Can I touch you? A pilot study comparing consensual and non-consensual human-dog touch interactions

IF 2.2 2区农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE

Applied Animal Behaviour Science Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106560

Amir Sarrafchi , Natassja de Zwaan , Maya Tucker , Katrina Merkies

{"title":"Can I touch you? A pilot study comparing consensual and non-consensual human-dog touch interactions","authors":"Amir Sarrafchi , Natassja de Zwaan , Maya Tucker , Katrina Merkies","doi":"10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Choice and consent are critical welfare elements, especially in interactions between humans and animals. Dogs incorporated in therapeutic settings (therapy dogs) may encounter human touch interactions where they have limited control over their circumstances. The present study examined how forced and free-choice touch treatments during interaction with humans influenced the behaviour of therapy dogs and hypothesized that therapy dogs would display a higher frequency of stress-related behaviours during forced in comparison to free-choice touch treatment. The study involved 18 certified therapy dogs with 44 human participants. Each human interacted individually with up to four therapy dogs in forced and free-choice touch treatments for 3 min. During forced touch treatments, dogs were held on a leash by their owners while participants continuously touched the dog, but during free-choice touch treatments dogs roamed freely in a pen and participants were directed to touch them only if they approached within arm’s reach. Treatments were videoed for retrospective behavioural coding. A GLIMMIX for repeated measures tested the effect of treatment on dog behaviours. During forced touch there was a higher frequency of ear back behaviour (p = .0115) compared to free-choice touch treatment. Sniffing behaviour (p < .0001) and avoidance of the participants (p < .0001) occurred more frequently during free-choice touch compared to forced touch treatments. Dogs spent 77.9 % of their time within reach of the participants during free-choice touch treatments. Male dogs demonstrated a higher frequency of avoidance of participants (p = .0031) and interaction with owners (p = .0352) than female dogs, regardless of treatment. The findings revealed subtle behavioural differences in therapy dogs between forced and free-choice touch treatments with humans, highlighting the importance of incorporating choice and agency in human-dog interactions within therapy programs to enhance dog welfare.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8222,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","volume":"285 ","pages":"Article 106560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159125000589","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Choice and consent are critical welfare elements, especially in interactions between humans and animals. Dogs incorporated in therapeutic settings (therapy dogs) may encounter human touch interactions where they have limited control over their circumstances. The present study examined how forced and free-choice touch treatments during interaction with humans influenced the behaviour of therapy dogs and hypothesized that therapy dogs would display a higher frequency of stress-related behaviours during forced in comparison to free-choice touch treatment. The study involved 18 certified therapy dogs with 44 human participants. Each human interacted individually with up to four therapy dogs in forced and free-choice touch treatments for 3 min. During forced touch treatments, dogs were held on a leash by their owners while participants continuously touched the dog, but during free-choice touch treatments dogs roamed freely in a pen and participants were directed to touch them only if they approached within arm’s reach. Treatments were videoed for retrospective behavioural coding. A GLIMMIX for repeated measures tested the effect of treatment on dog behaviours. During forced touch there was a higher frequency of ear back behaviour (p = .0115) compared to free-choice touch treatment. Sniffing behaviour (p < .0001) and avoidance of the participants (p < .0001) occurred more frequently during free-choice touch compared to forced touch treatments. Dogs spent 77.9 % of their time within reach of the participants during free-choice touch treatments. Male dogs demonstrated a higher frequency of avoidance of participants (p = .0031) and interaction with owners (p = .0352) than female dogs, regardless of treatment. The findings revealed subtle behavioural differences in therapy dogs between forced and free-choice touch treatments with humans, highlighting the importance of incorporating choice and agency in human-dog interactions within therapy programs to enhance dog welfare.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 农林科学-行为科学

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

21.70%

发文量

191

审稿时长

18.1 weeks

期刊介绍： This journal publishes relevant information on the behaviour of domesticated and utilized animals. Topics covered include: -Behaviour of farm, zoo and laboratory animals in relation to animal management and welfare -Behaviour of companion animals in relation to behavioural problems, for example, in relation to the training of dogs for different purposes, in relation to behavioural problems -Studies of the behaviour of wild animals when these studies are relevant from an applied perspective, for example in relation to wildlife management, pest management or nature conservation -Methodological studies within relevant fields The principal subjects are farm, companion and laboratory animals, including, of course, poultry. The journal also deals with the following animal subjects: -Those involved in any farming system, e.g. deer, rabbits and fur-bearing animals -Those in ANY form of confinement, e.g. zoos, safari parks and other forms of display -Feral animals, and any animal species which impinge on farming operations, e.g. as causes of loss or damage -Species used for hunting, recreation etc. may also be considered as acceptable subjects in some instances -Laboratory animals, if the material relates to their behavioural requirements