Measuring Attachments Between Dogs and Their Owners

Measuring Attachments between Dogs and their Owners Submitted by Joanne Wilshaw to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology, September 2010 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals and organisations for their help and support: Alan Brooks of the Guide Dogs for the Blind association Ian Chanter John Dennes and the UK Wolf Conservation Trust Sally Emery Sarah Galley Professor Stephen Lea Professor Peter McGregor Jeri Omlo of Collie Rescue Dr Alan Slater Sally Smart Jean and Keith Wilshaw Grace, Martha and Seth Wilshaw-Chanter 2 Abstract This thesis details the development and testing of a new scale for measuring human attachment to dogs which allows for the measurement of weaker attachment levels as well as stronger ones (the CDA scale). The correlation between dog-owner’s scores on the CDA scale and their dog’s actual attachment behaviour is assessed and discussed, as well as the dog-owners limited ability to predict the behaviour of their dog in a controlled situation (the Strange Situation Test (SST)) whereby the dogs meet a previously unknown person. The CDA scale was formed by utilising items from pre- existing scales (the Comfort from Companion Animals scale and the Lexington Attachment to Pets scale), trialed on the internet with a large self-selected sample of dog-owners and analysed and reduced using factor analysis. The CDA was completed with the addition of some negative items derived from a small sample of dog-owners who expressed drawbacks to keeping a dog. In addition 100 people living with dogs they did not consider themselves to be the primary carer of, and 100 people with dogs they considered to have behavioural problems also completed the CDA to allow for the assessment of reliability and validity, and for consideration of the possible links between human perceptions of attachment/dog behavioural problems and actual scores on the CDA. Dogs’ attachment behaviour was assessed by cluster analysis of behaviours observed in the SSD: 51 dog- owner pairs took part in the study which revealed a number of secure-base behavioural categories analogous to those typically observed in human mother-infant interactions in Ainsworth’s original (1969) SST. In addition five captive wolves were also observed in a modified version of the SST. Data from these observations is discussed in a case-wise manner and it is clear that captive wolves do not exhibit the suite of attachment behaviours (to their familiar handler) as previously observed in the dog study. However, the wolves’ familiar handler was very adept at predicting the behaviour of his wolves in this situation. These findings are important in furthering our understanding of human-canine attachments in general, but especially given the number of dog-owner pairings which appear to fail due to poor or misunderstood attachments. An effective attachment scale for people, and a valid measure and analysis of attachment behaviour in dogs is a further development in ensuring successful pairings of people with dogs in a variety of contexts such as pet dogs and service dogs. 3 Contents Page number Acknowledgements 2 Abstract 3 Contents 4 List of figures and tables 5 Aims of the thesis and questions addressed by it 8 Chapter 1 : The modern domestic dog 10 1.1 What is a dog? 10 1.2 Relationships between humans and non-humans 14 1.3. Dogs as food 15 1.4. Dogs as ‘outcasts’ 15 1.5. Dogs as friends 17 1.6. Human contact with animals 18 1.7. Social tendencies of domestic dogs 19 1.8. Defining bonding and attachment 22 1.9. The relationship between bonding and dominance 25 1.10. Measuring attachment and bonding 26 1.11. Anthropomorphism: Arguments for and against 27 1.12. Conclusion 28 Chapter 2 : Introduction : Attachments in Dogs and Humans 30 2.1 Introduction 30 2.2 Measuring attachment to animals 31 2.3 Attachment in humans 35 2.4 Application of the Strange Situation Test to canines 37 Chapter 3 : The development of the companion dogs attachment 46 scale (CDA Scale) 3.1 Introduction 46 3.2 Method 48 3.3 Results 51 Chapter 4 : The relationship between measured attachment in dogs 75 and their owners. 4.1 Introduction 75 4.2 Method 80 4.3 Analysis of Data 86 4.4 Discussion 107 Chapter 5 : Application of the strange situation to highly 112 socialised, group living captive wolves; clarification that it doesn’t elicit the attachment response in Canis lupus. 5.1 Introduction 112 5.2 Method 115 5.3 Results 126 5.4 Discussion 148 Chapter 6: Overview and Conclusions 152 References 165 Appendices 188 4 List of tables and figures Page number Figure 3.1. Scree plot generated by CCAS PCA . 52 Table 3.1 . Total variance of Comfort from Companion Animals Scale (CCAS) PCA 53 explained. Table 3.2. CCAS PCA factor loadings and items. 52 Figure 3.2. Scree plot generated by LAPS PCA. 56 Table 3.3. Total variance of the Lexington Attachment to pets Scale (LAPS) PCA 57 explained. Table 3.4 . LAPS PCA factor loadings and items. 58 Figure 3.3. Scree plot generated by preliminary CDA PAF. 60 Table 3.5 . Total variance of preliminary Companion Dogs Attachment scale (CDA) 65 PAF explained. Table 3.6 . Factor loadings and items for preliminary CDA. 62 Table 3.7. Questionnaire items loading above 0.5 for each factor and subsequently 63 included in the final CDA scale. Table 3.8 . Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the three samples. 64 Figure 3.4. Scree plot generated by CDA scale PCA for merged samples. 63 Table 3.9 . Total variance of CDA scale for merged samples explained. 66 Table 3.10 . One-way ANOVA for respondent characteristics by CDA scale scores. 67 Table 3.10a Regression analysis for respondent characteristics by overall CDA scale 68 scores. Table 3.10b Regression analysis (stepwise method) for respondent characteristics by 69 CDA scale sub-score for companionship/happiness. Table 3.10c Regression analysis (stepwise method) for respondent characteristics by 70 CDA scale sub-score for feeling loved/needed . Table 3.10d Regression analysis (stepwise method) for respondent characteristics by 70 CDA scale sub-score for dogs as friends Table 3.10e Regression analysis (stepwise method) for respondent characteristics by 71 CDA scale sub-score for negative aspects of dog-keeping Table 4.1 . Wording of the CDA scale. 82 Table 4.2 . Dog owners’ predictions of their dogs’ behaviour in the SST. 83 5 Table 4.3. Inter-observer percentage agreement and description of behaviours 86 recorded in the SST. Figure 4.1. Comparison of mean values of SST behaviours in relation to the presence 88 of the stranger and owner. Figure 4.2 Behavioural variables 89 Table 4.4. Total variance of SST behaviours PCA explained. 90 Table 4.5. Rotated component matrix (factor loadings) of behavioural variables. 91 Figure 4.3. Hierarchical cluster analysis (dendrogram) showing major groupings of 93 dogs in the SST. Table 4.6. Low, medium and high ranges for each behavioural variable in relation to 94 cluster groupings of dogs in the SST. Table 4.7. Factorial patterns of the four cluster groups. 95 Table 4.8 . Low, medium and high ranges for secure-base behaviours in relation to 97 cluster groupings of dogs in the SST. Table 4.9. Significant effects of behavioural factors on SST behaviours. 99 Table 4.10 . Significant effects of secure-base behaviours on SST behaviours. 101 Table 4.11a. Significant effects of independent variables on behavioural factors. 102 Table 4.11b. Significant effects of independent variables on secure-base behaviours. 104 Table 4.11c Multiple regression showing significant effects of independent variables 104 on dogs’ eye contact behaviour Table 4.12. Significant effects of whether or not dogs had behavioural problems, on 105 SST behaviours. Figure 4.4. Frequency data for dogs’ behavioural problems against 105 con/heterospecifics. Table 5.1 . Questionnaire to assess handler’s prediction of each wolf’s behaviour in 122 the SSW. Table 5.2. Percentage agreement between the stranger and an independent observer 125 instructed in the behavioural categories of the SSW. Table 5.3. Handler’s prediction of wolves’ behaviour in the SSW. 127 Figures Bar charts comparing data for each wolf in presence of stranger vs. 128-137 5.1a-j. handler. Figures Bar charts showing mean behavioural data for wolf sub-groups. 143-146 5.2a-d. Appendix A: The modified LAPS and CCAS as they appeared on the web. 187 Table A. Appendix B: Bonferroni post- hoc tests detailing significant effects of household size on 192 Table B1. SST behaviours. 6 Appendix C: Household size against SST behaviours 193 Table C1 Table C2 Favourite pet species against SST behaviours 194 Appendix D: Frequency data for CDA scale scores & respondent demographics 195 Table D1 Table D2 Frequency data for CDA scale scores& respondent social network ties 195 Table D3 Frequency data for CDA scale scores and respondent pet-related variables. 195 Appendix E Development of wolves and dogs from birth to the period of socialisation 196 (after Mech , 1970) Appendix E Descriptive statistics for raw data of dogs’ behaviour in the presence of the 198 owner versus the stranger.

Load more