Who Is Pulling the Leash? Effects of Human Gender and Dog Sex on Human–Dog Dyads When Walking On-Leash
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Subjects
2.2.1. Dogs
2.2.2. Volunteers
2.3. Measures
Canine Leash Tension Meter
2.4. Research Design
2.5. Survey Instruments
2.6. Ethograms
2.7. Data Analysis
2.7.1. Video Records of Dog and Human Behaviour
2.7.2. Leash Tension Analysis
2.8. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
3.2. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Leash Tension
3.3. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Canine Behaviour
3.4. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Human Behaviour
4. Discussion
4.1. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Leash Tension
4.2. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Canine Behaviour
4.3. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Human Behaviour
4.4. Human Gender/Dog Sex and Walking Experience
4.5. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kotrschal, K.; Schoberl, I.; Bauer, B.; Thibeaut, A.-M.; Wedl, M. Dyadic relationships and operational performance of male and female owners and their male dogs. Behav. Process. 2009, 81, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wells, D.L.; Hepper, P.G. Male and female dogs respond differently to men and women. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 61, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGuire, B.; Fry, K.; Orantes, D.; Underkofler, L.; Parry, S. Sex of Walker Influences Scent-marking Behavior of Shelter Dogs. Animals 2020, 10, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prato-Previde, E.; Fallani, G.; Valsecchi, P. Gender Differences in Owners Interacting with Pet Dogs: An Observational Study. Ethology 2006, 112, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirrone, F.; Pierantoni, L.; Mazzola, S.M.; Vigo, D.; Albertini, M. Owner and animal factors predict the incidence of, and owner reaction toward, problematic behaviors in companion dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 10, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackwell, E.J.; Bolster, C.; Richards, G.; Loftus, B.A.; Casey, R.A. The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: Estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aliabadi, I.; Wedl, M.; Schoberl, I.; Bauer, B.; Kotrschal, K. Effects of gender on performance in human-dog dyads in an agility parcours. In Proceedings of the 2010 Canine Science Forum, Vienna, Austria, 25–28 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ratcliffe, V.F.; McComb, K.; Reby, D. Cross-modal discrimination of human gender by domestic dogs. Anim. Behav. 2014, 91, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Starling, M.J.; Branson, N.; Thomson, P.C.; McGreevy, P.D. Age, sex and reproductive status affect boldness in dogs. Vet. J. 2013, 197, 868–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wells, D.L.; Hepper, P.G. Prevalence of behaviour problems reported by owners of dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 69, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Col, R.; Day, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. An epidemiological analysis of dog behavior problems presented to an Australian behavior clinic, with associated risk factors. J. Vet. Behav. 2016, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rooney, N.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S.; Robinson, I.H. A comparison of dog–dog and dog–human play behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kis, A.; Turcsán, B.; Miklósi, Á; Gácsi, M. The effect of the owner’s personality on the behaviour of owner-dog dyads. Interact. Stud. 2012, 13, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowes, M.; Keller, P.; Rollins, R.; Gifford, R. The Effect of Ambivalence on On-Leash Dog Walking Compliance Behavior in Parks and Protected Areas. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2017, 35, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, M.J.; Breitschwerdt, E.; Cleaveland, S.; Karkare, U.; Khanna, C.; Kirpensteijn, J.; Kuiken, T.; Lappin, M.R.; McQuiston, J.; Mumford, E.; et al. Surveillance of Zoonotic Infectious Disease Transmitted by Small Companion Animals. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2012, 18, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P.G. The public health impact of dog attacks in a major Australian city. Med. J. Aust. 1997, 167, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klainbart, S.; Bibring, U.; Strich, D.; Chai, O.; Bdolah-Abram, T.; Aroch, I.; Kelmer, E. Retrospective evaluation of 140 dogs involved in road traffic accidents. Vet. Rec. 2018, 182, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pauli, A.M.; Bentley, E.; Diehl, K.A.; Miller, P.E. Effects of the Application of Neck Pressure by a Collar or Harness on Intraocular Pressure in Dogs. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2006, 42, 207–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hawson, L.A.; Salvin, H.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. Riders’ application of rein tension for walk-to-halt transitions on a model horse. J. Vet. Behav. 2014, 9, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren-Smith, A.K.; Curtis, R.A.; Greetham, L.; McGreevy, P.D. Rein contact between horse and handler duringspecific equitation movements. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 108, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, H.-Y.; Georgiou, F.; Curtis, R.A.; Paterson, M.B.A.; Phillips, C.J.C. Behavioural evaluation of a leash tension meter which measures pull direction and force during human-dog on-leash walks. Animals 2020, 10, 1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Protopopova, A.; David, C.; Wynne, L. Adopter-dog interactions at the shelter: Behavioral and contextual predictors of adoption. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 157, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foyer, P.; Svedberg, A.-M.; Nilsson, E.; Wilsson, E.; Faresjö, A.; Jensen, P. Behavior and cortisol responses of dogs evaluated in a standardized temperament test for military working dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2016, 11, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palestrini, C.; Minero, M.; Cannas, S.; Rossi, E.; Frank, D. Video analysis of dogs with separation-related behaviors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 124, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siniscalchi, M.; Lusito, R.; Vallortigara, G.; Quaranta, A. Seeing Left- or Right-Asymmetric Tail Wagging Produces Different Emotional Responses in Dogs. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, 2279–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alexandera, M.B.; Frienda, T.; Haug, L. Obedience training effects on search dog performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 132, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals South Australia. The Best-Ever Walking Harness for Your Dog (and the Must-Avoid Collars and Leads). Available online: https://www.rspcasa.org.au/best-walking-harness-dogs/ (accessed on 13 August 2020).
- McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T., Jr. Brief Versions of the NEO-PI-3. J. Individ. Differ. 2007, 28, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grainger, J.; Wills, A.P.; Montrose, V.T. The behavioral effects of walking on a collar and harness in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). J. Vet. Behav. 2016, 14, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGowan, R.T.S.; Bolte, C.; Barnett, H.R.; Perez-Camargo, G.; François, M. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beerda, B.; Schilder, M.B.H.; van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M.; de Vries, H.W.; Mol, J.A. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 58, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Friard, O.; Gamba, M. BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 1325–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lumley, T. Leaps: Regression Subset Selection; Thomas Lumley based on Fortran code by Alan Miller; CRAN, 2020; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leaps/leaps.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
- Venables, W.N.; Ripley, B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, J.; Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, J.; Weisberg, S.; Price, B. CarData: Companion to Applied Regression Data Sets; CRAN, 2020; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/carData/carData.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
- Bates, D.; Maechler, M. Matrix: Sparse and Dense Matrix Classes and Methods; CRAN, 2019; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Matrix/Matrix.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
- Fox, J. Polycor: Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations; CRAN, 2019; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/polycor/polycor.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
- Wickham, H. The Split-Apply-Combine Strategy for Data Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 40, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Revelle, W. Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research; Northwestern University: Evanston, IL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kassambara, A. Ggpubr: ’ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots; CRAN, 2020; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/ggplot2.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
- Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D.; R Core Team. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Elphick, C.S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2010, 1, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maarschalkerweerd, R.J.; Endenburg, N.; Kirpensteijn, J.; Knol, B.W. Influence of orchiectomy on canine behaviour. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hart, B.L.; Eckstein, A.R. The role of gonadal hormones in the occurrence of objectionable behaviours in dogs and cats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 52, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warnes, C. Five myths commonly associated with neutering in dogs. Vet. Nurs. 2014, 5, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubinyi, E.; Turcsán, B.; Miklósi, Á. Dog and owner demographic characteristics and dog personality trait associations. Behav. Process. 2009, 81, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starling, M.J.; Branson, N.; Thomson, P.C.; McGreevy, P.D. “Boldness” in the domestic dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behav. Process. 2013, 97, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A. Breed and gender differences in dog behavior. In The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, 2nd ed.; Serpell, J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 119–132. [Google Scholar]
- Perez-Gomez, J.; Rodriguez, G.V.; Ara, I.; Olmedillas, H.; Chavarren, J.; González-Henriquez, J.J.; Dorado, C.; Calbet, J.A.L. Role of muscle mass on sprint performance: Gender differences? Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 102, 685–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, M.H.; Ruffman, T. Domestic dogs match human male voices to faces, but not for females. Behaviour 2015, 152, 1585–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leaver, S.D.A.; Reimchen, T.E. Behavioural responses of Canis familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica. Behaviour 2008, 145, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tami, G.; Gallagher, A. Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced and inexperienced people. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakovcevic, A.; Mustaca, A.; Bentosela, M. Do more sociable dogs gaze longer to the human face than less sociable ones? Behav. Process. 2012, 90, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentosela, M.; Wynne, C.D.L.; D’Orazio, M.; Elgier, A.; Udell, M.A.R. Sociability and gazing toward humans in dogs and wolves: Simple behaviors with broad implications. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2016, 105, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, L.S.V.; Jensen, P. Assessing companion dog behavior in a social setting. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 10, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buttner, A.P.; Thompson, B.; Strasser, R.; Santo, J. Evidence for a synchronization of hormonal states between humans and dogs during competition. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 147, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, A.C.; Josephs, R.A. Interspecies hormonal interactions between man and the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Horm. Behav. 2006, 50, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, H.A. Gender Differences in Human–Animal Interactions: A Review. Anthrozoös 2007, 20, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wells, D.L.; Hepper, P.G. Directional tracking in the domestic dog, Canis familiaris. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Řezáč, P.; Viziová, P.; Dobešová, M.; Havlíček, Z.; Pospíšilová, D. Factors affecting dog–dog interactions on walks with their owners. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 134, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firnkes, A.; Bartels, A.; Bidoli, E.; Erhard, M. Appeasement signals used by dogs during dog-human communication. J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 19, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisberg, Y.J.; DeYoung, C.G.; Hirsh, J.B. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Front. Psychol. 2011, 2, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
1. The dog’s behaviour was good. |
2. I could not handle the dog well. |
3. I felt comfortable when interacting with the dog. |
4. I was physically tense. |
5. Overall, this is a good experience. |
6. The interaction was challenging for me. |
7. The dog did not understand me well. |
8. I did not feel that I was helping the dog. |
9. I felt supported by the dog. |
10. I did not enjoy its company. |
11. I would love to walk this dog again on another day. |
12. I don’t think this dog is suitable for a non-experienced adopter. |
13. I think the dog is ready for adoption. |
Factor H | Factor D | |
---|---|---|
1. | 0.537 | −0.581 |
2. | −0.556 | 0.443 |
3. | 0.694 | −0.325 |
4. | −0.680 | 0.316 |
5. | 0.739 | -0.331 |
6. | −0.559 | 0.419 |
7. | -0.253 | 0.689 |
8. | -0.353 | 0.518 |
9. | 0.318 | −0.644 |
10. | −0.503 | 0.287 |
11. | 0.631 | -0.387 |
12. | −0.276 | 0.456 |
13. | 0.478 | −0.475 |
Behaviour | Description | Behaviour Type | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Track | Dog moves along the ground with head lowered, using nose to follow a scent. | State event | [30] |
Sniff | Dog orientates nose to within 5 cm of an object, wall or ground to explore or to express stress or appeasement. | State event | [30] |
Eliminate-mark | Dog defecates or urinates in sitting, squatting or standing position | Point event | [24] |
Shake | Dog shakes its body or head. | Point event | |
Pant | Dog keeps its mouth wide open and breathes vigorously. | State event | [30] |
Gaze | Dog looks toward the handler. | Point event | [30] |
Lip-lick | Part of tongue is shown and moved along the upper lip or snout. | Point event | [30] |
Tail wag | Tail is moving from side to side. | State event | [31] |
Tail high | Tail is held stiffly and upright, either curled over the back or straight. | State event | [32] |
Behaviour | Description | Behaviour Type | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Sit | Volunteer asks the dog to sit. | Point event | |
Command | Volunteer talks to the dog with an utterance containing a single command (e.g., “Stay!” “Come!” “Let’s go!”). | Point event | [13] |
Attention seeking | Volunteer tries to get the attention of the dog and calls the dog by its name and/or the utterance of “Look!”, and/or clicking the tongue (“tze tze” sound). | Point event | [13] |
High-pitched voice | Volunteer talks to the dog with high pitched voice with baby-talk expressions. | Point event | [31] |
Praise | Volunteer talks to the dog with a positive utterance (e.g., “Great!” “Well done!” “Good dog!”). | Point event | [13,31] |
Negative verbal cue | Volunteer talks to the dog with a negative utterance (e.g., “No!” “Bad dog!” “Don’t …” “Stop chewing the leash” “Let the leash (it) go”). | Point event | |
Communication | Volunteer tries to communicate with the dog or to ask the dog some questions. (e.g., “Which way do you want to go?” “What are you sniffing at?” “Do you want to fetch?” “Do you want to drink?”) | Point event | [33] |
Behaviour | Description | Behaviour Type | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Gestural | Volunteer displays voluntary hand movement directed towards the dog (e.g., referential point, patting his/her own thigh, luring the dog with a hand or food). | Point event | [13,31] |
Physical contacts | Physical contacts initiated by the volunteer, including contacts when treats were given. | Point event | |
Treat | Food is given to the dog. | Point event |
Log10NTmax | Log10NTmean | Log10DTmax | Log10DTmean | Log10DPF | Log10HTmax | Log10HTmean | Log10HPF | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human Gender 1 | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women |
μ 3.72, SD 2.01 | μ 0.58, SD 0.26 | μ 3.24, SD 1.81 | μ 1.15, SD 0.5 | μ 0.19, SD 0.14 | μ 3.05, SD 1.72 | μ 1.14, SD 0.49 | μ 0.19, SD 0.13 | |
Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | |
μ 3.68, SD 1.93 | μ 0.59, SD 0.24 | μ 3.29, SD 1.87 | μ 1.16, SD 0.48 | μ 0.18, SD 0.13 | μ 2.97, SD 1.77 | μ 1.14, SD 0.52 | μ 0.17, SD 0.12 | |
-- | -- | -- | -- | β -0.29 SE 0.09 p 0.0017 | -- | -- | -- | |
Dog Sex 1 | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female |
μ 3.3, SD 1.72 | μ 0.54, SD 0.22 | μ 2.88, SD 1.58 | μ 1.07, SD 0.39 | μ 0.17, SD 0.13 | μ 2.72, SD 1.5 | μ 1.03, SD 0.38 | μ 0.16, SD 0.1 | |
Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | |
μ 4.12, SD 2.13 | μ 0.63, SD 0.27 | μ 3.64, SD 1.97 | μ 1.25, SD 0.56 | μ 0.21, SD 0.14 | μ 3.35, SD 1.9 | μ 1.24, SD 0.58 | μ 0.21, SD 0.14 | |
β 0.22 | β 0.15 | β 0.26 | β 0.17 | β 0.37 | β 0.15 | β 0.168 | β 0.36 | |
SE 0.071 | SE 0.053 | SE 0.078 | SE 0.054 | SE 0.12 | SE 0.076 | SE 0.055 | SE 0.11 | |
p 0.0031 | p 0.0063 | p 0.0011 | p 0.0026 | p 0.0032 | p 0.051 | p 0.0029 | p 0.0018 |
Track (%) | Tail High (%) | Gaze (no./s) | Lip-Lick (no./s) | Eliminate-Mark (no./s) 3 | Pant (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human Gender 1 | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women |
μ 15.51, SD 11.62 | μ 78.59, SD 29.85 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 10.48, SD 11.07 | |
Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | |
μ 14.64, SD 10.57 | μ 76.82, SD 30.43 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 10.36, SD 11.2 | |
β −0.027 | β −0.073 | β 0.037 | β 0.024 | -- | -- | |
SE 0.013 | SE 0.032 | SE 0.012 | SE 0.011 | |||
p 0.042 | p 0.023 | p 0.0013 | p 0.032 | |||
Dog Sex 1 | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female |
μ 17.18, SD 12.58 | μ 72.32, SD 33.04 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ 8.31, SD 10.4 | |
Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | |
μ 12.82, SD 9.16 | μ 84.42, SD 24.84 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 12.48, SD 11.38 | |
β −0.041 | β 0.038 | β −0.0033 | -- | β 0.013 | β −0.024 | |
SE 0.02 | SE 0.06 | SE 0.016 | SE 0.0049 | SE 0.029 | ||
p 0.043 | p 0.53 | p 0.84 | p 0.0073 | p 0.41 |
Total Verbal Cues (no./s) 1 | Attention Seeking (no./s) 2 | Communication (no./s) 2 | Negative Verbal Cue (no./s) 2 | Praise (no./s) 1 | High-Pitched Voice (no./s) 1 | Command (no./s) 1 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human Gender 3 | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women | Women |
μ 0.09, SD 0.07 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.03, SD 0.03 | |
Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | Men | |
μ 0.07, SD 0.06 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ 0.02, SD 0.03 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ 0.03, SD 0.02 | |
β −0.034 | β −0.031 | β −0.003 | β −0.011 | β 0.005 | β −0.062 | β −0.032 | |
SE 0.017 | SE 0.017 | SE 0.012 | SE 0.0081 | SE 0.011 | SE 0.011 | SE 0.011 | |
p 0.041 | p 0.076 | p 0.8 | p 0.17 | p 0.65 | p < 0.001 | p 0.0056 | |
Dog Sex 3 | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female | Female |
μ 0.08, SD 0.06 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ 0.03, SD 0.03 | |
Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | Male | |
μ 0.08, SD 0.07 | μ 0.02, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ 0.02, SD 0.03 | μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ 0.03, SD 0.03 | |
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | β −0.021 SE 0.012 p 0.085 |
Total Body Language (no./s) 1 | Treating Dog with Food (no./s) | Physical Contacts (no./s) 1 | |
---|---|---|---|
Human Gender 2 | Women | Women | Women |
μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD < 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | |
Men | Men | Men | |
μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | |
β 0.06 | β 0.001 | β 0.067 | |
SE 0.023 | SE 0.00063 | SE 0.019 | |
p 0.0089 | p 0.11 | p 0.0007 | |
Dog Sex 2 | Female | Female | Female |
μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | |
Male | Male | Male | |
μ 0.01, SD 0.02 | μ < 0.01, SD <0.01 | μ < 0.01, SD 0.01 | |
-- | -- | -- |
Neuroticism | Extraversion | Openness | Conscientiousness | Agreeableness |
---|---|---|---|---|
Women: μ 25.64, SD 9.1 | Women: μ 27.11, SD 7.27 | Women: μ 28.98, SD 5.99 | Women: μ 30.96, SD 6.6 | Women: μ 35.28, SD 6.07 |
Men: μ 23.65, SD 8.26 | Men: μ 27.73, SD 8.66 | Men: μ 30.81, SD 7.07 | Men: μ 30.04, SD 8.36 | Men: μ 32.81, SD 5.55 |
p-value = 0.35 | p-value = 0.76 | p-value = 0.28 | p-value = 0.64 | p-value = 0.09 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shih, H.-Y.; Paterson, M.B.A.; Georgiou, F.; Pachana, N.A.; Phillips, C.J.C. Who Is Pulling the Leash? Effects of Human Gender and Dog Sex on Human–Dog Dyads When Walking On-Leash. Animals 2020, 10, 1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101894
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(10):1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101894
Chicago/Turabian StyleShih, Hao-Yu, Mandy B. A. Paterson, Fillipe Georgiou, Nancy A. Pachana, and Clive J. C. Phillips. 2020. "Who Is Pulling the Leash? Effects of Human Gender and Dog Sex on Human–Dog Dyads When Walking On-Leash" Animals 10, no. 10: 1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101894