Theme Layout

Rightsidebar

Boxed or Wide or Framed

Theme Translation

Display Featured Slider

Yes

Featured Slider Styles

Display Grid Slider

No

Grid Slider Styles

Display Trending Posts

No

Display Author Bio

Display Instagram Footer

Dark or Light Style

Search This Blog
Do you Believe in Dog? (2018). Powered by Blogger.

Copyright Do You Believe in Dog (2018)

The content on Do You Believe in Dog? is copyrighted. If you are interested in using any content produced on Do You Believe in Dog? please email a request.

Strap line

It started when two canine scientists decide to become pen pals in an era of digital media...

Translate

Navigation Menu

All rights reserved
Do you believe in dog? 2016

Showing posts with label Tammie King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tammie King. Show all posts

5 March 2014

Attachment: measuring our (varying) relationships with dogs.

Attachment: measuring our (varying) relationships with dogs.

Hi Julie,

Right off the bat I need to say YES YES YES! 

Your last post about aggression and what we can learn from and about it WITHOUT the need to experience it was spot on. 

Are you THIS attached to your dog? (source)
You’re also right that my head is filled with glorious meta-analysis results right now, as well as perceptions and other measures (#allthemeasures!) as I start preparing my abstracts for submission to be part of the Canine Science Forum.

One of the small but quirky things I’ve noticed in the results of the perceived welfare of dogs survey, is that people seem to think their own pet dog has a much higher level of welfare than everyone else’s pet dog. Why would we think we take better care of our own dogs than anyone else? Now, this could be to do with the self-selected convenience sample of people who took the online questionnaire. Perhaps the 2,146 people who were interested and motivated enough to take the time to do the survey really are the very top of the pile of all dog owners, but I found it interesting all the same.

It got me thinking about our relationships with dogs (Ha! What’s new, right?!). I also happened to have a chat with Hal Herzog (while recording an upcoming episode of Human Animal Science) and, amongst many other things, we talked about how animals and pets aren’t universally beneficial for all people. Some people don’t even like their dogs. We know from extensive research into human psychology that our attitudes are major predictors of our behaviour. So are people who really love their animals more likely to take better care of them? (The answer is no, not always). Why is it that even people like us, who really find dogs fascinating and work with them daily, can feel more of a 'connection' with one individual dog, but not so much another?

Definitely attached to dog (source)
When faced with a question like this, how do we measure these differences scientifically? We can look at (usually self-reported by the human) measures, such as time per day spent in the company, or interacting/sharing activities with pet dogs. This is valuable, but does not necessarily indicate emotional closeness of a person to their dog.

Lucky for me, plenty of psychologists, including earlier members of the Anthrozoology Research Group have tackled this and worked hard to create scales that measure the human-animal bond. The Monash Dog-Owner Relationship Scale, or MDORS as it’s more affectionately known is a great example. MDORS is a series of questions that form a psychometrically sound and validated scale. 

 This scale was developed with the assistance of over 1,000 participants and comprises 28 items (statements that you agree/disagree with on a 5 point likert-style scale) across three subscales: Dog–Owner Interaction (e.g. “How often do you play games with your dog”), Perceived Emotional Closeness (e.g. “I wish my dog and I never had to be apart”), and Perceived Costs (e.g. "It is annoying that I sometimes have to change my plans because of my dog"). A scale like this can be used not just to assess how attached people are to their pet dogs, but also to explore how these attachments might vary between dogs, and with different groups of people (e.g. from different countries, with different cultural, work experience or education backgrounds, etc.), making it a very powerful tool for researchers. 
(excerpt from Dwyer et al, 2006)
Used in conjunction with other questionnaires to investigate areas like grief at the loss of a pet, responsible pet ownership practices by owners, oxytocin levels in dogs, or human health benefits derived from pet ownership; attachment measures, like MDORS, can help us learn more about the importance of attachment to successful relationships for both human and dogs.
How many dogs are you attached to? (Flickr)
You might remember Tammie King's research, that used a modified version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation to see what dogs did when separated from their familiar person  and approached by a stranger (in her case, helping to measure the canine trait of amicability through their reaction toward the stranger). Tammie also asked owners to complete the MDORS and used the results in interpreting the canine behavioural data analysis for her PhD.

 So often in our research, it's important to measure both sides of the story, because we've learned the experience of the human, or even the human's perception of the dog's experience, just don't match up to the dogs' experience.

 I'm pleased to see you'll be tackling topics like these this weekend in San Francisco at the Canine Science Symposium event - yet another great line up of fantastic canine scientists sharing science for everyone:
(Source: Photo Lab Pet Photography)

Meanwhile, I'm getting back to my research and pondering if attachment might relate to perceived welfare of dogs.

Looking forward to your next update,

 Mia

Further reading:

 Dwyer F., Bennett P.C. & Coleman G.J. (2006). Development of the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS), Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 19 (3) 243-256. DOI:

Rohlf V.I., Bennett P.C., Toukhsati S. & Coleman G. (2010). Why Do Even Committed Dog Owners Fail to Comply with Some Responsible Ownership Practices?, Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 23 (2) 143-155. DOI: 

 Archer J. & Ireland J.L. (2011). The Development and Factor Structure of a Questionnaire Measure of the Strength of Attachment to Pet Dogs, Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 24 (3) 249-261. DOI:

Handlin L., Nilsson A., Ejdebäck M., Hydbring-Sandberg E. & Uvnäs-Moberg K. (2012). Associations between the Psychological Characteristics of the Human–Dog Relationship and Oxytocin and Cortisol Levels, Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 25 (2) 215-228. DOI:

© Mia Cobb | Do You Believe in Dog? 2014
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
0 Comments

You Might Also Like

welfare

30 October 2012

Ideally amicable: beauty and behaviour (part 2)

Ideally amicable: beauty and behaviour (part 2)

Hellloooo Julie,

(source)
Isn’t it interesting that bigger eyes are a preferred attribute for attractiveness, yet we find animals covering their faces (and therefore obscuring their eyes!) super cute? The eyes have it, but they obviously aren’t the full story. 

I look forward to hearing more!

While you tell me about what rings our bells in terms of physical looks, I'd like to get back to telling you about Tammie King's research into behaviour assessment and contemplating what behavioural traits we prefer in our companion dogs (Part 1 here).

I think I was up to telling you how Tammie set about creating an assessment with the aim of measuring the canine personality trait, ‘amicability’. She wanted to see if this was possible using a relatively SIMPLE protocol (because remember, we need this to be feasible for use in the real world). 

(Abstract from King et al., 2012, details below)
Tammie modified a well-known protocol called the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test for this purpose. Dogs were filmed undergoing the assessment in which they were exposed to a novel environment and unfamiliar person, initially with their owner and then without.

Tammie then gathered a focus group of dog behaviour experts (dog trainers, vets, people who work in animal shelters, breeders, etc. etc.) who independently watched videos of dogs who had undergone the pilot study and rated them on their level of amicability, based on a previously described list of attributes. There was a high level of agreement between which dogs the experts considered more or less amicable. This demonstrated that the protocol was able to elicit a range of behaviours which is excellent as it means we should be able to accurately identify what it was that enabled the experts to identify ‘amicable’ and ‘non-amicable’ dogs.
(source)

Tammie put her scientist hat back on and decided the most objective way to work out what was important to measure, was to begin by measuring absolutely every freaking behaviour, from every freaking angle. So she did. Data were collected from over 200 dogs and their owners.


Take a look at some of the footage:


She kept tally of all behavioural variables and went about conducting analyses to determine which variables to retain and which to discard, basically which ones were important in predicting ‘amicability’ Her ethogram is the king kong of canine ethograms.

(source)
To further evaluate the assessment, Tammie  asked two of the experts to rate ALL of the dogs to examine the intra-inter- rater reliability (which was very high = good!). Tammie also examined test-retest reliability and predictive validity. She also compared the owners’ reports of their dogs’ amicability. Interestingly, experts and owners don’t always agree. 

Dogs were behaving differently than owners expected. This might be due to a number of factors. Perhaps the assessment only offers a small snapshot of the dogs’ behaviour in the limited time available; perhaps owners are biased at look at their dogs through rose tinted glasses, etc. 

After a whole lot of statistical analysis, Tammie was able to determine which behavioural variables best predict ‘amicability’. The amount of contact the dog made with the stranger, its locomotion, vocalisations, time spent in particular areas of the arena and body posture were  all considered important.


Tammie has copped a bit of flack from ‘concerned individuals’ who seem afraid that this assessment will be the be-all-and-end-all of dog temperament tests and that every dog will be forced to be AMICABLE. 

But honestly, this is just a starting step. Step 1 in developing an accurate behaviour assessment for dogs, using the canine personality dimension of ‘amicability’ as a test case.

Tammie won’t really know how successful it is as a test protocol until a lot more data is collected from many dogs far and wide. Longitudinal data would be helpful, as would examining different breeds, puppies to adults, dogs from varying regions, etc. etc. Tammie also believes strongly that having a test like this in existence does not mean we take the emphasis off TRAINING dogs. We still need educate people about dog behaviour, welfare and training to ensure dogs and people live together harmoniously.

Dogs, like people and other animals, are constantly evolving. Perhaps some of the newer dog types around are already being selected for amicability without people realising it? Perhaps new breeds might be developed for this identified niche of FAMILY PET/COMPANION dog. This still leaves room for the people who want whatever dog they want and leaves them free to train it to do what they want.

Tammie suggests we will benefit from being TRANSPARENT about the sort of dog/s we have. Because having ACCURATE information on our dogs’ behaviour can help us make informed decisions regarding their breeding, training, housing and socialisation requirements. It has the potential to help with dog-owner matching, breeding decisions, etc. and also pave the way for future behaviour assessments aimed to measure other traits. In my mind, that has to be a good thing!

So what about their looks?
Are there physical traits that could also make for better companion animals?

Mia

Further reading:

King, T., Marston, L.C. & Bennett, P.C. (2012). Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 137 (1-2) 12. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.11.016

Ley, J., Bennett, P. & Coleman, G. (2008). Personality dimensions that emerge in companion canines, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 110 (3-4) 317. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.016

 King, T., Marston, L. & Bennett, P. (2011). Development of the Monash Canine Amicablity Assessment (MCAA), Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6 (1) DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.08.033

© Mia Cobb 2012
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
0 Comments

You Might Also Like

videos

23 October 2012

Ideally amicable: beauty and behaviour (Part 1)

Ideally amicable: beauty and behaviour (Part 1)

Hi Julie!

How was the APDT conference? 
Those citizen science projects in your last post were completely awesome – I still can’t decide if the slowed down baby laughter sound is hilarious or scary! Not sure I’d want to hear my kid’s giggle turned into Uncle Fester’s slow-play snicker is all I’m saying.

Looking at those babies’ behaviour, we can obviously tell they are happy little campers, but what assessments can be made about dog behaviour? More importantly, what are the behaviours that contribute to dogs thriving and living happily as modern-day companion dogs and members of our families?

(source)
The Anthrozoology research group considered this question a few years back. We often have discussion about dogs with our science goggles on (no, not literally – we don’t even wear lab coats! *snicker*). We talked about the idea of dogs having their behaviour scored and assessed in the same (best practice) way as their hips/elbows/eyes/insert physical trait are prior to breeding. Wouldn't that be amazing? This would be more than simply a breed standard description (e.g. Lhasa Apso: “Gay and assertive, but chary of strangers”; Dalmatian: "stable and outgoing, yet dignified", AKC breed standards), as you touched on in an earlier post. This would be an actual assessment of an individual dog’s behaviour.

This could be such a helpful tool. For potential owners (e.g. check out the documented behaviour profiles of the individual parents before purchasing a pup), for local councils (e.g. could help them better manage the dogs living in their community, including the dangerous ones), breeders, trainers, shelters, etc. etc. etc.

Tammie and her dog Kade
Tammie King was part of those discussions and her research is taking on this huge piece of big-picture pie, head first. Tammie began her PhD journey wanting to improve our capacity to accurately and objectively assess canine behaviour with the goal of improving transparency of the types of dogs we have (own/breed) in our communities. This is a continuously challenging area of study and one of significance for many sectors of our society.

(source)
But hasn’t someone already worked out how to do that?
There are already plenty of behaviour assessments in existence. The problem is that they’re all trying to measure different things, in different ways, guided by different ethics (specifically regarding eliciting aggression), using different equipment and different assessors in all different scenarios in varying parts of the world. Many have not been evaluated regarding their effectiveness. As scientists, we’d like to limit variability by producing an objective (not biased), standardised assessment which has been shown to be valid (accurate), reliable (repeatable by different people on different occasions) and is feasible (can be safely used by a range of organisations).

That sounds easy!
Does it? Awesome! What would you measure? Objectively, remember. How would you score it? What would you use in your test to prompt the behaviour that informs your assessment? Keep in mind the assessment needs to have a practical time frame to be useful in a real-world context. What would you involve in your protocol? The owner? A stranger? Another dog? A small child? Food? Cats? Penguins? Wait!

I changed my mind.
That sounds hard!
You’re right. It’s not an easy task. Tammie decided to tackle this the way we all should take on any big task – by breaking it down into manageable pieces. She started by asking “WHAT should my assessment be measuring?” Rather than just take a stab in the dark, Tammie took the question to the masses and asked the Australian public what their ‘ideal’ dog would be.

Nearly 1,000 people took her online survey and it turns out that most people seem to want dogs which are friendly, easy going, safe with children, affectionate, etc. When it comes to dogs living as companion animals, most people do not want the traditionally bred purpose-type dogs, i.e. hunting/guard/herding dogs (Oh hush your protests, this is what the data said, not what Tammie or I are personally saying). 

Instead, in these current times, most people in Australia want what a dog that can be categorised as AMICABLE.

Amicable is ideal?
The next stage of Tammie’s research involved developing a behaviour assessment specifically designed to measure the canine personality trait, amicability.

I’ll tell you more about all of that next time. But I’d love to hear your thoughts - what do you think the most common role of dog is these days? Should we be breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour in their role as modern companion animals? 

Until next time,

Mia

Further reading:

King, T., Marston, L.C. & Bennett, P.C. (2009). Describing the ideal Australian companion dog, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120 (1-2) 93. DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.011

King, T., Marston, L. & Bennett, P. (2011). Development of the Monash Canine Amicablity Assessment (MCAA), Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6 (1) DOI:10.1016/j.jveb.2010.08.033

© Mia Cobb 2012
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
2 Comments

You Might Also Like

valid
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
[name=Do You Believe in Dog?] [img=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih0oTdT87wf4V9ic3qh3r4nwYEQ2IsqFtweaU5RXbfIGujIMEg7n7jBmLq88mM9ZWZZ74jemUA2tK0UDNV-mLf4Mx7UzOEv6FISOcaffwhjDIU-9DgKhUj1VILdKBCInozoneqSXX6_kPP/s100/DYBID3+SPARCS2013.jpg] [description=Do You Believe in Dog? is a popular canine science platform presented by Mia Cobb and Julie Hecht. We think it's important that everyone be able to access and understand the latest canine research.] (facebook=https://www.facebook.com/DoYouBelieveInDog/) (twitter=https://www.twitter.com/doubelieveindog/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/mlcobb77/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/dogspies/)

Follow @SunriseSunsetBlog