Tampilkan postingan dengan label varying. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label varying. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 07 Juni 2016

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 Kings 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, its important to measure both sides of the story, because weve learned the experience of the human, or even the humans perception of the dogs experience, just dont match up to the dogs experience.

Im pleased to see youll 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, Im 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: 10.2752/089279306785415592

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: 10.2752/175303710X12682332909972

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: 10.2752/175303711X13045914865060

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: 10.2752/175303712X13316289505468

© Mia Cobb | Do You Believe in Dog? 2014
Read more

Sabtu, 28 Mei 2016

Do You Believe in Dog A New Ball Game

,
Hello Do You Believe in Dog(ers)!

(source)
After two years of mostly pen-pal style blogging, were excited to share our new direction!

When we first decided to create Do You Believe in Dog?, we committed to blogging back and forth about canine science for two years. We were able to celebrate achieving that goal at the recent 4th Canine Science Forum in Lincoln, UK and also reflect on the future of Do You Believe in Dog?

The DYBID blog, Facebook and Twitter feeds have become vibrant places to access canine science studies and thoughtful commentary. We are pleased and proud of the space we have created and the community who enjoy it. Were as committed as ever to helping people access the canine science conversation, and moving forward, weve decided to open up DYBID as a space where other canine science practitioners can share their findings and thoughts. 

What you can expect

Guest contributors 
Following the format youve enjoyed in earlier guest posts (like Dog training: do you get the timing right?, Take a walk on the wild side: dingo science  and Black dog syndrome, a bad rap?) researchers and students of canine science are welcome to submit short posts to DYBID based on peer-reviewed research. Were hoping posts will focus on research either presented at academic conferences or published in scientific journals. If you have an idea for a post, check out the Contributors page for more details, and be in touch! 

Canine science highlights 
Well continue our usual presence on Facebook and Twitter, and here on the DYBID blog well post fortnightly updates highlighting the canine science that weve been following in the previous two weeks (blog posts, scientific studies, websites, etc.). 

T
his slideshow is our first attempt at sharing Canine science highlights. We have used Storify so you can quickly flip through and click on anything you want more info about.


Where in the world are Mia and Julie?

To simplify our Twitter presence:

  • Mia will primarily manage the @DoUBelieveInDog feed
  • Julie will continue being active on @DogSpies, as well as at her Scientific American Blog, Dog Spies, and her dog research group @Dog_Cognition
  • You can also stay in touch with Mia at @AnthroZooRG (her research group), @HumanAnimalSci (a podcast featuring the latest from Anthrozoology) and @WorkDogAlliance (an organization to improve the welfare of Australias working and sporting dogs)


Maybe you dont think weve simplified our Twitter presence?!
For us, this is simplified ;)


Well both be posting things on the DYBID Facebook feed and welcome your continued contributions and conversations there.


We hope youll enjoy this new direction! We look forward to your feedback as we share canine science highlights and add more voices to the DYBID space.

Thanks again for your support over the past two years -- Now, lets play ball!
(Go Yankees! That was Julie)


Mia & Julie

Further reading:

Dijk E.M.V. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication, Science Education, 95 (6) 1086-1100. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20458


Nosek B.A. (2012). Scientific Communication Is Changing and Scientists Should Lead the Way, Psychological Inquiry, 23 (3) 308-314. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2012.717907

Fischhoff B. & Scheufele D. (2013). The science of science communication, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3) 14033-14039. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110

(source)

Read more
 

Unique Dog Training Copyright © 2016 -- Powered by Blogger