All methods described here were approved in accordance with GPS guidelines and national legislation by the Ethical Committee for the use of animals in experiments at the University of Veterinary Medicine of Vienna (Ref: 09/10/97/2012 and 10/10/97/2012).
1. Participant recruitment
2. Behavioral testing procedure
3. Behavioral coding
4. Data processing
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The EFA conducted on the behavioral variables analyzed during the Owner Interaction Style test revealed three factors accounting for 29.47% of the total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test resulted in a value of 0.69. The first factor was labeled "Owner Warmth" (variance explained: 17.41%, internal consistency: Cronbach´s α = 0.77) and it included the following behavioral variables: enthusiasm, frequency of praising, and play style during Ball play; enthusiasm, frequency of praising, and play style during Tug-of-war play; warmth during the Reunion after separation; communication style during Teaching; communication style during Food choice. The second factor, labeled as "Owner Social Support" (variance explained: 6.64%; internal consistency: Cronbach´s α = 0.68) included the following behaviors: social support, frequency of petting, and frequency of praising during the DNA sample; social support during the T-shirt; frequency of petting, and frequency of praising during Basic commands. The third factor was labeled "Owner Control" (variance explained: 5.41 %; internal consistency: Cronbach´s α = 0.49) and it included: frequency of commands during Ball play; frequency of attention sounds and commands during Tug-of-war play; frequency of commands during Basic commands.
Relationship between the extracted factors
The factors "Owner Warmth" and "Owner Social Support" correlated positively with each other (Pearson´s r = 0.53, p < 0.01, Figure 2), while "Owner Control" seemed to be independent from the other two factors ("Owner Control" vs. "Owner Warmth"; Pearson´s r = – 0.03, p > 0.05; "Owner Control" vs. "Owner Social Support"; Pearson´s r = – 0.05, p > 0.05).
Inter-rater reliability
The agreement between the two independent coders ranged between good to excellent depending on the variable (Cohen´s kappa = 0.72 – 0.94).
Associations between the owners´ demographic characteristics and the extracted factors
In a previous study18, we found that the age of the owner was negatively associated with "Owner Warmth" (Pearson´s r = – 0.25, p < 0.01, Figure 3) and with "Owner Social Support" (Pearson´s r = – 0.24, p < 0.01, Figure 4), but no significant correlation was found with "Owner Control" (Pearson´s r = 0.12, p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found that female owners scored higher in "Owner Warmth" than male owners (Pearson´s r = 0.15, p < 0.05), but not in "Owner Social Support" (Pearson´s r = 0.13, p > 0.05) and "Owner Control" (Pearson´s r = 0.04, p > 0.05). Additionally, we showed that "Owner Control" was negatively associated with the personality factor called "Openness" (Pearson´s r = – 0.22, p < 0.01) and that "Owner social Support" was negatively associated with the personality factor called "Conscientiousness" (Pearson´s r = – 0.16, p < 0.05).
Associations between the extracted factors and dog behavior
The present methodology, analyzing various aspects of a dog owner interaction style, allows for investigating the effects of the owner's behavior on the behavior of his/her dog. In a previous study18, we analyzed whether the reaction of a dog to a stressful situation (that is, a stranger approaching the dog in a threatening manner) is dependent on the behavior of the owner. There, we found that the likelihood that a dog would hide behind the owner when approached by a threatening stranger was higher for dogs whose owners scored higher in "Owner Warmth" than in dogs whose owners scored lower (Pearson´s r = 0.16, p < 0.05). Similarly, when the stranger was closer than 2 m to the dog-owner dyad, we found that dogs that stepped back towards the owner or remained passive throughout the threatening approach had owners which scored higher in "Owner Warmth" than dogs that approached the stranger (either in a friendly, appeasing or aggressive manner) (Multinomial regression model: X2 = 8.94, p < 0.05). In addition, we found that the likelihood that a dog would show aggression towards the threatening stranger was higher in dogs, whose owners scored higher in "Owner Control" than in dogs whose owners scored lower in this factor (Pearson´s r = – 0.15, p < 0.05).
Figure 1: Experimental set-up. The figure represents the experimental room in which the tests are performed. The room has two doors (Door 1 and Door 2) on one side of the room and four cameras placed at the four corners of the room ("Camera"). The figure shows the position of the owner, the dog, and the experimenter throughout the tests as well as the position of the chair, the table, and the plates used during the Food choice test. Finally, it shows the position of the areas in which the DNA sample collection and the Teaching test are performed. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Positive association between "Owner Warmth" and "Owner Social Support" factors (Pearson´s r = 0.53, p < 0.01). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Negative association between "Owner Warmth" and the age of the owner (in years) (Pearson´s r = – 0.25, p < 0.01). Older owners scored lower in "Owner Warmth" than young owners. This figure has been adapted from 18. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Negative association between "Owner Social Support" and the age of the owner (in years) (Pearson´s r = – 0.24, p < 0.01). Older owners scored lower in "Owner Social Support" than young owners. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Sciences du comportement | Type | Definition | Test in which it was coded | ||
Communication style | Score | 1: The owner expresses their preference in a cold way and never looks at the dog; 2: The owner expresses their preference in a cold way but looks at the dog at least once but no longer than for 2 sec; 3: The owner communicates with the dog using a friendly, high-pitched tone of voice and looks at the dog more than once. The owner does not smile; 4: The owner communicates with the dog in a friendly, high-pitched tone of voice, smiles and looks at the dog for almost the entire trial | Food choice, Teaching | ||
Enthusiasm | Score | 1: The owner plays with the dog showing low energy and no involvement; 2: The owner plays with the dog showing medium energy and scarce involvement, 3: The owner plays with the dog showing high energy and high involvement | Ball play, Tug-of-war play | ||
Praising | Frequency | Verbal utterances pronounced in a positive and friendly tone of voice (e.g., German equivalents of “Well done!”, “Super!”) | Ball play, Tug-of-war play, DNA sample, Basic commands | ||
Petting | Frequency | Pats, strokes, and scratches | DNA sample, Basic commands | ||
Play style | Score | 1: The owner does not laugh or smile during the play session, continuously gives commands and uses a strong/harsh tone of voice. The owner never allows the dog to win the game; 2: The owner does not laugh or smile during the play session and might give commands to the dog using a strong/harsh tone of voice. The owner never allows the dog to win the game; 3: The owner is cheerful and enthusiastic during the play session but does not allow the dog to win the game; 4: The owner is cheerful and enthusiastic during the play session and lets the dog win the game. | Ball play, Tug-of-war play | ||
Warmth | Score | 1: The owner is avoidant and pushes down the dog if she tries to jump on her/him. The owner does not greet actively the dog and could give some commands to control the behavior of the dog; 2: The owner is avoidant but can accept passively the greetings of the dog. The owner does not greet actively the dog and could give some commands like “sit” or “down” to control the behavior of the dog; 3: The owner actively greets the dog and speaks to the dog in a friendly and high pitched tone of voice; 4: The owner clearly smiles and greets the dog in an excited way speaking to the dog in a friendly and high pitched tone of voice | Reunion after separation | ||
Social Support | Score | 1: The owner restricts the movements of the dog using strength, never reassures the dog nor verbally, nor physically and speaks with the dog using a harsh tone of voice; 2: The owner restricts the movements of the dog using strength, never reassures the dog nor verbally, nor physically but does not use a harsh tone of voice. 3: The owner might reassure the dog verbally and/or physically but not continuously. The owner speaks to the dog in gentle way and could praise the dog at the end of the test; 4: The owner reassures the dog verbally and/or physically continuously. The owner speaks to the dog in gentle way and praises the dog during and at the end of the test | DNA sample, T-shirt | ||
Commands | Verbal utterances pronounced using an imperative tone of voice (e.g., German equivalents of “sit!” or “stay!”) | Ball play, Tug-of-war play, Basic commands | |||
Attention sounds | Frequency | Claps, whistles, tongue, or palatal clicks | Ball play, Tug-of-war play | ||
Authoritarian behaviors | Score | 1: The owner does not raise the tone of voice neither forces the dog in a determined position; 2: The owner raises the tone of the voice; 3: The owner goes physically forces the dog in a determined position | Basic commands |
Table 1: List and definitions of the behaviors analyzed during the Owner Interaction Style test. This table has been adapted from 18.
Test | Sciences du comportement | Transformation | Distribution |
DNA sample collection | Commands | N = 0 -> score 1 | 34.60% |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 37.10% | ||
N = 3 – 5 -> score 3 | 17.10% | ||
N = 6 – 19 -> score 4 | 11.20% | ||
Attention sounds | N = 0 -> score 1 | 77.80% | |
N = 1 – 5 -> score 2 | 22.20% | ||
Petting | N = 0 -> score 1 | 25.40% | |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 26.30% | ||
N = 3 – 5 -> score 3 | 26.80% | ||
N = 6 – 20 -> score 4 | 21.50% | ||
Praising | N = 0 – 4 -> score 1 | 25.40% | |
N = 5 – 9 -> score 2 | 26.30% | ||
N = 10 – 14 -> score 3 | 26.80% | ||
N = 15 – 20 -> score 4 | 21.50% | ||
Tug-of-war play | Commands | N = 0 -> score 1 | 38.00% |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 24.50% | ||
N = 3 – 5 -> score 3 | 27.40% | ||
N = 6 – 13 -> score 4 | 10.10% | ||
Attention sounds | N = 0 -> score 1 | 68.60% | |
N = 1 – 13 -> score 2 | 31.40% | ||
Praising | N = 0 – 4 -> score 1 | 24.80% | |
N = 5 – 9 -> score 2 | 27.60% | ||
N = 10 – 14 -> score 3 | 20.00% | ||
N = 15 – 20 -> score 4 | 27.60% | ||
Basic commands | Commands | N = 3 – 6 -> score 1 | 29.20% |
N = 7 – 9 -> score 2 | 26.10% | ||
N = 10 – 14 -> score 3 | 22.80% | ||
N = 15 – 50 -> score 4 | 21.90% | ||
Petting | N = 0 -> score 1 | 13.20% | |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 47.90% | ||
N = 3 – 4 -> score 3 | 19.60% | ||
N = 5 – 10 -> score 4 | 19.30% | ||
Praising | N = 0 -> score 1 | 23.20% | |
N = 1 -> score 2 | 33.30% | ||
N = 2 -> score 3 | 19.80% | ||
N = 3 – 10 -> score 4 | 23.70% | ||
Ball play | Commands | N = 0 -> score 1 | 23.70% |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 19.80% | ||
N = 3 – 5 -> score 3 | 30.00% | ||
N = 6 – 77 -> score 4 | 26.50% | ||
Attention sounds | N = 0 -> score 1 | 42.50% | |
N = 1 – 16 -> score 2 | 57.50% | ||
Praising | N = 0 -> score 1 | 35.30% | |
N = 1 – 2 -> score 2 | 29.00% | ||
N = 3 – 4 -> score 3 | 19.80% | ||
N = 5 – 10 -> score 4 | 15.90% |
Table 2. Data processing of the behavioral variables initially coded as counts. The number of commands, praising, and petting are transformed into 4-point scales while the number of attention sounds are transformed into 2-point scales. This table has been adapted from 18.
Videocamera | Samsung | ZA TZ6V3Z300274W | |
Videocamera | Samsung | ZA TZ6V3Z300316J | |
Videocamera | JVC | 066C1124 | |
Videocamera | JVC | 066C1123 | |
Chair | n.a. | n.a. | Material: plastic and metal. Color: black. With backrest and seat. Overall measures: 39 x 47 x 77 cm. Seat measures: 39 x 34 x 45 cm. |
Leash | n.a. | n.a. | Material: nylon. Color: black. Measures: 2 x 300 cm. |
Plates | n.a. | n.a. | Material: pottery. Color: white. Diameter: 25 cm. |
Cotton swabs | n.a. | n.a. | Material: cotton. Color: white. Length: 7.6 cm. |
Dog toy: rope | n.a. | n.a. | Material: cotton. Color: red. Diameter: 5 cm. Length: 30 cm |
T-shirt | n.a. | n.a. | Material: cotton. Size M. Measures: 70 x 60 cm. |
Carton box | n.a. | n.a. | Material: carton. Color: brown. Measures: 50 x 35 x 25. |
Crumpled newspaper | n.a. | n.a. | Material: paper. From 3-4 newspapers. |
Bin + lid | n.a. | n.a. | Material: plastic. Shape: round. Color: grey. Diameter: 20 cm. Height: 28 cm |
Tennis ball | n.a. | n.a. | Material: rubber, nylon. Color: yellow. Diameter: 6.5 cm |
It has been suggested that the way in which owners interact with their dogs can largely vary and influence the dog-owner bond, but very few objective studies, so far, have addressed how the owner interacts with the dog. The goal of the present study was to record dog owners' interaction styles by means of objective observation and coding. The experiment included eight standardized situations in which owners of pet dogs were asked to perform specific tasks including both positive (i.e. playing, teaching a new task, showing a preference towards an object in a food searching task, greeting after separation) and potentially distressing tasks (i.e. physical restriction during DNA sampling, putting a T-shirt onto the dog, giving basic obedience commands while the dog was distracted). The video recordings were coded off-line using a specifically designed coding scheme including scores for communication, social support, warmth, enthusiasm, and play style, as well as frequency of behaviors like petting, praising, commands, and attention sounds. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 20 variables measured revealed 3 factors, labeled as Owner Warmth, Owner Social Support, and Owner Control, which can be viewed as analogues to parenting style dimensions. The experimental procedure introduced here represents the first standardized measure of interaction styles of dog owners. The methodology presented here is a useful tool to investigate individual variation in the interaction style of pet dog owners that can be used to explain differences in the dog-human relationship, dogs' behavioral outcomes, and dogs stress coping strategies, all crucial elements both from a theoretical and applied point of view.
It has been suggested that the way in which owners interact with their dogs can largely vary and influence the dog-owner bond, but very few objective studies, so far, have addressed how the owner interacts with the dog. The goal of the present study was to record dog owners' interaction styles by means of objective observation and coding. The experiment included eight standardized situations in which owners of pet dogs were asked to perform specific tasks including both positive (i.e. playing, teaching a new task, showing a preference towards an object in a food searching task, greeting after separation) and potentially distressing tasks (i.e. physical restriction during DNA sampling, putting a T-shirt onto the dog, giving basic obedience commands while the dog was distracted). The video recordings were coded off-line using a specifically designed coding scheme including scores for communication, social support, warmth, enthusiasm, and play style, as well as frequency of behaviors like petting, praising, commands, and attention sounds. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 20 variables measured revealed 3 factors, labeled as Owner Warmth, Owner Social Support, and Owner Control, which can be viewed as analogues to parenting style dimensions. The experimental procedure introduced here represents the first standardized measure of interaction styles of dog owners. The methodology presented here is a useful tool to investigate individual variation in the interaction style of pet dog owners that can be used to explain differences in the dog-human relationship, dogs' behavioral outcomes, and dogs stress coping strategies, all crucial elements both from a theoretical and applied point of view.
It has been suggested that the way in which owners interact with their dogs can largely vary and influence the dog-owner bond, but very few objective studies, so far, have addressed how the owner interacts with the dog. The goal of the present study was to record dog owners' interaction styles by means of objective observation and coding. The experiment included eight standardized situations in which owners of pet dogs were asked to perform specific tasks including both positive (i.e. playing, teaching a new task, showing a preference towards an object in a food searching task, greeting after separation) and potentially distressing tasks (i.e. physical restriction during DNA sampling, putting a T-shirt onto the dog, giving basic obedience commands while the dog was distracted). The video recordings were coded off-line using a specifically designed coding scheme including scores for communication, social support, warmth, enthusiasm, and play style, as well as frequency of behaviors like petting, praising, commands, and attention sounds. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 20 variables measured revealed 3 factors, labeled as Owner Warmth, Owner Social Support, and Owner Control, which can be viewed as analogues to parenting style dimensions. The experimental procedure introduced here represents the first standardized measure of interaction styles of dog owners. The methodology presented here is a useful tool to investigate individual variation in the interaction style of pet dog owners that can be used to explain differences in the dog-human relationship, dogs' behavioral outcomes, and dogs stress coping strategies, all crucial elements both from a theoretical and applied point of view.