4.5 Article

Behavioural effects of training on water rescue dogs in the Strange Situation Test

期刊

APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 121-127

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.007

关键词

Attachment bond; Dog-human relationship; Strange Situation Test; Training; Water rescue dogs

资金

  1. University of Naples Federico II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water rescue training produces dog-human dyads specialized in rescuing people in the water by promoting a strong cooperative relationship between dogs and their handlers. The present study aims to assess whether this training also affects the human-dog attachment bond using an adapted version of the Strange Situation Test (SST), consisting of 7 episodes of 3 min each. Thirteen mutually exclusive and two non-mutually exclusive behaviours were considered. Sixty-five dogs (Labrador and Golden retrievers) were tested: 29 dogs had a Water Rescue Certificates (Trained group), 22 dogs had yet to begin the training program (Naive group), and 14 dogs were untrained (Old group) as an age control that was equivalent to the Trained group. All dogs showed a pattern of attachment behaviours with their owners, as they played with and greeted the owner more than the stranger and remained oriented towards the door more in the presence of the stranger during the separation episodes. Furthermore, all groups engaged in play with the stranger more when their owner was present rather than absent (episode 2 vs. 3). The Trained group was less explorative than the Naive and Old groups. Trained dogs engaged in different behaviours not for playing purposes holding a ball in their mouth more than the other groups. Social play behaviours were expressed equally by the Trained and the Naive groups and less in the Old group. Overall, the water rescue training affected the dogs' behaviour in the SST; however these behavioural differences were (probably) not related to differences in attachment quality. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据