Hao-Yu Shih
Mandy B. A. Paterson
Nancy A. Pachana
Clive J. C. Phillips- 1School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
- 2Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- 3School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
- 4Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Bentley, WA, Australia
Different people relate to dogs in different ways. We investigated differences between volunteers in their behavioural interactions with shelter dogs when they were walked on a leash. Cameras were used to record and quantify the behaviour of volunteers and a leash tension metre was used to measure pulling by both volunteers and shelter dogs. Effects of volunteers' age, body height, educational level, marital status, and experiences of living and working with dogs, and living with children, were examined. Older volunteers talked to the dogs more often during the walk than younger ones. Taller volunteers had reduced physical contact with dogs, and dogs pulled more frequently on the leash while walking with them. Volunteers with a postgraduate degree more frequently praised dogs and rewarded dogs with food and used more body language in the form of hand gestures and physical contact. Married and partnered volunteers more often praised dogs, while separated/divorced or widowed volunteers initiated more frequent physical contacts. Dogs pulled less when walking with volunteers who had experience of living with dogs, and these volunteers interacted with dogs using fewer verbal and body languages. Finally, those living with children more frequently communicated with dogs using body language (e.g., hand gestures and physical contact). We conclude that shelters should carefully consider volunteers' demographics when selecting them to walk dogs with various behavioural characteristics.
Introduction
Dogs (Canis familiaris) have become an important part of modern society. It is estimated that 38% of U.S. (1) and 40% of Australian (2) households own dogs. Studies investigating human-dog interactions involve interspecific communicative skills (3), training techniques (4), stress modulation (5) and benefits of shared activities, such as dog walking (6). Canine factors identified to affect the human-dog relationship include morphological traits (7), age (8), breed (9, 10), and behaviour (9). For humans, influencing factors include training techniques used (11), personality (12) and other demographic factors [e.g., gender (13) and socioeconomic status (14)].
Different types of people interact differently with dogs (12, 15, 16). More educated people better identify the signs of stress in dogs (17); use more reward-based training techniques (16) and develop closer relationships with their dogs (18). However, there are some contrary results from other studies: that less veterinary care is given to dogs owned by more highly educated people (19), that less educated owners have a stronger human-dog attachment (20). Older owners have been reported to be less attached to their dogs (21) and provide their dogs with less social support in stressful situations (15). Young adults are more likely to play with their dogs, but they are also more likely to jerk on the leash to correct their dogs (22). Owners who are single give more attentive care to their dogs, and owners without children in their family develop a stronger attachment with their dogs than those with children (19). Hence, family size is positively correlated with behavioural issues in dogs, such as disobedience and aggression, potentially due to a lack of time for the dog's training, inconsistent training, or tolerance of undesirable behaviours (23). Dogs are less likely to develop behavioural issues if their owners have previous dog-ownership experiences and spend more time with their dogs (24). Finally, Wells and Hepper (25) reported that dogs were more stressed while interacting with men, probably because men are on average taller than women, making dogs perceive men to be more intimidating. However, inconclusive results were found that dogs of male owners had lower cortisol reactivity compared to dogs of female owners (26).
Most research exploring the relationship between human demographics and human-dog interactions was investigated in owners and pet dogs. Research about human-dog interaction in animal shelter settings is limited, despite potential for positive interactions, such as petting (27), training (28), and on-leash walking (29), to benefit the shelter dog's welfare (5). Compulsory leash use policies have been implemented around the world when walking dogs outdoors in order to protect wildlife (30), decrease disease transmission (31), and reduce dog biting (32) and traffic injuries (33). However, leash pulling is one of the most common issues reported in shelter dogs within 1 month post-adoption (34). It can be detrimental to the health of the dog (35) and is related to handlers' musculoskeletal injuries (36). Also, it is equally important that how handlers hold the leash because owners jerking on the leash can cause severe health concerns to the dogs (37). Therefore, a good human-dog interaction on the leash involves reduced canine stress related behaviours, decreased pulling on the leash by both dogs and humans and improved human satisfaction.
In this study, we researched human-dog interactions in an animal shelter focusing on the influence of human demographics and the human-dog dyad when volunteers walked dogs on a leash. In addition to using video recording, a canine leash tension metre was used to measure the tension on the leash, using a three-axis accelerometer to differentiate the directional forces (38, 39).
It was hypothesised that, as in the household environment, highly educated volunteers would be more likely to praise and offer food rewards when interacting with shelter dogs (16), but would be less likely to be satisfied with the interaction because they are potentially less anthropomorphic (40). We also hypothesised that volunteers with experience of living with dogs would communicate with dogs more effectively by pulling on the leash less and using fewer verbal and physical cues (24).
Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics and Animal Ethics Committees (Approval numbers: 2018001570 and SVS/400/18, respectively) of the University of Queensland.
Study Site
The research was conducted at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Queensland (RSPCA, QLD) shelter. The shelter environment, housing schedule and study site have been fully described previously (41).
Subjects
Dogs
This study involved 111 shelter dogs and 74 volunteers, with each volunteer walking 5 different dogs on a leash, yielding 370 walks. Dogs were classified into four levels by RSPCA staff based on their behaviour on the leash. Level 1 dogs walked on a loose leash most of the time. Level 2 dogs pulled on the leash during the walk occasionally and had more undesirable behaviours. Level 3 dogs tended to pull on the leash fiercely due to excitement or timidity. Level 3+ dogs did not necessarily pull on the leash any harder, but they had severe behavioural issues, such as overt excitement or fearfulness (41). In addition, all participating dogs had undergone an RSPCA behavioural assessment (42).
Volunteers
Volunteers had gone through a series of standardised training programs in four stages allowing them initially to walk level 1 dogs. With each learning stage they learnt how to walk the more challenging dogs (level 3 and 3+ dogs). Dogs were assigned to volunteers by RSPCA staff for a daily walk based on the volunteer's training level, and volunteers could only walk dogs that had the same or lower behavioural level than their training level.
Canine Leash Tension Metre
The custom designed canine leash tension metre (sampling rate: 10 Hz; measuring range: 0–100 kg-force; resolution: 100 g-force) [RobacScience Australia (39)] measured the force exerted on the leash and detected the direction of the pull (handler vs. dog). One end of the device could be held by the handler and the opposite end was connected to a l.4-metre-long commercial dog leash (Rogz Snake Lead), which was attached to both the collar and the harness at the front of the dog's chest [for further details see (39)]. This article focuses on human demographics. Results of other human and dog factors, including volunteers' personality and gender, the sex, size and behavioural assessment results of the dogs, have been reported (39, 41, 43, 44).
Study Design
Volunteers completed a consent form for the research, a demographic questionnaire (Table A1) and a NEO Five-Factor Inventory personality test (45). Dogs were matched to volunteers of the right training level by RSPCA staff, and each volunteer was instructed to walk 5 different dogs in the designed area using the canine leash tension metre. All walks were video recorded using a GoPro headset (GoPro Hero 7 Silver, GoPro®, San Mateo, CA, USA) mounted on the volunteer's head and an i-Phone 7 (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) held by the experimenter following 10 m behind. All walks started from the kennel, progressed along the designated pathway and ended with returning to the kennel. Only the interactions when dogs were on the designated pathway were recorded. The ground of the designated pathway had several sections with different coverings. The first 40% was covered with gravel, followed by 20% of concrete, then 5% on wooden boards and finally the last 35% was covered with earth. Equipment and infrastructure provided for added stimulation and play including two bridges, two dog jumps, some tennis balls and some hanging plastic milk bottles.
At the end of each walk, volunteers completed an exit questionnaire (Table 1) containing 13 Likert-scale questions about their perspectives of the walk. The 13 questions were classified into human satisfaction factor (factor H) and walkers' perception of dog factor (factor D). A higher score for factor H indicated that the handler was more satisfied with the interaction; a higher score for factor D indicated that the handler considered the dog better behaved, more supportive and being helped by the handler (Hao-Yu 39). Please refer to Shih et al. (41) for more details about the study design and survey instruments.
Table 1. Exit questionnaire for volunteers (n = 74) following walking dogs (n = 111) on a designated route at RSPCA Queensland, requiring them to rate each question on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (41).
Data Analysis
Video Recordings of Dog and Human Behaviour
Videos were coded in their entirety with Boris© behaviour observation software (46) using a continuous recording method. Canine behaviours (Table 2), human verbal cues (Table 3) and human body language (Table 4) were coded using ethograms developed based on previous research (12, 15, 27, 47–49) and modified during practise sessions. These tables are reproduced from Shih et al. (41) to aid understanding of this paper. To blind the coder, video coding was completed prior to any analysis of demographics. Twenty percent of the videos were double-coded to check intra-rater reliability (average Cohen's Kappa = 0.89). More information related to video analysis was described in Shih et al. (41).
Table 2. Ethogram for canine behaviour.
Table 3. Ethogram for human verbal cues.
Table 4. Ethogram of human body language.
Leash Tension and Pulling Frequency
Leash tension and pulling directions were calculated using MATLAB® (MATLAB® and Statistics Toolbox Release 2018b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). A “pull event” was defined as a sharp peak of tension, which corresponded to a sudden burst of pulling initiated by either the dog, the handler or both at the same time. Events started when the tension exceeded a threshold (0.1% of the body weight force) and ended when either the tension returned to below the threshold or the direction of the pulling changed (39).
Net maximal tension (NTmax), maximal tension by dog (DTmax) and handler (HTmax) were defined as the maximal tension throughout the walk, caused by the dog and handler, respectively. Net mean tension (NTmean), mean tension by dog (DTmean) and handler (HTmean) were defined as the mean tension throughout the walk, caused by the dog and handler, respectively. Dog pulling frequency (DPF) and handler pulling frequency (HPF) were calculated by dividing the number of pulling events recorded for the dog and the handler, respectively, by the total walking time (39).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using RStudio Version 1.2.1335 (50) with packages leaps (51), MASS (52), car (53), carData (54), Matrix (55), polycor (56), plyr (57), psych (58), ggpubr (59), and nlme (60). The same statistical analysis methods as described in a previous paper (41) were followed in this study. Bivariate generalised linear models were used to analyse each combination of outcome (leash tension, behaviour and exit questionnaire score) and predictor (human and dog demographics, human personality, canine behavioural assessment) variables, followed by generalised linear mixed models for multivariable analyses and repetitions of dogs and volunteers. Predictors with p-values lower than 0.2 (61, 62) in bivariate generalised linear models and those (e.g., human personality and canine behavioural assessment results) logically expected to affect the outcome variable, regardless of the p-value, were included in the generalised linear mixed model. Outcome variables were transformed for statistical analysis to meet the assumptions of generalised linear mixed models, including the normality of residual and random effects, homogeneity of variance of residuals and the assumption of no collinearity between covariates was confirmed from variance inflation factors (VIF, ensuring that VIF <2) (41, 63).
This article is a part of a larger research project investigating the behavioural interaction between shelter dogs and volunteers during on-leash walks. This paper focuses on correlations between human demographics and behavioural interactions. The effect of human gender (41) and personality (44) have been reported in previous articles. The effects of canine factors (39, 41) and canine behavioural assessment results (43) have also been reported.
Results
Demographics
This study involved 111 shelter dogs including 58 (52.3%) females and 53 (47.7%) males, all gonadectomized (41). Participants were 47 (63.5%) women, 26 (35.1%) men and 1 (1.4%) person self-nominating as a third gender (41), with an average age of 28.26 (± 14.6) years. Volunteers' average body height was 170.7 (±8.8) cm. Volunteers' educational levels were as follows: 2 (2.7%) primary school, 38 (51.4%) secondary school, 16 (21.6%) training college, 12 (16.2%) bachelor and 6 (8.1%) postgraduate. There were 49 (66.2%) participants who were single, 21 (28.4%) married/partnered and 4 (5.4%) separated/divorced or widowed. There were 21 (28.4%) level 2 volunteers, 15 (20.3%) level 3 volunteers and 38 (51.4%) level 3+ volunteers. Twenty-five (33.8%) participants volunteered more than once a week, 48 (64.9%) volunteered once a week and 1 (1.4%) volunteered fortnightly. Twelve participants (16.2%) had volunteering experience at the RSPCA that was longer than 2 years, 19 (25.7%) had 1–2 years, 23 (31.1%) had 6–12 months, 19 (25.7) had 1–6 months and 1 (1.4%) had less than a month. Fifty (67.6%) volunteers had, and 24 (32.4%) did not have, dogs of their own at the time of the research. Seventy (94.6%) volunteers had lived with dogs previously, while 4 (5.4%) had not. Fifty-nine (79.7%) volunteers grew up with dogs in the household while 15 (20.3%) did not. Seventeen (23%) volunteers had a child/children living in the household while 57 (77%) did not. Twenty (27%) volunteers worked in an area that dealt with dogs regularly while 54 (73%) did not.
Human Demographics and Leash Tension
Volunteers' height was positively correlated with pulling frequency created by the dog (p < 0.001). Compared to level 3+ volunteers, level 2 volunteers had lower net mean tension (p = 0.035). When walking with volunteers who had lived with dogs before, dogs created lower pulling frequency (p = 0.0023). Lower net maximal tension (p = 0.0025) and maximal tension by dogs (p = 0.0023) were observed when volunteers reported growing up with dogs (Table 5).
Table 5. Generalised linear mixed model of the effects of human demographics on the leash tension and pulling frequency during the walk.
Human Demographics and Human Behaviour
Volunteers' age was positively correlated with frequency of total verbal cues (p < 0.001), communication (p = 0.033), praise (p = 0.043), and command (p < 0.001). Volunteers' height was positively related to frequencies of high-pitched voice (p = 0.02) and command (p = 0.023) but negatively associated with the frequency of communication (p < 0.001). Compared to secondary school, volunteers holding a postgraduate degree used a higher frequency of total verbal cue (p = 0.042); volunteers with bachelor (p = 0.0022), training college (p = 0.0083) and primary school (p = 0.032) as their highest educational levels used a lower frequency of total verbal cue. Specifically, holding a postgraduate degree was positively associated with the frequency of praise (p = 0.0022); a bachelor's degree was negatively associated with frequencies of communication (p = 0.016) and command (p = 0.0012); training college was negatively associated with the frequency of command (p < 0.001); primary school was negatively associated with the frequency of praise (p < 0.001). Compared to volunteers who were single, married/partnered volunteers used higher frequencies of total verbal cue (p = 0.014) and praise (p = 0.0034).
Compared to level 3+ volunteers, level 3 volunteers used higher frequencies of total verbal cue (p < 0.001), communication (p = 0.033), praise (p < 0.001), high-pitched voice (p = 0.0013) and command (p < 0.001). Level 2 volunteers used a higher frequency of command (p = 0.011). Compared to volunteers who came more frequently than once a week, those who came once a week used a lower frequency of attention seeking commands (p = 0.023), but a higher frequency of praise (p = 0.043).
Volunteers who were living with dogs at the time of conduction of the experiment and those who grew up with dogs used lower frequencies of high-pitched voice (p = 0.015) and total verbal cues (p = 0.017), respectively. Volunteers working with dogs used higher frequencies of attention seeking (p = 0.035), total verbal cues (p < 0.001), praise (p = 0.0074) and verbs (p < 0.001) (Table 6).
Table 6. Generalised linear mixed model of the effects of human demographics on human verbal cues during the walk.
With respect to human body language, volunteers' height was negatively associated with the frequency of physical contact with the dog (p = 0.0032). Compared to secondary school, volunteers with a postgraduate degree used higher frequencies of total body language (p < 0.001), food rewards (p = 0.0014), hand gestures (p = 0.0051) and physical contact (p < 0.001). Separated/divorced volunteers used higher frequencies of total body language (p = 0.045) and physical contact (p = 0.01) than single volunteers. Compared to level 3+ volunteers, level 3 volunteers initiated a higher frequency of physical contact (p = 0.037). Volunteers growing up with dogs used a lower frequency of total body language (p < 0.001), hand gestures (p < 0.001) and physical contact (p = 0.011). However, those having a child/children in the household used higher frequencies of total body language (p = 0.016), hand gestures (p = 0.033), and physical contact (p = 0.011) (Table 7).
Table 7. Generalised linear mixed model of the effects of human demographics on human body languages during the walk.
Human Demographics and Canine Behaviour
Volunteers' age was positively associated with the percentage of time the dog spent tracking (p = 0.0011) and sniffing (p = 0.021). Compared to when walking with volunteers with only secondary school education, dogs displayed a higher frequency of lip-licking (p = 0.037) when walking with volunteers with training college education, but a lower percentage of time panting (p <0.001) when walking with those holding a bachelor's degree as their highest educational level. A higher percentage of time spent panting was observed with dogs when walking with married/partnered volunteers than single volunteers (p = 0.0035). A higher percentage of time spent tail wagging was observed when walking with level 3 volunteers than level 3+ volunteers (p = 0.023). Compared to when walking with those volunteering more than once a week, when walking with volunteers volunteering once a week, dogs spent a lower percentage of time sniffing (p = 0.01). A higher frequency of shaking (p = 0.014) was observed when partnered with volunteers having 1–2 years of experience compared with those with 6–12 months of experience (Table 8).
Table 8. Generalised linear mixed model of the effects of human demographics on canine behaviours during the walk.
Human Demographics and Walking Experience
Volunteers' age was positively correlated with the score of factor H (p = 0.017), indicating a more positive reaction to the walk. Volunteers holding a postgraduate (p = 0.021) or bachelor's (p = 0.012) degree scored lower on factor H than those with secondary school as the highest educational level. Compared to level 3+ volunteers, level 2 (p = 0.0066) and 3 (p = 0.012) volunteers scored lower on factor H. Volunteers with 1–2 years of experience scored lower on factor H (p = 0.0075) compared to those with 6–12 months of volunteering experience (Table 9).
Table 9. Generalised linear mixed model of the effects of human demographics, human behaviour, maximal tension by dog (DTmax), and mean tension by dog (DTmean) on volunteers' walking experience (factor H and factor D).
Discussion
Age
Cimarelli et al. have shown that older owners provide less social support to their dogs in stressful situations (15). However, in our study, older volunteers were found to talk to dogs (communicating, praising, and using commands) more often during the walk than younger volunteers. This may reflect the dog's orientation to baby-like talk which is more prominent in older volunteers (64, 65). Also, volunteers who were older enjoyed the interaction more, which supports a positive relationship between job satisfaction and workers' age (66). A possible explanation may be that older volunteers may have more experience of both volunteering and life in general, and thus may be better prepared to cope with challenges (67). They may also just be happy to enjoy life and accept opportunities to do so.
Height
When walking with taller volunteers, dogs tended to pull on the leash more frequently. This was coupled with the negative relationships between height and communication time and the frequency of physical contacts, and more frequent use of high-pitched voices (getting attention) and commanding. The reduced physical contact may result from the greater physical distance between taller individuals and dogs. Also, taller individuals may be used to being seen as dominant and so may tend to command but not communicate (68). Dogs are more stressed and defensive when facing men than women possibly due to their greater height that is perceived as intimidating (25). However, our results did not find any correlation between canine stress-related signs (e.g., panting, lip-licking and tail in lower positions) and volunteers' height. Therefore, there might be characteristics other than height (e.g., humans' empathy, behaviour and dogs' previous experiences of interacting with humans) that cause shelter dogs displaying more stress related signals towards men.
Educational Level
Volunteers with a postgraduate degree were more likely to praise dogs, give food treats, and tended to use more body language, including hand gestures and physical contact. Highly educated volunteers may have been more aware of different communication approaches, both verbal and non-verbal (69). Also, highly educated individuals are better at correctly identifying dogs' stress (17) and more likely to adopt reward based training (16). Perhaps they were just more prepared for walking dogs because they tend to read more and are more equipped with relevant knowledge.
People with higher educational levels have previously been reported as being close to their dogs (18). However, in our study, volunteers with a bachelor's or a postgraduate degree were less satisfied with the interaction and felt less supported, either emotionally or physically, by the dogs, which might result from the different nature of the human-dog relationship in our study. Differentiating it from previous studies investigating the relationship between owners and their own dogs (12, 26), our research focused on the interaction between shelter dogs and volunteers which is a relatively short-term relationship with weaker human-dog bonds. Another possible explanation may be that volunteers with lower educational levels were more likely to engage in higher levels of anthropomorphism which might facilitate their bonds with shelter dogs (40, 70).
Relationship Status
Married and partnered volunteers tended to verbally praise dogs, while separated/divorced or widowed volunteers initiated more physical contacts with dogs. Like single mothers, separated/divorced or widowed volunteers may be more in need of emotional contact, which they seek to obtain from the dogs (similar to the role of children) through physical contact, compared with married/partnered individuals (71). Frequent physical contact then attenuates the stress levels of dogs, hence less panting in dogs walked by single, separated/divorced or widowed volunteers.
Training Level
There was no correlation between leash tension/pulling frequency and volunteers' training level, except that net mean tension was lower in level 2 volunteers, probably because level 2 volunteers only walked well-behaved dogs (level 1 and 2 dogs). This confirms that leash tension created by dogs is largely determined by the dogs themselves (39). Similarly, no difference was observed between different volunteers' levels with respect to the tension and pulling frequency by handlers, probably because dogs were matched with volunteers. If dogs were paired with volunteers randomly, it would have been easier to detect any differences, but this was perceived to be unethical in our study.
Compared to level 3+ volunteers, level 3 (but not level 2) volunteers were more likely to talk to dogs, including communication, praise, using a high-pitched voice and commands, but less likely to initiate physical contact with dogs. Probably the level 3 volunteers had more opportunities than level 3+ volunteers to interact with well-behaved dogs, making them more likely to use positive verbal expressions. In addition, compared to level 2 volunteers, level 3 volunteers were more aware of reward-based interactions, while avoiding unnecessary physical contact that might intimidate or frighten the dogs. Level 3 volunteers might also be less experienced in handling different dogs, potentially making dogs more stressed, as evidenced by them wagging their tails less but panting more. This is supported by the fact that level 2 and 3 volunteers were generally less satisfied with the interaction than level 3+ volunteers and perceived the walks as more challenging. However, this should be interpreted with caution because volunteers from all levels did not score differently in terms of their feelings about the dogs' behaviours.
Volunteering Frequency and Time
Compared to participants volunteering more than once a week, those volunteering only once every week verbally attracted the attention of dogs less often, probably because they had a weaker bond with the dogs. Compared with participants with 6–12 months of volunteering experience, those with 1–2 years of experience walked dogs that shook their bodies less, a sign of stress (72, 73). This is perhaps because those with longer volunteering experience had a better knowledge of correctly interacting with dogs. However, this finding should be interpreted with care as no difference was found in volunteers attending the shelter for more than 2 years, though it is possible that many of them did not make many improvements after gaining a certain level of experiences (74).
Compared to volunteers with 6–12 months of volunteering experience, those who had been volunteering at the RSPCA for 1–2 years were less satisfied with the interaction. There is little comparable evidence for volunteers in shelters, but nurses have a turnover rate of around 50% in the first year of employment due to the individual's inexperience and inability to deal with complicated situations (75). The turnover rate of animal shelter volunteers has not been clearly identified. However, from our data, the number of volunteers seemed to decline after 12 months of volunteering, since 31% of our volunteers had 6–12 months of volunteering experience and only 16.2 % had more than 2 years. Volunteers perhaps become less satisfied with their work and stop volunteering after 1–2 years. Euthanasia of animals (76), availability of professional development and the opportunity of developing role identity (74) have all been reported to affect volunteers' commitment. Future studies are warranted to investigate the turnover rate and working latency of volunteers working in animal shelters.
Experiences of Living and Working With Dogs and Living With Children
If volunteers grew up with dogs, the dogs pulled less and the volunteers interacted with dogs using fewer words and less body language. This suggests a more benign relationship. Similarly, volunteers currently living with dogs were less likely to talk to shelter dogs using a high-pitched voice and the dogs pulled less. People may be less excited meeting new dogs if they have experience of dog ownership and may be more experienced in controlling dogs when they are on the leash (24, 73). However, volunteers who worked with dogs regularly were more talkative when walking shelter dogs. A possible explanation may be that these people were more dog oriented, being more extraverted, socially bold and talkative (77, 78). Finally, volunteers with a child or children at home were more likely to interact with dogs using body language, including hand gestures and physical contact, potentially because these volunteers were more sensitive to the needs of dogs, as if they were their children (73, 79). Also, they might be more aware of effective ways of communicating with dogs (similar to children with impaired verbal communication) and adapt their behaviours accordingly by using more physically directiveness (80).
Application and Future Study
This study has identified some correlations between human demographics and their behavioural interactions with shelter dogs. Results may be used to improve the welfare of shelter dogs by matching them with suitable volunteers. For instance, dogs that tend to pull on the leash could be recommended to be walked by shorter volunteers who had/have owned dogs. Dogs that feel stressed and sensitive to physical contacts by humans may be walked by married/partnered volunteers who are taller and currently not living with kids, while dogs that enjoy interacting with humans may be suitable to partner with older volunteers. This is an exploratory study and by combining results of this and our previous papers (39, 41, 43, 44) and more future evidence identifying the characteristics of volunteers suitable for walking shelter dogs, shelters may be able to develop an improved human-dog combination that can benefit the animal welfare. Also, the results may help develop training program for all volunteers who wish to walk shelter dogs. For volunteers, this study has found that people who are younger, with a higher educational level and have volunteered for 1–2 years seem to be less satisfied with their interaction with dogs. Future study may investigate underlying reasons that influence people's experiences of volunteering in an animal shelter and shelters may modify their procedures to retain more volunteers.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of this study was that dogs were not randomly matched with participants. Dogs were assigned to participants based on their behaviours and participants' experience, due to safety and animal welfare concerns. In addition, the results were obtained from a single shelter in Queensland, Australia. Given the potential effects of people's cultural backgrounds on their interaction with dogs (81), more studies are needed in the future for broader generalisation.
Conclusions
We found correlations between volunteers' demographics and the behavioural interactions. Human demographics included age, body height, educational level, marital status, training level, volunteering frequency and time and experiences of living and working with dogs and living with children. Our study might contribute to better working experience and animal welfare in a shelter by improving the matching of volunteers and shelter dogs. Pairing potential owners and dogs for more satisfying partnerships is another potential, though it was not the prime objective of this experiment and would need further research.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Human Research Ethics Committees (Approval numbers: 2018001570) of The University of Queensland. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin. The animal study was reviewed and approved by Animal Ethics Committees (Approval numbers: SVS/400/18, respectively) of The University of Queensland.
Author Contributions
H-YS, CP, MP, and NP: conceptualisation, methodology, and writing—review and editing. H-YS: software, investigation, and writing—original draft preparation. H-YS and CP: validation, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, and funding acquisition. MP and CP: resources. CP, MP, and NP: supervision. H-YS, CP, and MP: project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research was funded by the Higher Degree Research Fund of University of Queensland and the RSPCA Fund donated by philanthropists.
Conflict of Interest
MP is employed as the principal scientist by RSPCA, QLD.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank RSPCA, QLD for allowing us to conduct this research at the shelter. We also appreciate assistances of all shelter dogs, volunteers and RSPCA involved in this study. Finally, we acknowledge Mr. Fillipe Georgiou for the technical support of the leash tension metre and Dr. Solomon Woldeyohannes for the statistical advice.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.699332/full#supplementary-material
References
1. American Veterinary Medical Association. U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics. (2018). Available online at: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics (accessed January 22, 2021).
2. RSPCA Australia. How Many Pets Are There in Australia? (2020). Available online at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/how-many-pets-are-there-in-australia/#:~:text=There%20are%20over%2029%20million(27%25)%20%5B1%5D. (accessed March 18, 2021).
3. Hare B, Tomasello M. Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn. Sci. (2005) 9:439–44. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.003
4. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw J. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim Welf. (2004) 13:63–9.
5. Bergamasco L, Osella MC, Savarino P, Larosa G, Ozella L, Manassero M, et al. Heart rate variability and saliva cortisol assessment in shelter dog: human–animal interaction effects. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2010) 125:56–68. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.03.002
6. Motooka M, Koike H, Yokoyama T, Kennedy NL. Effect of dog-walking on autonomic nervous activity in senior citizens. Med J Aust. (2006) 184:60–3. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00116.x
7. Teng KT, McGreevy PD, Toribio J-ALML, Dhand NK. Trends in popularity of some morphological traits of purebred dogs in Australia. Canine Genet Epidemiol. (2016) 3:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40575-016-0032-2
8. Shih HY, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC. A Retrospective analysis of complaints to RSPCA Queensland, Australia, about dog welfare. Animals. (2019) 9:282. doi: 10.3390/ani9050282
9. Salman MD, Hutchison J, Ruch-Gallie R. Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2000) 3:93–106. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0302_2
10. Shih HY, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC. Breed group effects on complaints about canine welfare made to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland, Australia. Animals. (2019) 9:390. doi: 10.3390/ani9070390
11. Kwan JY, Bain MJ. Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2013) 16:168–83. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2013.768923
12. Kis A, Turcsan B, Miklosi A, Gacsi MR. The effect of the owner's personality on the behaviour of owner-dog dyads. Interac Stud. (2012) 13:373–85. doi: 10.1075/is.13.3.03kis
13. Herzog HA. Gender differences in human–animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoos. (2007) 20:7–21. doi: 10.2752/089279307780216687
14. Shih HY, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC. Socioeconomic influences on reports of canine welfare concerns to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Queensland, Australia. Animals. (2019) 9:711. doi: 10.3390/ani9100711
15. Cimarelli G, Turcsán B, Bánlaki Z, Range F, Virányi Z. Dog Owners' Interaction styles: their components and associations with reactions of pet dogs to a social threat. Front Psychol. (2016) 7:1979. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01979
16. Todd Z. Barriers to the adoption of humane dog training methods. J Vet Behav. (2018) 25:28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.004
17. Mariti C, Gazzano A, Moore JL, Baragli P, Chelli L, Sighieri C. Perception of dogs' stress by their owners. J Vet Behav. (2012) 7:213–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.09.004
18. Calvo P, Bowen J, Bulbena A, Tobeña A, Fatjo J. Highly educated men establish strong emotional links with their dogs: a study with Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS) in committed Spanish dog owners. PloS ONE. (2016) 11:e0168748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168748
19. Marinelli L, Adamelli S, Normando S, Bono G. Quality of life of the pet dog: influence of owner and dog's characteristics. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 108:143–56. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018
20. Johnson TP, Garrity TF, Stallones L. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Laps). Anthrozoös. (1992) 5:160–75. doi: 10.2752/089279392787011395
21. Netting FE, Wilson CC, Goodie JL, Stephens MB, Byers CG. Attachment, social support, and perceived mental health of adult dog walkers: what does age have to do with it? J. Sociol Soc Welf. (2013) 40:261–83.
22. Volsche S, Johnson E, Reyes B, Rumsey C, Murai K, Landeros D. Owner sex and human–canine interactions at the park. Anthrozoös. (2020) 33:775–85. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1824659
23. Bennett PC, Rohlf VI. Owner-companion dog interactions: relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 102:65–84. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.009
24. Kobelt AJ, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ. A survey of dog ownership in suburban Australia—conditions and behaviour problems. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2003) 82:137–48. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00062-5
25. Wells DL, Hepper PG. Male and female dogs respond differently to men and women. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1999) 61:341–9. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00202-0
26. Schoberl I, Wedl M, Bauer B, Day J, Mostl E, Kotrschal K. Effects of owner–dog relationship and owner personality on cortisol modulation in human–dog dyads. Anthrozoos. (2012) 25:199–214. doi: 10.2752/175303712X13316289505422
27. McGowan RTS, Bolte C, Barnett HR, Perez-Camargo G, Martin FO. Can you spare 15 min? The measurable positive impact of a 15-min petting session on shelter dog well-being. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 203:42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.02.011
28. Luescher AU, Medlock RT. The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 117:63–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.001
29. Menor-Campos DJ, Molleda-Carbonell JM, Lopez-Rodriguez R. Effects of exercise and human contact on animal welfare in a dog shelter. Vet Rec. (2011) 169:388. doi: 10.1136/vr.d4757
30. Bowes M, Keller P, Rollins R, Gifford R. The effect of ambivalence on onleash dog walking compliance behavior in parks and protected areas. J Park Recreat Admin. (2017) 35:81–93. doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I3-7440
31. Day MJ, Breitschwerdt E, Cleaveland S, Karkare U, Khanna C, Kirpensteijn J, et al. Surveillance of zoonotic infectious disease transmitted by small companion animals. Emerg Infect Dis. (2012) 18:e1. doi: 10.3201/eid1812.120664
32. Thompson PG. The public health impact of dog attacks in a majorAustralian city. Med J Aust. (1997) 167:129–32. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb138810.x
33. Klainbart S, Bibring U, Strich D, Chai O, Bdolah-Abram T, Aroch I, et al. Retrospective evaluation of 140 dogs involved in road traffic accidents. Vet Rec. (2018) 182:196. doi: 10.1136/vr.104293
34. Marston LC, Bennett PC, Coleman GJ. Adopting shelter dogs: owner experiences of the first month post-adoption. Anthrozoos. (2005) 18:358–78. doi: 10.2752/089279305785593965
35. Pauli AM, Bentley E, Diehl KA, Miller PE. Effects of the application of neck pressure by a collar or harness on intraocular pressure in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. (2006) 42:207–11. doi: 10.5326/0420207
36. Willmott H, Greenheld N, Goddard R. Beware of the dog? An observational study of dog-related musculoskeletal injury in the UK. Accid Anal Prev. (2012) 46:52–4. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.004
37. Grohmann K, Dickomeit MJ, Schmidt MJ, Kramer M. Severe brain damage after punitive training technique with a choke chain collar in a German shepherd dog. J Vet Behav. (2013) 8:180–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.01.002
38. Dewhirst OP, Roskilly K, Hubel TY, Jordan NR, Golabek KA, McNutt JW, et al. An exploratory clustering approach for extracting stride parameters from tracking collars on free-ranging wild animals. J Exp Biol. (2017) 220:341–6. doi: 10.1242/jeb.146035
39. Shih H-Y, Georgiou F, Curtis RA, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC. Behavioural evaluation of a leash tension meter which measures pull direction and force during human-dog on-leash walks. Animals. (2020) 10:1382. doi: 10.3390/ani10081382
40. Tam K-P. Anthropomorphism of nature and efficacy in coping with the environmental crisis. Soc Cogn. (2014) 32:276–96. doi: 10.1521/soco.2014.32.3.276
41. Shih H-Y, Paterson MBA, Georgiou F, Pachana NA, Phillips CJC. Who is pulling the leash? Effects of human gender and dog sex on human–dog dyads when walking on-leash. Animals. (2020) 10:1894. doi: 10.10.3390/ani10101894
42. Clay L, Paterson M, Bennett P, Perry G, Phillips C. Early recognition of behaviour problems in shelter dogs by monitoring them in their kennels after admission to a shelter. Animals. (2019) 9:875. doi: 10.3390/ani9110875
43. Shih H-Y, Paterson MBA, Georgiou F, Phillips CJC. Do canine behavioural assessments and characteristics predict the human-dog interaction when walking on a leash in a shelter setting? Animals. (2020) 11:26. doi: 10.3390/ani11010026
44. Shih HY, Paterson MBA, Georgiou F, Mitchell L, Pachana NA, et al. Two ends of the leash: Relations between personality of shelter volunteers and on-leash walking behaviour with shelter dogs. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:619715. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619715
45. McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. J Individ Differ. (2007) 28:116–28. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116
46. Friard O, Gamba M. BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-loggingsoftware for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol Evol. (2016) 7:1325–30. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12584
47. Grainger J, Wills AP, Montrose VT. The behavioral effects of walking on a collar and harness in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). J Vet Behav. (2016) 14:60–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.06.002
48. Palestrini C, Minero M, Cannas S, Rossi E, Frank D. Video analysis of dogs with separation-related behaviors. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2010) 124:61–7. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.014
49. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hooff JARAM, de Vries HW, Mol JA. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1998) 58:365–81. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7
50. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2019).
51. Miller TLA. leaps: Regression Subset Selection. (2020). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leaps/leaps.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
52. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics With S. 4th ed. New York, NY: Springer (2002).
54. Fox J, Weisberg S, Price B. carData: Companion to Applied Regression Data Sets. (2020). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/carData/carData.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
55. Bates D, Maechler M. Matrix: Sparse and Dense Matrix Classes and Methods. (2019). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Matrix/Matrix.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
56. Fox J. polycor: Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations. (2019). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/polycor/polycor.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
57. Wickham H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw. (2011) 40:1–29. doi: 10.18637/jss.v040.i01
58. Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University (2020). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/psych.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
59. Kassambara A. ggpubr: 'ggplot2' Based Publication Ready Plots. (2020). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggpubr/ggpubr.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
60. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. (2020). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/nlme.pdf (accessed October 20, 2020).
61. Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. (2008) 3:17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17
62. Cecatto SB, Monteiro-Soares M, Henriques T, Monteiro E, Moura CIFP. Derivation of a clinical decision rule for predictive factors for the development of pharyngocutaneous fistula postlaryngectomy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. (2015) 81:394–401. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.09.009
63. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol. (2010) 1:3–14. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x
64. Koda N. Anthropomorphism in Japanese women's status terms used in talk to potential guide dogs. Anthrozoös. (2001) 14:109–11. doi: 10.2752/089279301786999490
65. Mitchell RW. Americans' talk to dogs: similarities and differences with talk to infants. Res Lang Soc Interact. (2001) 34:183–210. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2
66. Finegold D, Mohrman S, Spreitzer GM. Age effects on the predictors of technical workers' commitment and willingness to turnover. J Organ Behav. (2002) 23:655–74. doi: 10.1002/job.159
67. Yeung P, White B, Chilvers BL. Exploring wellness of wildlife carers in New Zealand: a descriptive study. Anthrozoös. (2017) 30:549–63. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2017.1370213
68. Stulp G, Buunk AP, Verhulst S, Pollet TV. Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0117860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117860
69. Mills DS. What's in a word? A review of the attributes of a command affecting the performance of pet dogs. Anthrozoos. (2005) 18:208–21. doi: 10.2752/089279305785594108
70. Antonacopoulos NMD, Pychyl TA. An examination of the relations between social support, anthropomorphism and stress among dog owners. Anthrozoös. (2008) 21:139–52. doi: 10.2752/175303708X305783
71. Leaper C, Leve L, Strasser T, Schwartz R. Mother-child communication sequences: play activity, child gender, and marital status effects. Merrill-Palmer Q. (1995) 41:307–27.
72. Harper S. Noise-related anxiety in dogs: improving management. Vet Nurs. (2011) 2:378–86. doi: 10.12968/vetn.2011.2.7.378
73. Meyer I, Forkman B. Nonverbal communication and human–dog interaction. Anthrozoos. (2014) 27:553–68. doi: 10.2752/089279314X14072268687925
74. Skoglund AG. Do not forget about your volunteers: a qualitative analysis of factors influencing volunteer turnover. Health Soc Work. (2006) 31:217–20. doi: 10.1093/hsw/31.3.217
75. Lee TY, Tzeng WC, Lin CH, Yeh ML. Effects of a preceptorship programme on turnover rate, cost, quality and professional development. J Clin Nurs. (2009) 18:1217–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02662.x
76. Rogelberg SG, Reeve CL, Spitzmuller C, DiGiacomo N, Clark, Teeter OL L, et al. Impact of euthanasia rates, euthanasia practices, and human resource practices on employee turnover in animal shelters. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2007) 230:712–719. doi: 10.2460/javma.230.5.713
77. Gosling SD, Sandy CJ, Potter J. Personalities of self-identified dog people and cat people. Anthrozoos. (2010) 23:213–22. doi: 10.2752/175303710X12750451258850
78. Guastello AD, Guastello DD, Guastello SJ. Personality differences between dog people and cat people. Hum Anim Interact Bull. (2017) 5:41–57.
79. Papou?sek M. Communication in early infancy: an arena of intersubjective learning. Infant Behav Dev. (2007) 30:258–66. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.02.003
80. Cress CJ, Moskal L, Hoffmann A. Parent directiveness in free play with young children with physical impairments. Commun Disord Q. (2008) 29:99–108. doi: 10.1177/1525740108315257
Keywords: demographics, dog, leash tension, dog-walking, shelter, canine behaviour, human behaviour, human-dog interactions
Citation: Shih H-Y, Paterson MBA, Pachana NA and Phillips CJC (2021) Volunteers' Demographics That Affect the Human-Dog Interaction During Walks in a Shelter. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:699332. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.699332
Received: 26 April 2021; Accepted: 12 August 2021;
Published: 07 September 2021.
Edited by:
Lauren Hemsworth, The University of Melbourne, AustraliaReviewed by:
Laura Reese, Michigan State University, United StatesSimona Normando, University of Padua, Italy
Copyright © 2021 Shih, Paterson, Pachana and Phillips. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hao-Yu Shih, aGFveXUuc2hpaCYjeDAwMDQwO3VxLm5ldC5hdQ==