Cat and Dog Adopters are Satisfied with their New Pet

A new study shows most people who adopt a dog or cat from a shelter are happy with their choice, and provides information on the most common behaviour problems.

A tricolour Kelpie. Photo: K.A. Willis / Shutterstock

Wherever you are, there are many dogs and cats in shelters or rescues waiting for new homes. One of the reasons some people give for not wanting to adopt a pet from a shelter is that they are concerned about behaviour problems. A new study by Sophie Scott et al (University of Adelaide) looks at the behaviour problems people report in their newly-adopted dog or cat, and finds out how they feel about their new pet.

The results are very positive and show most people are happy with their new dog or cat.

Sophie Scott told me in an email,

“It's incredibly important we understand the nature of adopter satisfaction after the adoption of a cat or dog. Issues such as problem behaviours and/or conflict with other pets or children can affect adopter satisfaction and are often attributed to adoption failure, so the ability to pin-point the main issues and troubleshoot them early is essential in maintaining the human-animal-bond in these cases. 

We found that a large number of adopters experiencing issues still had high satisfaction levels despite this. This implies many adopters had realistic expectations of their rescue cat or dog and therefore have a certain degree of tolerance for these issues. More research needs to be done of course to further investigate adopter satisfaction, but this suggests that appropriate counselling at the time of adoption and access to assistance such as animal behaviourists in the time following adoption may be essential in modulating adopter expectations, and therefore, their subsequent levels of satisfaction. “

107 people who had adopted a dog or puppy, and 168 people who had adopted a cat or kitten, completed the telephone survey.

Most cat owners (85%) were very satisfied with their new pet’s behaviour, and only 0.6% said they were dissatisfied with their cat’s behaviour.

14% of cats were said to have an undesirable behaviour. The most common complaints were inappropriate scratching or chewing of furniture, house soiling issues, or other issues. The shelter has advice available from a behaviourist for adopters who need it, and just over half of those who said their cat had a behaviour problem were referred, while the remainder did not wish to be referred.

Dog owners were less satisfied, but 65% of people were very satisfied with their new dog’s behaviour, and just under 4% said they were dissatisfied. 53% of the dogs were said to have an undesirable behaviour. The most common problems reported were pulling on leash, scratching or chewing furniture, and house-soiling issues. Just under half of people who said their dog had a problem were referred to the behaviourist.

For both cats and dogs, the reason for the animal's admission to the shelter did not affect people's overall satisfaction with their new pet.

Interestingly, dogs who had been at the shelter for a longer period of time were less likely to have behaviour problems. This suggests the shelter had successfully worked with the dogs to resolve any issues.

About half of the animals were adopted to homes with children, or with children who often visited. Most people said the dog or cat was adjusting well to the children, even though just over half of them had been assessed by the shelter as not being suitable for a home with children.

Cats were more likely to go to a home that already had other animals, but were also less likely to be said to adjust well to it than dogs.

Of the dogs, just over half were female and most had been strays, although 30% had been owner surrenders. The most common breeds were mixed-breeds of which part was Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Kelpies (an Australian sheep dog).

Of the cats, more than half were female and more than half had been strays, with 38% owner-surrenders. They were mostly mixed-breeds, typically Domestic Short-Hairs or Domestic Medium-Hairs.

Both dogs and cats were typically aged between 1 and 7 years, although there were also quite a few kittens. The average length of time in the shelter was 19 days for dogs and 20 days for cats.

These results show most people are very satisfied with the behaviour of their new pet. This is consistent with the results of earlier research on dogs which found that most people who adopt a shelter dog would do so again.

In terms of the most common problem behaviours exhibited, a no-pull harness is a good way to manage dogs pulling on leash. As for cats, it’s very important to provide good scratching posts that are appropriate (from the cat’s point of view) as scratching is a natural behaviour; rewarding cats for using the post is also a good idea.

Although there could be variations between shelters, this study provides very useful information as to the adoption counselling that would be useful. The results are also very reassuring for people planning to adopt a shelter pet.

You can follow Dr. Susan Hazel, one of the authors of the study, on Twitter.

What’s your advice to someone thinking of adopting a dog from a shelter?


Love dogs, cats and science? Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology

Reference
Scott, S., Jong, E., McArthur, M., & Hazel, S. J. (2018). Follow-up surveys of people who have adopted dogs and cats from an Australian shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.021

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.

Clicker-plus-food and food-only are equally good dog training methods

Scientists test the use of a clicker-plus-food versus the use of food only in a positive reinforcement tricks training course for novice dogs, and find both work equally well.

Photo: Corey Terrill / Shutterstock

The study, by Lynna Feng et al (La Trobe University), used a randomized design in which dogs were assigned to one of three groups: a group that was taught with a clicker and food rewards (clicker training), a group that was taught with just food rewards, and a group that was wait-listed for the course to act as a control.

Dog trainers have a range of beliefs about the value of a clicker in dog training. Some trainers say the benefits include more efficient training, more fun, and a better human-animal bond. On the other hand, some trainers say the clicker is awkward for novice dog trainers to learn to use and that clicker training leads to more excitable and impulsive dogs.

An earlier study that compared the clicker-plus-food to use of a verbal marker-plus-food to food-only dog training found no differences in terms of the dogs’ ability to generalize to two new tasks after the training session.

The current study builds on prior research by testing pet dogs that took part in a six-week trick training course. All of the tricks were taught with positive reinforcement, using a combination of capturing, luring, and shaping.

The results show no specific benefits or disadvantages to using a clicker in dog training in terms of the dog’s impulsivity and problem-solving skills or the relationship between owner and dog. Essentially, both methods work, and people in both groups found the training fun and also challenging. There was a specific benefit to the clicker-plus-food over food-only for just one of the tricks taught, nose-targeting an object.

I asked Lynna Feng, lead author of the study, what dog owners should know about these results. She told me in an email,

“I think there are a few main points. First, if you find that the clicker training is too difficult, for you or your dog or the two of you together, and you're just looking for a well behaved pet, toss the clicker and just use food. 

Second, primarily interesting for those who teach puppy classes or general manners, even when first starting out with clicker training, the extra steps don't seem to discourage most people from training and having fun with their dogs.  

Finally, we found initial evidence that clickers helped owners feel that the training was less challenging for one of the more complex tricks.  

Although we saw little functional difference between clicker training and just using food rewards in our study training a novice population of dogs and owners, this may not hold true for individuals engaging in training at a competitive or working level.”

There were 15 dogs in each group. The trick training took place at the dog’s own home or at another location suggested by the owner where the dog would feel comfortable. The first session included an introduction to reward-based training. After that, the trainer began to teach the dog a trick, before teaching the owner how to teach it, and setting homework.

Every subsequent session began with a review of the previous week’s trick, followed by the introduction of a new trick. The tricks were nose targeting a hand, nose targeting an object, spin, chin target on the ground, play dead, and stay on a mat. The course lasted 6 weeks, which is a typical length for a dog training class.

Before and after the training, all three groups (including the control) took part in a battery of tests at the university. After the second test, the dogs who had been wait-listed were given the 6-week course so they did not miss out on learning the tricks. After that, all three groups of dogs came back to the university for a third and final set of tests.

The tests included measures of the dog-owner relationship, the dog’s impulsivity, the owner’s training technique and teamwork between human and dog. As well, questionnaires completed by owners after every training session assessed how they found the experience.

At the start of the tests, the owners completed a version of the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale and a dog impulsivity questionnaire, then did a reaction time test, while the dog had time to wander round and get used to the room.  Then the owner helped the dog do an obstacle course that included a stay on a platform, weaving between cones, jumping through a hoop, and walking along a plank. Finally, the dog did two problem-solving tasks that measure impulsivity.

The tests were conducted and assessed by experimenters who were blind to the condition the dog was in.

In the lab and in all training sessions, food was used as a reward. Owners were asked to have food rewards the dog would like, but the scientists were also prepared with a mix of treats including pieces of chicken, cheese, and hot dog, to ensure the dog would get a food reward they liked.

Perhaps surprisingly, there were no differences between any of the three groups on changes in the tests between the first and second visits to the lab. There were improvements in the dog’s abilities to do the tricks that were taught, and this was maintained (but not improved) six weeks after the course ended. There were no improvements in other tasks as compared to the control group (e.g. shake paw, loose leash walking), suggesting owners were not applying the skills they learned to other areas of the dog’s life.

There were no differences between the clicker-plus-food and the food-only group in terms of the relationship between owner and dog, the owner’s technical training abilities, how well the dog-owner team did on the obstacle course, or measures of the dog’s impulsivity or results of the problem-solving task.

People in both training groups rated the training as fun, and as challenging. As well, there were no differences in the amount of practice people did. In fact, about a third of the participants in the clicker-plus-food and food-only groups practiced 5 times in between sessions. This shows both groups of participants had a strong commitment to the training. However, they did not tend to do other kinds of training in between sessions.

These results confirm that reward-based training in which food is the reward is fun for the owner, and owners also perceive it as fun for their dog. For the tasks used in this study, clicker training works - and so does positive reinforcement training without a clicker.

This study adds to the literature on clicker training. Earlier research has found that positive reinforcement training is beneficial for older dogs, that even shy shelter cats can learn tricks, and that clicker training chickens increases people’s perceptions of their intelligence.

This is a well-designed and thorough study on a topic that will be of interest to many dog trainers and owners. Although the results may not apply to training at higher levels (e.g. competition), they suggest that for novice dogs (and trainers), a clicker does not have the advantages or disadvantages that are sometimes claimed. Essentially, whether you use it or not is your choice.

Further research can investigate the use of a clicker versus verbal marker for those kinds of training tasks where a marker is expected to be particularly beneficial.

You can follow the first author of the research, Lynna Feng, on Twitter.

Do you like to use a clicker in dog training?


Reference
Feng, L. C., Hodgens, N. H., Woodhead, J. K., Howell, T. J., & Bennett, P. C. (2018). Is clicker training (Clicker+ food) better than food-only training for novice companion dogs and their owners? Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

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.

Is Scent Enriching for Shelter Dogs?

Research investigates the effects of enrichment using the scent of coconut, vanilla, ginger and valerian.

Photo: chaoss/Shutterstock

Animal shelters are stressful environments for dogs, and so anything that helps them to be less stressed is beneficial. Scientists from Hartpury University Centre tested the effects of presenting scent-infused cloths to shelter dogs. The results are promising and suggest scent enrichment may work well for shelter dogs.

Study authors, John Binks and Dr Tamara Montrose, say

“In our study we found that shelter dogs showed reduced vocalisations and movement when exposed to cloths scented with ginger, coconut, vanilla and valerian. In addition, we found that dogs exposed to coconut and ginger slept more. Since excessive vocalisations and activity may indicate stress in kennelled dogs, as well as being behaviours that can be found undesirable by potential adopters, our study suggests that these odours may have application in rescue shelters to reduce stress and enhance adoption.”

Enrichment means adding things to the animal’s environment that are designed to improve welfare, for example by allowing the animal to engage in species-specific behaviour, encourage use of the environment, get more exercise, encourage learning, and decrease boredom and abnormal behaviour. Since shelter dogs spend a large part of their day in kennels, enrichment is important to improve their welfare.

Dogs have impressive noses (and vomeronasal organs) and, as we all know, they spend a lot of time smelling things. The scientists say enrichment works best if it targets an animal’s primary sense, so it is surprising there isn’t more research into scent enrichment for shelter dogs.

The experiment used the smells of coconut, vanilla, ginger and valerian because they are safe for dogs, easily available, and have been found to be beneficial for other animals, such as wombats, sea-lions, Javan gibbons, cats and rats (read about different scents that cats like).

15 dogs took part at a shelter in Gloucestershire, England. Most were medium-sized dogs and two were small.

The dogs were presented with scent on a cloth put in their kennel for a few hours per day. There were two control conditions: an unscented cloth (to provide a comparison for the different smells), and no cloth (to control for the effects of the presence of a new item). The unscented cloth control condition took place before the presentations of smells, and the no cloth condition took place after.

Each condition took place over three days, with a two day gap between them.

Cloths were prepared an hour in advance by adding a few drops of essential oils or fragrance oils, and then kept in a ziplock bag until they were used. The experimenter wore gloves to ensure they did not accidentally transfer any other scents to the cloths. Dogs were given half an hour to get used to the item, and then observed for a two-hour period, the latter half of which was during the shelter’s opening hours for visitors. This was in the middle of the day when feeding and exercise did not happen, so the dogs' behaviour would not be affected by waiting for the next meal.

When the scented cloths were present, dogs vocalized less. Since barking, whining etc. can be signs of stress, this suggests they were less stressed. Dogs also spent more time resting and less time moving when the scents were present. For the ginger and coconut scents, dogs spent more time sleeping.

These results suggest the scent enrichment helped the dogs be less stressed.

There was also an effect of time of day, in that when the shelter was open to visitors, dogs vocalized more, stood more, and spent less time resting. They were also at the front of their kennel more.

The scents were always presented in the same order. This was so that other dogs taking part would not have their scent contaminated by one of the other smells wafting in to the kennel. This means there is potential for an order effect. However, because the dogs were presented with the controls before and after the different scent conditions, it does seem that the results are due to the scents.

The scent enrichment used in this study would be easy to use at a shelter, although more research is needed with a larger number of dogs. The results are very promising, and suggest the use of these scents can help shelter dogs to be less stressed.

You can follow Dr. Tamara Montrose, one of the authors of the study, on twitter.

Join over 2,000 animal lovers and subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

Reference
Binks, J., Taylor, S., Wills, A., & Montrose, V. T. (2018). The behavioural effects of olfactory stimulation on dogs at a rescue shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

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.

Puppy Socialization Practices - And How They Are Lacking

Almost a third of puppies are missing out on important socialization during the sensitive period.

A survey of puppy owners by Dr. Janet Cutler et al (University of Guelph) finds that a sizeable number of puppies are not receiving enough socialization.

Puppies have a sensitive period for socialization from 3 weeks until about 12-14 weeks. During this time, they should have lots of positive socialization experiences with other people and dogs and habituate to the kinds of environmental stimuli they will encounter as adult dogs. Without these positive experiences, they are less likely to be friendly, confident dogs.

The scientists recruited people with a puppy less than 20 weeks old. Then, when the puppy turned exactly 20 weeks, they sent an email with a link to the survey.

Almost a third of puppies were not receiving many socialization experiences, which in this study was defined as up to 10 people and 5 dogs or less per 2 week period. Lack of socialization can lead to behaviour problems such as fear and aggression, which in turn can lead to dogs being re-homed or euthanized.
The results show that half of puppy owners (49%) took their puppy to puppy class. There were differences between the people who had been to puppy class and those who hadn’t. If people had been to puppy class:

• They exposed the puppy to more people between the ages of 10 and 20 weeks of age
• They exposed the puppy to more dogs outside the home between the ages of 14 and 20 weeks
• They were more likely to expose the puppy to more stimuli, including large trucks, sirens, children, people coming to the door (but there was no difference for walking on leash or going to the dog park)
• They were more likely to reward good behaviour (93% compared to 86% of those who did not attend), use redirection, and ignore bad behaviour
• They were less likely to use verbal corrections (82% compared to 96%)
• They were less likely to use positive punishment, including holding the puppy on its back (21% compared to 96%) 

Of course these figures do not show causality, as although people will hopefully have learned from attending the class, at the same time certain kinds of people might be more likely to attend puppy class in the first place. The increase in exposure to stimuli could in part be due to the puppy class, as by definition there were other people and puppies there (although not enough to meet socialization needs). People were more likely to attend puppy class if they had done more research on puppies, had a higher household income, lived in a suburban rather than rural area, and did not have children.

Only 70% of the puppy classes included opportunities for puppies to play together. This is a shame because puppies learn important skills through play. The least common activities were gradual exposure to noises, trading one item for another, and teaching the puppy to go to a mat (as well as a category called 'other'), of which happened in less than half of the classes. Other research shows that up to half of adult dogs are afraid of loud noises, and gradual exposure during the sensitive period can help to prevent these fears.

Sit, down, and coming when called were the most popular commands, being taught in over 80% of classes. Body handling was taught in just over half of the classes. It would be better if more classes taught this, as body handling exercises at this age can help puppies learn to accept veterinary examinations without being afraid.

Owners who used punishment were more likely to say their puppy was fearful. 4% of owners said they would force the puppy to face its fears, something which risks making the fear even worse. Puppies who had attended class were less likely to be afraid of noises such as the vacuum cleaner.

There were 296 participants. It was a convenience sample so they are not representative of the general population (if anything, they are likely to be more educated about dogs, given they were recruited via a mix of email and online sites including some related to professional organizations and humane societies).

The authors say it would be nice to have research on how much socialization is needed, in order to give dog owners clearer advice. A recent study with Guide Dog puppies suggests more socialization is better.

But the most important finding from this study, in my view, is that a sizeable minority of puppies are not getting enough socialization. The authors refer to the American Veterinary Society for Animal Behaviour position statement on puppy socialization, which says that socialization should begin before the final vaccines are given. Only 51-65% of vets discuss behaviour with new puppy and kitten owners, but this would be a good time to educate people about socialization and training.

The scientists write,

“Owners who attended classes with their puppies provided those puppies with more socialization opportunities than owners who did not attend and also indicated more favorable responses to managing signs of fear in their puppies and to disciplining them. This highlights the need for veterinarians and other animal care professionals to educate puppy owners about the importance of early puppy socialization, socialization classes, and positive reinforcement–based training and assist puppy owners in accessing reliable resources for this information.”

These results show that, although many people are getting a lot of things right, there is still room for improvement when it comes to socialization and training of puppies.

If you are looking for a puppy class, make sure that you find a good dog trainer who will only use reward-based training methods. (See here for more information on the risks of using punishment).

Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology to learn how to have happy dogs and cats.

Did you take your puppy to puppy class?


Stay up to date! Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

Reference
Cutler, J. H., Coe, J. B., & Niel, L. (2017). Puppy socialization practices of a sample of dog owners from across Canada and the United States. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 251(12), 1415-1423. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.251.12.1415

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.

To gesture or not to gesture in dog training?

Are visual cues more effective than verbal cues in dog training?

Guest post by Sienna Taylor, MSc (Hartpury University Centre).

Photo: Dorottya Mathe (Shutterstock)

A new study by Anna Scandurra (University of Naples) et al. investigates whether visual cues as opposed to verbal cues are more effective when dogs are trained to fetch an item under four conditions: using only hand cues, using only verbal cues, using both hand and verbal cues and using contradictory hand and verbal cues.

It turns out that dogs responded better to visual hand gestures than verbal cues although speed of response was quicker when both hand and verbal cues were used together.

Many pet owners teach their dogs to respond to both visual and verbal cues, for example, an owner might ask their dog to lie on the floor by simply using the verbal command “Lie Down” or alternatively using a hand gesture such as pointing or perhaps a combination of both!  Whilst dogs do use vocalisations to communicate (such as attracting attention, with vocalisations usually being context specific) (Serpell, 2017), they communicate largely through the use of discrete body postures (Landsberg et al. 2013), both intra-specifically (dog-dog) and inter-specifically (human-dog).

Dogs are adept at responding to our gaze or if we nod (Kaminski and Nitzschner, 2013) or point towards a particular object (Lakatos et al. 2012).  Sometimes we find that when we ask a dog to verbally “Lie Down” the response is a blank look or an altogether different response!  Yet if we use a hand gesture such as point to the floor or use a combination of both verbal and visual cues the dog instantly lies down.  This more immediate response to a visual cue, even when in combination with a verbal cue, has often puzzled owners and begs the question are visual cues more effective in dog training than verbal cues or should we be using both?

The study by Scandurra et al. (2018) set out to test whether 13 pet dogs responded better to their owners using either visual or verbal cues alone (unimodal) or both visual and verbal cues (bimodal) which took into account both the dogs acute visual and auditory capabilities.

Dogs were trained to ensure they responded equally well to both verbal cues and visual hand gestures and were asked to perform a pre-test fetch task. Objects included a piece of wood, a plastic bottle and a pencil case.

Twenty four trials took place in the pre-test phase, eight trials used verbal cues only (spoken in Italian, with the voice command directing the dog to retrieve one of two items), followed by eight trials using hand gestures only (where the owner directed the dog by pointing to one of two items). A further eight trials used both verbal and visual cues (the owner directed the dog to one of the two items through the use of both verbal and visual cues at the same time).

Nine dogs met the requirements of the pre-test phase and were selected to take part in the final eight trials where a combination of both cues were used. However, this time the cues contradicted one another, for example when asking the dog to retrieve, the owner pointed at one object but named another.

Dogs were found to respond equally well to both verbal and visual cues when used on their own although, when both verbal and visual cues were given together, dogs were found to respond significantly more quickly to the task.  When dogs were given contradictory information, 78% of dogs (7 out of 9 dogs) chose the hand gesture. The remaining two dogs performed at a chance level and randomly chose to retrieve the verbally indicated or the object visually pointed at equally often.  What’s interesting is that none of the dogs preferred the verbal cue over the hand gesture.  This leads us to further question the importance of verbal cues to dogs.

How we use verbal communication (e.g. quality of spoken word) and also level of eye contact has been found to impact level of responsiveness in the dog. Fukuzawa et al. (2005) found that when a dog was asked to sit with the command played through a tape recorder, there was a significant decline in performance. It also took the dog longer to learn the command in the absence of lip or facial movements.  Similarly, when the person obscured their eyes by wearing sunglasses and the command was played through the tape, the dog’s responsiveness to the command also reduced.  However, when sunglasses were worn and a spoken verbal command was given no reduction in responsiveness was evident.  The authors concluded that eye contact is important to dogs but not in all contexts.  Fukuzawa et al. (2005) also found that effectiveness of command was reduced when a person’s back was turned.  This implies that body postures appear to be important to the dog in understanding signals as part of human-dog communication but may be context dependent.

Next time you use a cue, if the dog does not respond it is worth following up with a hand gesture to see if you get a better response!

About Sienna Taylor:

Sienna Taylor FdSc, BSc (Hons), MSc, FHEA, is a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Hartpury University Centre, Gloucestershire.  Her research interests include human-animal interactions and the use of olfactory enrichment in companion animals.  Sienna enjoys training her two year old Labrador Bailey and they are currently working towards their Grade 3 Gundog Test.

You can follow Sienna Taylor on Twitter: @Taylor5Sienna.





References
Fukuzawa, M., Mills, D.S. and Cooper, J.J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 91(1), pp.129-141.
Kaminski, J. and Nitzschner, M. (2013) Do dogs get the point? A review of dog-human communication ability. Learning and Motivation. 44, pp. 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2013.05.001
Lakatos, G., Gácsi, M., Topál, J. and Miklósi, Á. (2012) Comprehension and utilization of pointing gestures and gazing in dog-human communication in relatively complex situations. Animal Cognition. 15, pp. 201-213.
Landsberg, G.M., Hunthausen, W.L. and Ackerman, L.J. (2012) Behavior Problems of the Dog and Cat, 3e.Oxford: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Scandurra, A., Alterisio, A., Aria, M., Vernese, R. and D’Aniello, B. (2018) Should I fetch one or the other? A study on dogs on the object choice in the bimodal contrasting paradigm. Animal Cognition. pp. 1-8.
Serpell, J. (2016) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Do Some Cats Respond Quietly to Catnip?

Young kittens don't have an active response to catnip. But if you think your cat does not respond to catnip, maybe it's just a quiet response, according to a recent study.

Photo: Prasom Boonpong / Shutterstock

It is widely believed some cats respond to catnip and some cats don’t. A recent study throws that into question by suggesting almost all cats respond to catnip – it’s just that some of them do so in a quiet manner. While more research is needed, the study also finds young kittens (less than 3 months) do not have the active response to catnip.

The classic catnip response is an active one that typically involves rolling around, rubbing the chin or cheek on the catnip, sniffing or licking the catnip, shaking the head from side to side, drooling, bunny-kicking and/or rippling skin on the back. This response to catnip is seen in about two thirds of cats. It is inherited – and it is also seen in some other feline species such as Bobcats.

A 2017 study by Luz Teresa Espín-Iturbe (Universidad Veracruzana) et al suggests that all cats respond to catnip. But instead of the active response, some cats have a passive response that involves a decrease in activity and assuming the Sphinx position.

60 cats at a shelter in Veracruz, Mexico, took part in the study. They were divided into 3 age groups: young (less than 3 months old), juvenile (3 to 6 months) and adult (6 months or older).

Within each age group, there were equal numbers of male and female cats, and equal numbers of those were either sexually intact or had an early spay/neuter at 6 weeks. The spay/neuter surgery was conducted at the shelter, and afterwards cats had 2 weeks to recover before taking part in the study.

For the study itself, cats were put into a cylindrical chamber from which they could not see out. Over 3 days, they had 10 minutes in the chamber each day to let them get used to it. Then on the fourth day, they had 5 minutes in the chamber, then catnip was put inside and they spent a further 5 minutes in the chamber with the catnip.

The scientists studied video of the cat’s behaviour before and after the catnip was added. A sample of the catnip was tested in a laboratory to confirm that it was indeed catnip (Nepeta cataria).

The active catnip response (rolling around etc.) was seen in 45% of the adult cats and in 25% of the juvenile cats. But it was not seen at all in the young kittens (less than 3 months old).

The Sphinx position was also most often seen in adult cats. Amongst juveniles, it was seen more often in males than in female cats. Male cats were less likely to groom, miaow, and to show reduced activity, and spent more time in the Sphinx position, than female cats.

Cats that had early spay/neuter had less activity after the presentation of catnip than cats that were still entire/intact. However, the frequency of rolling over was not affected by spay/neuter status.

The scientists suggest the active response to catnip is therefore not affected by sex hormones (in line with earlier research), but by maturation of the brain, which means young kittens have not matured enough to have an active response. They also propose the idea that different chemicals within the catnip are responsible for these differing responses – nepetalactone for the active response, and actinidine for the passive response. Further research is needed to test this hypothesis.

One drawback to the study is that no control was used. Although the scientists write that this is not a limitation because of the behaviours they observed (e.g. the active catnip response and adopting the Sphinx position), it would have been helpful to show the reduced activity responses were due to catnip and not to other factors (such as anxiety at or interest in a change in the environment).

In Neil Todd's classic research on the catnip response, tea leaves were used as a control. More recently, researchers have used a catnip-impregnated cloth or put it in a sock. This has the advantage that the control looks exactly the same as the catnip-infused item, which means observers coding the cat's behaviour can be blind to the condition. Cats can respond to a control because it is a novel item.

For example, in Ellis and Wells (2010) study of five different types of olfactory stimulation including a control (an unscented cloth), cats still spent a little time investigating the unscented cloth. In this study, even though cats were not pre-tested for the catnip response, in general cats spent more time interacting with the catnip-scented-cloth than the other scents, were more likely to have a playful response to it (consistent with an active catnip response) and also spent less time grooming and more time sleeping compared to the presentation of the control (unscented) cloth. So it’s interesting the new study also found reduced activity as a response.

Catnip is not the only plant that cats can respond to. According to research by Sebastiaan Bol et al, many cats also respond to silver vine, valerian and Tatarian honeysuckle.

Scent is very important to cats, and providing scents can be a good enrichment activity. So whether or not you think your cat enjoys catnip, it is worth trying some of these other plants too. Some cat toys contain both catnip and silver vine. Silver vine (also known as matatabi) is available separately as both a powder and a stick. Valerian can be found in some cat toys, and Tatarian honeysuckle is available from the Cat House in Calgary. Remember to always give your cat a choice of whether or not to interact with new scents/items.

Although more research is needed, this study suggests cats may enjoy catnip even if they don't actively respond by rolling around.

Want to know even more about catnip? See what I said to Science Borealis about cats and catnip. How does your cat respond to catnip?


Love dogs, cats and science? Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology

References
Bol, S., Caspers, J., Buckingham, L., Anderson-Shelton, G. D., Ridgway, C., Buffington, C. T., Schulz, S. & Bunnik, E. M. (2017). Responsiveness of cats (Felidae) to silver vine (Actinidia polygama), Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), valerian (Valeriana officinalis) and catnip (Nepeta cataria). BMC Veterinary Research, 13(1), 70.  Open access.
Ellis, S. L., & Wells, D. L. (2010). The influence of olfactory stimulation on the behaviour of cats housed in a rescue shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 123(1), 56-62.
Espín-Iturbe, L. T., Yañez, B. A. L., García, A. C., Canseco-Sedano, R., Vázquez-Hernández, M., & Coria-Avila, G. A. (2017). Active and passive responses to catnip (Nepeta cataria) are affected by age, sex and early gonadectomy in male and female cats. Behavioural processes, 142, 110-115.
Todd, N. B. (1962). Inheritance of the catnip response in domestic cats. Journal of Heredity, 53(2), 54-56.

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.

Dogs' Attention Declines with Age - But Training Helps

Older dogs with a history of lifelong training perform better on measures of attention.

Photo: Mary Lynn Strand / Shutterstock

We know that as people get older, they may experience cognitive decline including in attention. We are used to hearing that doing lots of different activities that engage the brain may help to ward off some of these changes. It turns out that may also be the case for dogs.

As dogs get older, they experience a decline in attention just as older people do. But lifelong training can help to prevent this decline, according to research published last year by scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the Vetmeduni Vienna. This is good news, because attention is important for human-canine communication and for other processes.

The study took pet dogs aged between 6 and just over 14 years. They were divided into 3 age groups: late adulthood (between 6 and 8 years), seniors (8 up until 10 years), and geriatric (10 years or over). There were 75 Border collies (59 of which were tested in an earlier study) and 110 dogs of other breeds and mixed-breeds.

They all took part in two experiments that were designed to be naturalistic such that the dogs did not need any prior training. The owners completed a questionnaire that included the dog’s participation in 13 different types of training, including puppy class, obedience, agility, service dog training, hunting/nose work, trick training/dog dancing, and sheep dog training.

The first experiment tested the extent to which a social or non-social stimulus could get and keep the dog’s attention. The non-social stimulus was a toy attached to some wire so that it could be moved up and down in front of the dog for 1 minute. The social stimulus was a person who came in, kept her back to the dog, and painted an imaginary wall for 1 minute.

A dog taking part in the first experiment. Photo: The Clever Dog Lab, Messerli Institute

The results showed that senior and geriatric dogs took longer to look at both stimuli than those in late adulthood, and there was no effect of lifelong training on this. All of the dogs looked for longer at the person than at the toy.

Sustained attention declined with age and was worst in the geriatric dogs. But dogs with a high level of lifelong training kept their attention on the stimulus for longer than those with a low level of training.

Durga Chapagain, first author of the paper, said,

“The decrement of sustained attention in the older dogs is due to the repetitive, monotonous and non-arousing nature of the task, leading to a decrease in endogenous attentional control as the task advances.” 

The second experiment looked at selective attention. Each dog took part in a 5-minute clicker training session. At the very beginning, the experimenter called the dog to her and threw a piece of sausage on the floor. Then, every time the dog made eye contact with her, she clicked and then threw a piece of sausage on the floor. If the dog lost interest, she crinkled the plastic bag. We all know that's a good way to get a dog's attention!

This task requires the dog to switch attention from making eye contact with the person to finding the food on the floor.

A dog learning to make eye contact during the clicker training session. Photo: The Clever Dog Lab, Messerli Institute

Unlike in humans, age did not affect selective attention in this task.

Dogs with higher scores for lifelong training and also dogs with prior experience of clicker training made eye contact faster than those with low levels of lifelong training and those with no specific experience of clicker training.

Older dogs took longer to find the food on the floor, with geriatric dogs taking the longest, and this ties in with previous work on aging in dogs. There were no differences due to lifelong training in the time to find food, but dogs with prior clicker training experience were quicker to find the food than those without. The clicker-trained dogs had more experience at looking for food after the click, by definition, and the researchers say they may also have increased anticipation of food.

They point out that all kinds of training involve the dog looking at the human. From these results, it’s not possible to separate the effects of clicker training specifically from other kinds of training, as clicker training contributed to the lifelong training scores.

It is probably no surprise that dogs with prior experience at clicker training did better at the clicker training, but it is worth noting that all of the dogs improved at the task of making eye contact during the 5 minute session. So it shows that you can train an old dog new tricks.

And of course the fact that dogs with more lifelong training did better on this selective attention task is very promising.

Friederike Range, senior author of the paper, said,

“Dogs with a high lifelong training score reacted faster in both measures of attention. This result is indeed a convincing proof for dog-owners to engage their dogs in different forms of physical and mental training, if they want their furry friends to retain their attentional abilities during aging.” 

For the Border collie owners out there who want to know how this breed compared to the other dogs, there were actually few differences, but the Border collies were faster at finding the food dropped on the floor. Because there was a wide variety of breeds and mixed-breeds in the other group, it’s possible that a larger sample size might have found other differences.

This is a fascinating study that suggests reward-based training has cognitive benefits that persist into the dog’s later life.

The paper is open access and you can read it via the link below, and you can follow the Clever Dog Lab on Facebook.


Love dogs, cats and science? Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology
Reference
Chapagain, D., Virányi, Z., Wallis, L. J., Huber, L., Serra, J., & Range, F. (2017). Aging of attentiveness in border collies and other pet dog breeds: the protective benefits of lifelong training. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 9, 100.

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.

Extra Early Socialization for Puppies Makes a Big Difference

Research on a new program for socializing puppies in the nest finds it brings big benefits.

Photo: Sarai da Silva / Shutterstock

A new study by Dr. Helen Vaterlaws-Whiteside and Amandine Hartmann (Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre) (2017) tests an improved program for socializing puppies in the nest from 0 – 6 weeks. The program provides additional socialization in a way that is relatively cheap, easy to implement, and designed to fit with what science tells us about the development of puppies.

In comparison to puppies receiving the regular socialization program, the puppies who got extra socialization got better scores in tests at 6 weeks old. By 8 months of age they were less likely to have separation-related behaviours, general anxiety, be distracted, or have body sensitivity.

In other words, the extra socialization brought important benefits for their behavioural welfare as young adult dogs. These results will be of particular interest to those who breed and train service dogs, but they are important for anyone who cares about dogs – especially those looking to get a puppy.

Dr. Vaterlaws-Whiteside told me in an email,

"The program is designed to provide a highly effective socialisation experience for our puppies that is low cost, quick and easy to complete. The program of specific exercises mirrors puppy physiological and behavioural development and is proven to have a lasting improvement on behaviour. 

"Dogs who do not receive this kind of socialisation as puppies can grow up to be anxious and scared. Therefore, positive early life experiences are critical in helping puppies grow up to be confident, content companions. This program can be used by working dog organisations, pet dog breeders and animal shelters."

The puppies who took part in the study are part of the Guide Dogs for the Blind breeding program. All of the puppies follow a standard program, spending the first 6 weeks in a breeding facility where they experience identical conditions and then having the same socialization program for the first year of their life. Therefore this is the ideal environment in which to test a new, additional, socialization program.

The extra socialization activities took place five days a week during the first 6 weeks. It was designed to include interactions with people and animals as well as visual, auditory and tactile stimulation. In the first week, it took 5 minutes per puppy per day, building up to 15 minutes per puppy per day in weeks 5-6.

Examples of the extra socialization include stroking the puppy gently with the fingers, a towel, and rubber gloves; making a cell phone ring near the puppy; gently examining the puppy’s ears and teeth; and encouraging the puppy to do things like climb over an obstacle or come through a doorway.

All of this was done in a way that was fun for the puppy and the researchers made sure the puppy was comfortable at all times.

The researchers have made a video called play builds confident puppies to explain their findings.

How did they conduct the study on early puppy socialization?

Six litters of puppies took part. Half the puppies in each litter received the extra socialization and half had the standard program. To make sure it wasn’t simply extra time with a person that was causing the results, the puppies in the standard program had someone spend the equivalent time sitting with them and only interacting a little with the puppies that wanted to.

The puppies were either Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, or Labrador-Golden crosses. They were assessed at 6 weeks old, and at 8 months old their handlers completed a survey on their behaviour.

At 8 months, the handlers’ responses showed that puppies who had the extra socialization scored better for separation-related behaviour, distraction, body sensitivity and general anxiety. There was no difference for trainability or energy.

These results suggest they will make better working guide dogs, but more research (and time on the job) is needed to assess this.

The scientists write,

“The additional age-specific stimulation received by puppies given the extra socialization during this study provided increased physical contact, mental challenges and extensive positive interaction with people away from the litter. These stimuli could be considered to be mild stressors and may help explain the reduced anxiety and distraction related behavior observed in the eight-month handler questionnaire.”

The very short periods of time that puppies in the extra-socialization program spent away from the litter and with a person may have helped them to become more resilient to being taken away from the litter, which may in turn have made them more resilient to being left alone. This could account for the differences in scores for separation-related behaviours.

What’s especially remarkable about these results is that the puppies in the standard group were already getting an excellent socialization program that included lots of opportunities to interact with different stimuli. One of the things that is different about the enhanced program is each puppy got to have that kind of interaction away from the other puppies, just in the presence of a person.

What does it mean for dog owners?

This study builds on the existing research on the sensitive period for socialization in puppies and on what we know about puppy development. It has implications for all dog owners because it shows that extra socialization brings additional benefits. If you are getting a puppy, socialization in the home of the breeder makes a difference to the future behaviour of the puppy.

Sadly, many puppies come from places where they do not get good (or any) socialization. This is thought to be one of several reasons why puppies from pet stores are more likely to have behaviour problems such as aggression, fear of dogs, separation-related behaviours, sensitivity to touch and house-soiling.

So do not buy a puppy from a pet store, or from the internet where the puppy will be brought to you. You need to see the puppy interacting with the mom. And you should ask the breeder what they are doing to socialize the puppy. This should include lots of short, positive experiences with a wide range of different stimuli.

"positive early life experiences are critical in helping puppies grow up to be confident, content companions. This program can be used by working dog organisations, pet dog breeders and animal shelters."

Animal shelters and rescues also sometimes have puppies, and you should ask the same questions about socialization.

Of course, you still need to continue to socialize your puppy after you bring it home. The sensitive period for socialization ends at around 12-14 weeks, although it may be earlier in some breeds.  Remember that socialization means positive experiences, so never force your puppy into an interaction and always give them a choice.

Summary of the puppy socialization study

This study shows that additional puppy socialization from 0-6 weeks, on top of an already excellent socialization program, can make a big difference in terms of the dog’s behaviour at 8 months of age.

The paper contains details of the extra socialization program including a table showing what happened and when. This makes it easy for anyone else who wants to follow the program. Breeders of pet dogs, working dog programs and animal shelters in particular may wish to take a look. The paper can be downloaded for free until 15th December via this link.

Jan 2018 update: Details of the program are now available in a free app, Socialization for Success, which provides a week-to-week guide to what to do and the science behind it.

You can follow The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (UK) on twitter and Facebook.

You can learn more about the classic research into the socialization period in my post, Why you need to socialize your puppy. And if you’d like to know why we call it a sensitive period or how kittens compare to puppies, you might like to read the sensitive period for socialization in puppies and kittens.

For more stories like this, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.


Reference
Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H., & Hartmann, A. (2017). Improving puppy behavior using a new standardized socialization program. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 197, 55-61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159117302320#!

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.

Escaping Dogs: Some Fences Are Better Than Others

A physical fence is more secure than an electronic fence, according to a study with important implications for dog owners.

Photo: Cora Mueller (Shutterstock)

The survey, by Dr. Nicole Starinksy (Ohio State University) et al, asked 974 dog owners about how they kept their dogs confined to the yard, whether they had escaped – and whether they had ever bitten someone.

The results showed that an electronic fence was the least effective method of containing a dog: 44% of dogs contained by one had escaped. Dogs were less likely to have escaped from a tether (27%) or from a see-through fence (e.g. chain link or slatted wood) (23%) or a privacy fence that is not see-through (also 23%).

The report states,

“Regardless of their level of training, dogs are never 100% consistent in their responses. An electric shock from an electronic fence system may be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a dog from escaping under normal circumstances, but may not be when the incentive to escape (eg, the chance to chase another dog or person) is particularly high. In addition, electronic fences are liable to fail because of power outages, battery depletion, or other technical problems, potentially leading to an increased rate of escape.”

The method by which the dog was trained on the electronic fence had no effect on the rate of escape. 73% were trained by a trainer from the fencing company, 19% using the manual, and a handful by other trainers or not trained.

The survey found that 4.6% of the dogs had bitten a person in the past, and 7.7% had bitten another dog, according to the owner reports. The type of containment method was not linked to whether or not the dogs had bitten someone.

However, there were some behaviours that were linked to the dog having bitten a person: growling, snarling, and/or trying to bite another person.

The implication for dog owners is that if your dog is displaying any of these behaviours, it would be a good idea to get help before the behaviour escalates to an actual bite.

Don’t punish the dog for growling, because this does not address the underlying reason why the dog is growling and may put people at greater risk. It would be a good idea to seek professional help (see my article on how to choose a dog trainer).

The survey found 12% of owners left their dog alone and unsupervised in the yard when they were not at home. These dogs were more likely to have bitten another person than dogs that were never left unsupervised. Of course, it’s possible some of these dogs had been obtained because of guarding tendencies. Another risk factor for biting was having unknown people come into the yard on an everyday basis.

The scientists write

“To prevent bites to people, owners should consider keeping their dogs indoors when they are not home and unable to supervise their behavior in the yard and prevent frequent uninvited visitors from passing through the yard. Additionally, owners of dogs that display aggressive greeting behaviors should seek professional assistance because these dogs may be more likely to bite.”

Dog owners were recruited for the study at 8 pet stores in Columbus, Ohio, so this is not a representative sample of dog owners, but it is a large one. A physical fence (see-through or not) was the most common method of keeping a dog in the yard (78%). 14% used an electronic fence and just under 8% used a tether.

Photo: dezi (Shutterstock)

While this study found that dogs escape from electronic fences at twice the rate of a physical fence, there are other reasons not to use electronic fences too: other research shows there are welfare concerns with using electronic shock collars on dogs

I think it’s important to note that all of these figures for escapes are quite high. It shows it’s essential for dog owners to ensure their dog has up-to-date identification to help them get re-united in the event of a lost dog. A collar with a tag and a microchip can make all the difference to getting a pet back.

Don’t forget to ensure the microchip company has your up-to-date details. Teaching your dog to come when called is also essential and will help if you happen to witness an escape (more advice on teaching recall here).

In Ohio, where this study took place, there are no laws against tethering a dog, but in many places there are laws against tethering dogs for more than a certain period of time and/or using certain collars (like prong collars) with a tether. For a summary of the law on tethering in US states, see this table provided by Michigan State University’s Animal Legal and Historical Centre.

Dogs that are tethered for any length of time often develop behavioural issues, are restricted in their movements in a way that may interfere with the Five Freedoms, and are at risk of neglect. For more information, see the BC SPCA position statement on tethering of dogs.

For these reasons, even though the escape rate for tethered dogs was not as high as for an electronic fence, it is not a good alternative even if it is legal where you are. A physical fence of some kind had the lowest escape rate and would be a much better choice. A physical fence keeps the dog in, and is also the only way to keep other dogs and wildlife out. Alternately, of course, you could always leave the dog inside the house, which is the best choice of all.

Another finding of note in this study is that there was no association between breed group and bite history. This is in line with previous research that any dog can bite if it is anxious or threatened.

The results of this research suggest a physical fence is the best way to keep your dog in your yard.  To prevent bites, the dog should not be left unsupervised and uninvited people should not have access to the yard.

These results also show the importance of ensuring your dog has up-to-date identification, and of dealing with any aggression problems sooner rather than later.

To learn more about how science can help you have a better relationship with your pet, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

What do you think is the best way to keep your dog in your yard or garden?


Reference
Starinsky, N. S., Lord, L. K., & Herron, M. E. (2017). Escape rates and biting histories of dogs confined to their owner's property through the use of various containment methods. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 250(3), 297-302. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.250.3.297

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.

Why Do Dogs Play?

A new paper finds there are many reasons why dogs play – and play is not always a sign of good welfare.

There’s nothing cuter than watching puppies play together. But why do they do it? It turns out play has several functions, not just one. A new review, by Rebecca Sommerville (Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh) et al, considers four theories about why dogs play, and finds evidence in support of three of them.

Rebecca Sommerville told me in an email,

“We found, by reviewing a large body of research, that play is not one type of behaviour – there are several types that each serve a different purpose. Despite popular belief, a dog playing is not necessarily a sign that everything is well. Playing alone can be a sign of boredom, whilst play with other dogs has potential to be one sided. Regular, real play between a dog and owner does not revolve around commands, and is important to strengthen their bond.”

Four theories of why dogs play

The paper looks at four different theories of why play has evolved in dogs.

One theory is that play helps puppies learn motor skills. If you look at what dogs do in play, they chase each other, roll around on the floor in play fights, mount, pick up objects with their mouth and tug, bite or shake them. Puppies learn how hard they can bite their playmates (acquired bite inhibition), and to play bow to keep the play going for longer. Through these play activities, they are learning real skills relevant to how to move their bodies, acquire food, and defend themselves in fights. The scientists say this theory explains a lot of things about play, but is not the full story.

Another theory is that play is training for unexpected things to happen: it’s through play that dogs know how to right their bodies when knocked off balance and how to cope when something surprising startles them. According to this theory, changes in the brain and in hormone levels during play help dogs learn how to cope with real-life stressors. This theory explains the fact that dogs like new toys but are cautious of new things that aren’t toys. It also explains the way dogs self-handicap during play and put themselves at a disadvantage; this can be seen as practising behaviour they may need later on as a way to defuse real aggression. But again, this theory only explains some aspects of play.
The third theory they found evidence for is the idea that play promotes social cohesion between dogs. Play helps dogs cooperate as a group, and is about building social relationships – in which humans also feature. Dogs prefer to play with people they know, and they are more likely to approach the winner of a game, but when they win a game against a person it does not lead to increased ‘dominance’. So play is about building cooperative relationships, not social rank. But again, this theory does not explain everything about play.

The fourth theory the scientists considered is that play is just a side-effect of other processes, such as having too much energy or a deprived environment that does not provide stimulation. However, poor environments are linked with the development of stereotypies (repetitive behaviours), rather than play. If play was linked to too much energy, then playfulness wouldn’t be a consistent trait in dogs. Because play is something humans like, it may have been selected for in domestication or have arisen as a result of breeding for other traits, such as neotenic (baby-like) features. But play does not seem to just be a by-product of other things.

Play and welfare in dogs

There is an increasing emphasis on positive welfare and so the paper also considers the welfare implications of different types of play. Individual play with toys is an important enrichment activity that is rewarding in its own right and may reduce stress, but in some cases it may reflect poor welfare (e.g. poor environment, not enough attention from humans).

The scientists say that social play with other dogs is good for canine welfare, although there may be risks of injuries if play turns into aggression. Dogs that do not get enough play opportunities when they are young may show inappropriate behaviour in adult play with dogs or humans. If it is misinterpreted by the owner as actual aggression and the dog is given fewer play opportunities as a result, this may lead to reduced welfare.

Photos: Natalia Fedosova; top, Johan Georg Theron. Both Shutterstock.

Finally, dogs also like to play with humans, and would prefer to play with a human than on their own when there is a toy around. The scientists distinguish between indirect play (when the human moves a toy for the dog – playing with a flirt pole would be an example) and direct play when the human and dog are directly playing together. Play with humans can be rewarding in itself and may also improve the human-canine bond.

However, there are also times when play with a human may not be a sign of good welfare: when dogs make a playful move as a way of avoiding something unpleasant from the human, or in cases where the play itself is stressful, as has been found for games of tug that are also full of commands and discipline rather than being spontaneous and affectionate.

The researchers say that although several studies have looked at different types of reward in dog training, research is needed on the use of play as positive reinforcement. They say that using play to promote the adoption of shelter dogs is another example of using play to improve welfare.

So why do dogs play?

Ultimately, dogs play because it helps them learn motor skills, build social cohesion and prepare for unexpected things to happen so they can cope better when they do. Different stages of play may have different functions, with the beginning and end of a play bout especially important for social cohesion, while the main part of play is most important for learning motor skills and preparing for the unexpected.

"Regular, real play between a dog and owner does not revolve around commands,

and is important to strengthen their bond.”

The review did not find evidence for the idea that play is simply a side-effect of other processes. But it did find that play per se is not necessarily a sign of good welfare; in some cases, it may indicate welfare issues.

The scientists also say that other possible reasons for play need more research, such as whether or not it helps with cognitive development or coping with stress.

This is a fascinating paper. The idea that play is multi-faceted and was probably selected for in domestication is also supported by Bradshaw et al’s (2015) review of play behaviour in adult dogs. I look forward to seeing a lot more research on how and why dogs play!

What does it mean for your dog?

Although the paper does not specifically consider the implications for dog owners, there are some things to bear in mind.

Play fulfils several important functions. So next time you see puppies playing, remember it’s not just fun – they are practising useful skills and building social relationships.

It can be hard for people to find suitable (safe) playmates for new puppies, so a good puppy class should include opportunities for play. This will help your puppy to develop useful skills for later in life. Play should be a positive experience, so expect the dog trainer to monitor it carefully. If at any time you are not sure if your puppy is enjoying it, do a consent test: separate the puppies and see if they both want to return to play or not.

Remember that puppies coming from commercial breeding establishments may not have had many play opportunities with their littermates because of the environment in which they are raised (see: potential causes of problems in pet store puppies). In this case, it may be even more important to have play sessions during puppy class so they can learn appropriate canine social skills. (Note that puppy class is just for puppies, not adult dogs, because of the risks of infection and in case the adult dogs are not well socialized).

If you have one of those adult dogs who is lacking in play skills or bullies other dogs, a good dog trainer will be able to help. Kristi Benson CTC explains how to improve play skills here. Since dog training is not regulated, make sure you find a good dog trainer.

Of course the main take-away for dog owners is that it’s important to play with your dog because it helps to strengthen the human-animal bond.

You can follow the first author, Rebecca Sommerville, on twitter.

For more posts like this, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

How do you like to play with your dog?



References
Bradshaw, J. W., Pullen, A. J., & Rooney, N. J. (2015). Why do adult dogs ‘play’?. Behavioural processes, 110, 82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.023
Sommerville, R., O’Connor, E. A., & Asher, L. (2017). Why do dogs play? A review of the function of play in the domestic dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.09.007

You might also like:
Playtime after training improves a dogs memory
The function of play bows in dog and wolf puppies

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.