

Brown, W., Davidson, J., & Zuefle, M. (2013). Effects of Phenotypic Characteristics on the Length of Stay of Dogs at Two No Kill Animal Shelters Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16 (1), 2-18 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.740967
Diverio, S., Boccini, B., Menchetti, L., & Bennett, P. (2016). The Italian perception of the ideal companion dog Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 12, 27-35 DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.02.004
Garrison, L., & Weiss, E. (2014). What Do People Want? Factors People Consider When Acquiring Dogs, the Complexity of the Choices They Make, and Implications for Nonhuman Animal Relocation Programs Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 18 (1), 57-73 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2014.943836
Ghirlanda, S., Acerbi, A., Herzog, H., & Serpell, J. (2013). Fashion vs. Function in Cultural Evolution: The Case of Dog Breed Popularity PLoS ONE, 8 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074770King, T., Marston, L., & Bennett, P. (2009). Describing the ideal Australian companion dog Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120 (1-2), 84-93 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.011
Lampe, R., & Witte, T. (2014). Speed of Dog Adoption: Impact of Online Photo Traits Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 18 (4), 343-354 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2014.982796
McMillan, F., Serpell, J., Duffy, D., Masaoud, E., & Dohoo, I. (2013). Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 242 (10), 1359-1363 DOI: 10.2460/javma.242.10.1359
Mornement, K., Coleman, G., Toukhsati, S., & Bennett, P. (2012). What Do Current and Potential Australian Dog Owners Believe about Shelter Practices and Shelter Dogs? Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 25 (4), 457-473 DOI: 10.2752/175303712X13479798785850
Mornement, K., Coleman, G., Toukhsati, S., & Bennett, P. (2015). Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Behavioural Assessment for Re-homing K9's (B.A.R.K.) protocol and owner satisfaction with adopted dogs Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 167, 35-42 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.03.013
Pedersen, N., Pooch, A., & Liu, H. (2016). A genetic assessment of the English bulldog Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, 3 (1) DOI: 10.1186/s40575-016-0036-y
Pirrone, F., Pierantoni, L., Pastorino, G., & Albertini, M. (2016). Owner-reported aggressive behavior towards familiar people may be a more prominent occurrence in pet shop-traded dogs Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 11, 13-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.007Protopopova, A., & Wynne, C. (2014). Adopter-dog interactions at the shelter: Behavioral and contextual predictors of adoption Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 157, 109-116 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.007
Protopopova, A., Brandifino, M., & Wynne, C. (2016). Preference assessments and structured potential adopter-dog interactions increase adoptions Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 176, 87-95 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.003Siettou, C., Fraser, I., & Fraser, R. (2014). Investigating Some of the Factors That Influence “Consumer” Choice When Adopting a Shelter Dog in the United Kingdom Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17 (2), 136-147 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2014.883924
Svoboda, H., & Hoffman, C. (2015). Investigating the role of coat colour, age, sex, and breed on outcomes for dogs at two animal shelters in the United States Animal Welfare, 24 (4), 497-506 DOI: 10.7120/09627286.24.4.497
Teng, K., McGreevy, P., Toribio, J., & Dhand, N. (2016). Trends in popularity of some morphological traits of purebred dogs in Australia Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, 3 (1) DOI: 10.1186/s40575-016-0032-2
Waller, B., Peirce, K., Caeiro, C., Scheider, L., Burrows, A., McCune, S., & Kaminski, J. (2013). Paedomorphic Facial Expressions Give Dogs a Selective Advantage PLoS ONE, 8 (12) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082686

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and Amazon.ca.