Content uploaded by Claudia Mertens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudia Mertens on Nov 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
•
•
ANTHROZOOS
VOLUME 11NUMBER 2
FALL
1988
A MULTIDISClPLlNARY JOURNAL
ON THE INTERACTIONS OF
PEOPLE,ANIMALS, AND
ENVIRONMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
74
EDITORIAL 75
COMMENTARY Some Reflections on the Utopian Commonwealth
of Beavers
Boria Sax 76
76
REVIEWSAND RESEARCHREPORTS Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Interactions
During First Encounters
Claudia Mertens
and Oennis C. Turner 83
83
Sacrificial Symbolism in Animal Experimentation:
Object or Pet?
Arnold B. Arluke 98
Attachment to Companion Animals Among Older
Pet Owners
Lorann Stellones, Martin B. Marx,
Thomas F. Gerritv, and Timothy P. johnson
118
Pet Ownership and Nonownership Among Elderly
in Arizona
F. Ellen Netting, Cindy C. Wilson,
and Charles Fruge
125
NEWS AND ANALYSIS Pet Demographics-USA 133
Ferrets: Domestic or Wild? 133
Delta Society President Honored 133
Society for Companion Animal Studies-
New Director 134
Jill of All Trades: Mistress of None 134
Research Project Funded 134
New Center Established at Liverpool University 134
Meeting Announcements-Call to Presenters 134
Dog Eating in Korea 135
133
IN THE lITERATURE Book Reviews
Abstracts
137
139
REVIEWS AND
RESEARCH REPORTS
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
OF HUMAN-CAT INTERACTIONS
DURING FIRST ENCOUNTERS
Claudia Mertens and Dennis C. Turner
Abstract. The goal of our study was to describe
socisl behavior du ring the first encounter be-
tween ahuman and acat and to determine the
influence of the sex of the cat, individuality of
the cat, activity state of the person, and person
type on the cat's behavior; and the influence of
the age and sex of the human partner
(person
type) on his/her behavior.
Nineteen colony cats encountered 240 unfa-
miliar test persons in astandardized one-
cat/one-person situation. In half of the encoun-
ters, the behavior of the cat was recorded
(A
experiments); during
a
first five-minute phase
(Ph
7),
the test person was not allowed to inter-
act with the cat; during the second five-minute
phase (Ph 2), he/she was allowed to behave
without any restrictions. In the other half of the
encounters
(8
experiments), the behavior of the
human partner was recorded, and the test per-
son was allowed to behave freely from the start
for the duration of five minutes. The influence of
the factors listed above was tested by analyses
of varian
ce
and t-tests.
Cats show an enormous individual variation in
Ethology and Wildlife Research, Institute of Zoology, University
of Zurich-lrchel, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
This study was supparted financially by Efferns Ber-
atung für Kleintierhaltung, Zurich, and the Swiss
National 5cience Foundation (grant numbers 3.338.82
and 3.247.85 for cat-colony maintenancel. We thank
K. Geering and B. Hämmerli far assistance with the
experiments and for making the video records,
U. Kuster for her care of the cats in the colony, and
R.Schröter, D.V.M., for looking after the health of the
cats.
ExperimentalAnalysisof Human-CatInteractions
their behavior. Neither their sex nor the age-sex
dass of the partner influences their behavior
nearly as much as their own individuality. The ec-
tivity state of the test person (reading
a
book ver-
sus interacting freely) influences the behavior of
the cat with respect to most of the parameters ob-
served. Human behavior toward the cat is in-
fluenced by the person's age (adults versus chll-
dren from six to ten years of age) and, to alesser
extent, by the person's sex.
The first body contact is akey event and oc-
curs more quickly in the dyadic situation than
when the person is looking at abook, since the
human partner usually initiates socie I interac-
tions and motivates the cat to accelerate coming
into contact. In addition to the speed and
chronology of contact initiation, proximity and
behavior regulating the distance between the
partners are useful measures for describing
human-cat interactions in different sociel con-
texts. Single behavioral elements of the cat and
the human also may be used as indicators of the
character of the relationship.
INTRODUCTION
The popularity of the domestic cat (Felis s. catus)
as a pet is increasing all over the world (Messent
and Horsfield, 1985), and many studies of the
cat's natural behavior and ecology have appeared
in recent years (see Turner and Bateson, 1988, for
a review). Quite a lot of work has been done on
questions of ontogeny and behavioral develop-
ment (see Martin and Bateson, 1988; Deag, Man-
ning, and Lawrence, 1988), sociaI organization
(see Leyhausen, 1979, 1988; Kerby and Mac-
donald, 1988; Macdonald et al., 1987), and
ecology and predation (see Liberg and Sande
11,
1988; Fitzgerald, 1988; Turner and Meister,
1988). Apart from same work on the correction of
behavioral disturbances affecting the human-cat
relationship (Yoith, 1983; Hart and Hart, 1985),
ethological studies of interactions between cats
and humans are rare.
ANTHROZOÖ5, Volume 11,Number 2
83
The main motive for studies of human-pet re-
lationships has been and still is the assessment of
the beneficial or therapeutic value of the pet to a
human (Levinson, 1969, 1978; Corson, O'Leary-
Corson, and Gwynne, 1975; Friedmann et al.,
1984; McCulioch, 1983). If pets are to be used as
therapists and companions, it is essential to have
a picture of the development and dynamics of the
human-pet relationship, including a consideration
of the animal partner with its species-specific
needs and behavior. The analysis of human atti-
tudes toward and expectations of their pets (Gutt-
mann, 1981; Kellert, 1984) and of questionnaires
or interviews of pet owners is only one approach
to understanding these interspecific relationships.
Description of interactions and causal and func-
tional analysis of the behavior of both partners
are equally important and, indeed, the only
means to consider the animal side of the relation-
ship.
Most studies on human-pet interactions and
the value of a pet to the owner have been done
with respect to dogs (Bergler, 1986; Filiatre, Mil-
lot, and Montagner, 1986). Study of human-cat
relationships with emphasis on the cat is very re-
cent (see Karsh and Turner, 1988; Meier and
Turner, 1985; Feaver, Mendl, and Bateson, 1986;
Turner et al., 1986), except for the early studies of
Wilson, Warren, and Abbott (1965) and Collard
(1967). The present study describes interactions
between both partners during the first stages of a
human-cat relationship. that is, during first en-
counters.
A detailed description of social behavior is the
first important step toward an ethological under-
standing of relationships. The next step is an
analysis of factors influencing these interactions.
Since these factors were unknown, we tested a
set of potential parameters that we hypothesized
might influence the quality and/or quantity of cat
or human behavior observed. Factors suspected
to influence the cat were the sex of the animal,
the individuality of the cat, the age and sex of the
human partner, and the activity of the person. By
individuality of the cat, we mean the consistent
individual differences among cats, irrespective of
the identity of the human partner. The factors hy-
pothesized to influence human behavior toward
the cat were the age and sex of the person
Iper-
son type).
We view this study as an initial approach to
84
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
analyzing the very complex human-cat relation-
ship ethologically; therefore, the experimental de-
sign has the character of a pilot study and in-
cludes a number of dependent and independent
variables that are not examined in greater detail,
METHODS
Experimental Design
We arranged 240 first encounters between a cat
and a person in a standardized situation.
Nineteen cats and 240 persons were involved. All
encounters took place in the observation room of
the cat colony at the University of Zurich. and
each was a replicate for one of two types of ex-
periment, A and B. We systematically alternated A
and B experiments. Both experiment types were
essentially the same; however, in the A experi-
ments, only the cat's behavior was recorded,
while, in the B experiments, only the human's be-
havior was of interest. We therefore secured two
independent sets of data. Experiment A lasted ten
minutes, subdivided into two phases of five
minutes each (Ph 1 and Ph 2); experiment B
lasted on Iy five minutes and corresponded quali-
tatively to the second half of experiment A (Ph 2).
The observation room (3.5 by 4 meters) was
furnished with two chairs, a table, a large carpet,
books, play objects for the cat (plastic mice, balls
of different material), a litter box, and a resting
shelf. The test person was seated in the test room
before the experiment started. At the start, the cat
was let into the room through a remote-controlled
sliding door. Just prior to this, the cat was placed
in a transport box, wh ich could be attached to
the "catentrance." When the sliding door was
opened, most cats left the box and entered the
observation room. Cats that did not leave the box
spontaneously or reentered it were still within
reach of an active test person. The distance be-
tween the cat entrance and chair of the test per-
son was 3.5 meters, almost the maximum dis-
tance possible in the room.
In an A experiment, the test person was in-
structed to look at a book and not to react to the
cat, regardless of what
it
did, for the first five
minutes (Ph 1) and to behave freely and without
restriction during the second five minutes (Ph 2).
The beginning of Ph 2 was signaled to the test
person by a knock on the one-way window
Claudia Mertens and Dennis C. Turner
through whieh aetivity was observed and video-
taped.
In a B experiment, the test person had to re-
main seated until the sliding door of the eat en-
trance opened but, other than this, was eom-
pletely free to do whatever he/she wanted from
the start
From the A experiments, we obtained reeords
of eat behavior in two different situations: in Ph 1,
the eat aeted spontaneously, not as areaction to
human social interaetions; in Ph 2, the eat and
the human partner aeted and reaeted in a true dy-
adie relationship. Comparison of eat behavior in
these two situations provides an estimate of
human influenee on eats' behavior. From the B
experiments, we reeorded the humans' behavior
during "normal" first encounters where both part-
ners aet and reaet. We assumed that human be-
havior in the B experiments and in Ph 2 of the A
experiments would be the same and that ehanges
in eat behavior from Ph 1 to Ph 2 in the A experi-
ments were due to behavior of the human part-
ner, as recorded in the B experiments. The only
eomparable parameter, whieh was reeorded in
both A and B experiments, was the distanee be-
tween eat and test person. The frequeney of three
out of four distanee dasses (0, 1, and 3) was
eompared for A (Ph 2) and B experiments, and no
signifieant differenee eould be found (t-tests: p
>
.1 for eaeh distanee). This supports our assump-
tion that the situation in Ph 2 of A and that in B
as a whole are more or less the same and that
neither the eat nor the test person are influeneed
by Ph 1 in Ph 2.
Animal Subjects
The 19 eats used for this study (10 males, 9
females) are eommon domestie mixtures and
belong to the eat eolony of the university. They
were all born in the eolony within one month
from seven different mothers, sired by one of two
fathers, and raised in the same way. Until the age
of one year, they lived mueh of the time in
mother groups, but they all knew eaeh other,
sinee they met frequently in a large outdoor en-
dosure during the day. Before these experiments
started and for teehniea I reasons, the animals
were rearranged into three groups of different size
(10, 5, and 4 cats). For the duration of the experi-
ments, these groups remained stable, but the eats
Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Inleractions
continued to meet eaeh other in the outdoor en-
dosure for several hours eaeh day.
At the time of the experiments, the eats were
between 15 and 24 months old. All males were
eastrated; four of the nine females were neutered.
All knew the observation room weil, having had
aeeess to it earlier on. Even so, eaeh eat partici-
pating in an experiment had an opportunity to re-
inspeet the room during the two hours preeeding
the test.
As kittens, the experimental animals had been
handled by familiar and unfamiliar persons but
never by ehildren. Sinee half of the test persons
were to be ehildren, we tried to eompensate for
this by introducing eight ehildren (four boys and
four girls) to the eats on several oeeasions during
the two rnonths prior to the tests. We then as-
sumed that, at the first experimental eneounter
with a test ehild, eaeh eat was already used to
ehildren.
Eaeh eat inleraeted with a total of 12 (in a few
eases, 13)' persons and participated in six (or
seven) A and six (or seven) B experiments. For
eaeh experiment type, the eats encountered the
following persons: one per age/sex dass (i.e., one
man, one woman, one boy, and one girl) plus
one additional person per age dass (i.e., one man
or one woman and one boy or one girl).
Human Subjects
The 240 voluntary test persons participated in
one experiment eaeh. These persons were re-
eruited partly from sehools (ehildren and their
pa ren ts) and partly by an appeal on television
(adults and children). All test persons had to be
experieneed with eats, and 90% of all partici-
pants owned cats at the time of our experiments.
Thus, the human test population was a nonrepre-
sentative sampie of Swiss people but a repre-
sentative sampie of eat owners.
Half of the test persons were adults (at least 18
years old, no upper age llrnlt), and half were ehil-
dren between 6 and 10 years of age. Demo-
graphie and socioeconomie parameters of the test
persons were not controlled or analyzed, though
they were partly noted. For statistieal analyses, we
eould use the experiments of 60 men, 56 women,
55 boys, and 60 girls. Eaeh age-sex dass was
divided into two equal groups, eaeh partieipating
in one of the two types of experiment (A or B).
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
85
Adults. Of the current cat owners (90% of all
adult test persons), 52% kept one cat, 29% two,
and 19% more than two cats at home. Seventy-
nine percent of all adults were parents (in same
cases, of adult children), 86% of all adults had
kept a pet during childhood, and 64% of the
childhood pet keepers had had a cat (in most
cases, other pets as weil). Chi-square tests re-
vealed that men and women did not differ from
each other with respect to these variables, nor did
men and women in the two experimental groups,
Aand B
ip
»
.1).
Children. Of the current cat owners (aga in, 90%
of all children), 67% kept one cat, 19% two, and
13% more than two cats; 50% of all children
owned other pet species as weil. Ten percent of
the children had no siblings, 63% had one sib-
ling, and 26% more than one. Boys and girls did
not differ significantly from each other with re-
spect to these variables (chi-square tests; p
>
.05),
although the boys tended to have more siblings
than the girls. As for the age distribution, which
could not be balanced in advance, the chi-square
test showed a significant overall difference be-
tween boys and girls (p ~ .01). The mean age of
the boys was 7.5 years; 8.3 for the girls. Separate
tests for the two experimental groups (A and B)
revealed that the age difference between boys
and girls was significant only in experimental
group A. The mean difference in group A was 11
months; in group B, 7 months. The ages of the
boys and of the girls did not differ between the
two experimental groups (chi-square test;
p
>
.05).
Data Recorded
Cat and human behavior were recorded in three
different forms: latency times (seconds), durations
(intervals), and frequendes (events). Contact ini-
tiation is described in part by the latency {rom the
start of the experiments (A or B) to a spedfic be-
havior occurring for the first time. In the A experi-
ments (cat behavior), three such latendes were
recorded: for the first approach by the cat to
within one to two meters of the test person; for
the first social element of the cat; and for the first
86
ANTHROZOÖS. Volume 11.Number 2
body contact between cat and human. Five be-
havioral elements of the cat are defined as poten-
tial first socia I elements: an approach to within
one meter of the test person; sniffing the person;
head or flank rubbing on the partner; social play;
and withdrawing from an approaching person.
Cats that initiated social contact spontaneously
with the reading person could only show the ap-
proach to within one meter as first social element;
cats that did not initiate within the reading phase
had the possibility of starting social behavior with
any of the five elements
listed
above. Body con-
tact could be initiated by either partner (head or
flank rubbing and petting, respectively), and we
only recorded when first body contact occurred,
not which partner was responsible for it
In the B experiments (human behavior), four
latendes were recorded: for the first approach by
the test person within at least one meter; for the
first social element of the person; for the first
body contact; and for the first vocalization by the
person. Humans could show several elements as
first social behavior: for example, vocalizing, ap-
proaching, social play, and petting.
The following variables were recorded in A
and B experiments as durations, using Hansen
frequendes with an interval of 15 seconds: the
distance between cat and human; play (whether
social or not); and vocalizations by the cat and
the human. Human posture and petting were
noted only in the B experiments. We distin-
guished between four distance classes: dass
0
(body contact): dass 1(within one meter, without
body contact); dass 2 (between one and two me-
ters); and dass
3
(more than two meters). Persans
could show three different postures: standing or
walking; sitting on achair; or crouching or squat-
ting on the floor.
Human vocalizations were not differentiated,
but we noted, at the end of each B experiment,
whether the person had spaken in complete sen-
tences, in single words or sounds, or both. Cat
vocalizations also were not differentiated, since
their social character was not always dear and
their functions in the cat-human context are
poorly understood. Nevertheless, most cat vocal-
izations could be dassified as "meowing" using
Moelk's (1944) definitions.
Finally, the frequendes of the following be-
havioral elements were analyzed using the abso-
r/;uuli:;,
AAe-rt&3nc
::Jnrl
nonn;c
r
T"rnor
lute number of occurrences per experiment
(B)
and/or phase of experiment (A): approaches and
withdrawals of at least one meter by the subject
in both experiments; sniffing the test person and
head or flank rubbing on the person in the A ex-
periments; following a withdrawing cat and pick-
ing up the cat in the
B
experiments.
Data Analysis
The data from A experiments were analyzed sep-
arately for Ph
1
and Ph
2,
each phase lasting five
minutes. Only the three latency times for first oc-
currences were measured once for the whole ten
minutes.
Multivariate analyses of variance were con-
ducted to test the influence of the various factors
on the cats' behavior and on the humans' be-
havior, respectively (MANOVA, General Linear
Model [GLM], SAS program package, version
5).
If the variance model was significant as a whole,
main effects were then tested. For the cats'
be-
havior (A experiments), the influence of cat sex
and person type were calculated as fixed effects,
the individuality of the cat as a random effect.
Previously run MANOVAs showed no significant
interaction between cat sex and person type;
therefore, the MANOVAs were run again without
the interaction.
For the humans' behavior
(B
experiments), two
fixed effects and their interaction were calculated:
age and sex of the test person. If the variance
model was significant, the following contrasts
were then tested by t-tests: adults versus children,
males versus females, men versus women, and
boys versus girls. The same contrasts were tested
in the A experiments if the main "person type" ef-
fect was significant. The smallest sampie size for
these contrasts was
27.
To test the influence of activity by test person
(reading versus interacting freely) on the cats' be-
havior, the results of Ph
1
and Ph
2
were com-
pared in an analysis of variance (GLM), which
also considered the individuality of the cat as
covariance.
We are weil aware that using the same set of
original data to test aseries of parameters in re-
peated tests and pooling data across various di-
mensions increase the chances of false ca ses of
significance. However, this problem is reduced
Experimental Analysis
of
Human-Cat Interactions
somewhat by treating the A and B experiments
separately, calculating main effects only when the
whole variance model was significant, and calcu-
lating contrasts only when the main effect was
significant.
RESULTS
Cat Behavior
Speed of Contact Initiation.
Duringthe reading
phase (Ph
1)
of experiment A, the initiation of
50-
cial
contact had to come from the cat, and the
three latency times show the speed with which
the cats attempted to establish contact. The results
are summarized in Table
1.
The first approach to within one to two meters
of the
test
person occurred in a mean time of
80
seconds; the first
social
element was performed at
156
seconds; and the first body contact was es-
tablished at a mean
279
seconds. All three first
events lie within Ph
1,
the period during which
the test persons were not allowed to do anyth ing
but look at a book. This documents the cats'
general interest in
social
contact with the unfamil-
iar persons, even when the laUer seemed unin-
terested and did not encourage the animals.
However, the analyses of variance show that the
mean values are accompanied by a highly signifi-
cant individuality effect: the standard deviation
caused by the individual animals is high. Each cat
behaved in its own way, and the minimum and
maximum latency limes for the three first events
are highly divergent. The first approach, first
50-
cial
element, and first body contact occurred
wiLhin one, three, and five seconds, respectively,
for the quickest animals, but they never occurred
for a few of the animals, neiLher during the read-
ing phase (Ph
1),
nor in the subsequent interac-
tion phase (Ph
2).
Of course, other cats showed
intermediate values. Apart from the influence of
the cat's individualiLy, the
sex
of the cat and the
person type showed no significant effect on the
cat's behavior. Irrespective of its sex and of the
age-sex dass of the test person, each cat behaved
quite consistently during its six A experiments but
differently from the oLher cats.
Given the test situation, the only possible first
social
element Lhat a cat could show in Ph
1
was
an approach to within one meter of the test per-
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume
11,
Number
2
87
Table 1. Factors Influencing the Cat's Behavior: Results of the MANOVAs with Three Effects Calculated Without
Interactions (Cat Sex x Person Type)
F-value
for model; Effeet of Effect of
levelof individual Effeet of person-
Mean significance SD cat cat sex type
Variable Phase value SD (cat) (df = 21) (residuum) (df=17) (df = 1) (df = 3)
First approach
to
s
2 meters
(seconds) 80 (102.4) 4.58*** (119.5) 5.46*** 0.48 0.33
First social
element
(seconds) 156 (119.8) 6.14*** (117.6) 7.29*** 0.07 1.32
First body
contact
(seconds) 279 (105.8) 4.88*** (131.6) 4.92*** 2.35 1.82
Distance dass
[
Ph 1 0.4 (0.6) 2.32** (1.2) 2.59** 0.69 1.09
O-Body
Contact
(intervals) Ph 2 6.5 (3.3) 5.07*** (3.9) 5.35*** 0.93 1.73
Distance
dasses
[
Ph 1 4.3 4.1 6.59*** 3.8 7.90*** 0.22 0.84
0+1
(intervals) Ph 2 13.3 4.2 6.18*** 4.2 6.92*** 0.52 2.54 (*)
Dislance
dass 3
[
Ph 1 8.1 5.9 8.48*** (4.8) 9.97*** 0.88 0.11
(>
2 meters)
(intervals) Ph 2 1.8 (1.3) 2.36** (2.9) 2.21 ** 0.13 4.10**
Vocalizations
[
Ph 1 4.4 (3.2) 4.42*** (4.1) 4.56*** 3.21 (*) 0.27
(intervals) Ph 2 1.6 (1.9) 4.46*** (2.2) 5.37*** 0.15 0.34
Play
[
Ph 1 1.2 (2.5) 10.07*** (1.9) 11.30*** 1.53 1.36
(intervals) Ph 2 4.8 (4.2) 8.02*** (3.7) 8.66*** 2.22 1.75
Approaches
[
Ph 1 3.5 (1.4) 2.64*** (2.2) 3.23*** 0.00 0.26
(events) Ph 2 2.1 (0.9) 2.07** (2.0) 2.11 ** 0.22 2.67·
Withdrawals
[
Ph 1 3.0 (1.2) 2.25** (2.3) 2.72*** 0.03 0.38
(events) Ph 2 4.8 (3.1) 5.49*** (3.3) 6.14*** 0.39 1.50
Sniffing
[
Ph 1 1.2 (1.2) 4.70*** (1.3) 5.68*** 0.20 3.16
(events) Ph 2 1.0 (0.6) 2.12** (1.3) 8.54** 4.12 (*) 0.17
Head rubbing
[
Ph 1 1.1 (1.3) 1.65* (3.7) 1.76* 0.96 0.82
(events) Ph 2 4.1 (5.1) 8.55*** (4.5) 8.83*** 2.43 0.65
Flank-rubbing
[
Ph 1 0.7 (1.0) 3.10*** (1.8) 3.13*** 2.69 1.05
(everus) Ph 2 1.1 (1.4) 5.19*** (1.6) 5.41 *** 2.30 1.06
Note: Far this and all ather tables: "'p ~ .001, "p ~ .00,'p ~ .05, ('lp ~ .1
88 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume
11,
Number 2 Claudia Mertens and Dennis C. Turner
10
10
FREQUENCY (lntervals/exp.)
1
o
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 dlstance
A D U L T S class
phase 1 phase 2 phase 1 phase 2
girls
1
o
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 dlstance
CHI L D REN class
Figure 1. Frequencies of Four Human-Cat Distance Classes in the Two Phases (1 and 2) of Experiment A.
Note: The maximum frequency for each distance is 20. (Distance dass 0 is body contact and distance dass 3 is separation greater
than two meters.)
son. In 68% of all A experiments, the cat's first
social element was such an approach, a sign of
the cat's interest and curiosity. In 26%, the first
social element was a withdrawal from the ap-
proaching person; in 3%, it was sniffing the per-
son; and, in the remaining 3%, it was either
head/flank rubbing or sodal play.
A high correlation exists between the time
points of the first approach to within one to two
meters of the person and the first social element
(rd
=
0.74;
p
s:
.001); similarly, there is a high cor-
relation between the latency for the first social
element and the first body contact
(rd
=
0.63;
P
'!,
.01). However, the correlation between the
latency for the first approach within one to two
meters and first body contact is not significant
(rd
=
0.43;
P
>
.05). A cat that approached the per-
son to between one and two meters therefare was
not necessarily seeking or expecting body con-
tact; only cats that crossed over the one-meter
threshold were within range of body contact
Cat-Human Oistances and Cat Behavior Ouring
Phase 1. The distances between cat and test per-
son in Ph 1 and Ph 2 are shown in Figure 1, the
statistical results in Table 1. In Ph 1, a distance of
more than one meter could be observed in 78%
of the intervals, a distance of less than one meter
Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Interactions
in 22%. Body contact could only be seen in 2%
of the intervals. Again, the distances are inde-
pendent of the cat's sex and of person type but
very much dependent on the individual cat
In Table 1, the mean frequendes of seven be-
havioraI elements of the cat are also given, to-
gether with the results of the statistical analysis for
each. In Ph 1 and, on the average, over all 116 A
experiments, play could be observed in 1.2 out of
20 intervals (the duration of Ph 1); vocalizations
were emitted in 4.4 intervals; the cat approached
the test person 3.5 times and withdrew 3.0 times;
sniffing, head, or flank rubbing occurred 1.2, 1.1,
and 0.7 times, respectively. The frequencies of all
seven variables are independent of cat sex and of
the person type encountered but vary significantly
from cat to cat. The most playful cat was ob-
served playing at a mean frequency of 11.3 inter-
vals, whereas 11 cats never showed any play in
Ph 1. The most active "meower" vocalized during
an average of 14.7 intervals, three cats were
heard meowing during less than one interval per
experiment. The mean frequency of approaches
varied between 0.6 and 6.8 for individual cats,
that of withdrawals between 0.4 and 6.0. Six cats
never sniffed the test person, nor head nor flank
rubbed; the most active animal sniffed with a
mean frequency of 4.5 times per experiment,
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2 89
while the cat exhibiting the most body contact
head rubbed 6.7 times and flank rubbed 5.3
times.
It appears that the behavior of the cat during
the phase where the human partner did not act or
react to the cat depends only on the cat's in-
dividuality, which is expressed significantly in
every variable observed. Thus, mean values over
different cats are especially useful for the com-
parison of the same cat sampie in different situa-
tions, such as in phases 1 and 2.
Changes
Irom
Spontaneous to Interactive Be-
havior
oi
the Cat. Before testing the quantitative
differences between Ph 1 and Ph 2, that is, be-
tween spontaneous and interactive behavior, the
influence of cat sex, cat individuality, and person
type on cat behavior in Ph 2 were tested. These
results are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1.
As in Ph 1, cat behavior and human-cat distances
in Ph 2 were influenced by the cat's individuality
at a highly significant level and for each variable
tested. Furthermore, in contrast to Ph 1, the
frequencies of distance dass 3 (more than 2 rne-
ters) and of the cat's approaches toward the per-
son depend upon the person type encountered (p
s
.01 and
p
<
.05, respectively). A large distance
between the cat and person is more frequent with
- adults than with children. At the same time, the
cats tended to approach the adults more
frequently than the children (.05
<
p
<
.10), the
females more often than the males (.05 <
p
<
.10). The only significant contrast with respect to
approaches arises between boys and girls, the
girls being approached more frequently than the
boys (p
s
.05).
To analyze the quantitative differences be-
tween Ph 1 and Ph 2, we used a variance model
considering the activity state of the test person
(reading versus interacting freely) as a main effect
and the influence of individual cats as covari-
ance. The results are given in Figure 2 and Table
2 (but see also Figure 1).
The variance model is significant, at a level of
0.1 %, for nine of ten tested parameters and yields
a tendency for the tenth parameter. Seven of the
nine significant variables were influenced by the
activity state of the test person; all nine were in-
fluenced highly by the cat's individuality. When
the test persons started to interact, regardless of
how, the frequencies of most behavioral elements
90
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
of the cat changed, but the nature of the reaction
(amount and direction) was strongly dependent
upon the individual cat.
If we compare the mean differences between
Ph 1 and Ph 2 for all 19 cats, the distance be-
tween human and cat decreased during the inter-
action phase, and the most frequently recorded
distance became less than one meter in 66% of
all intervals. The frequency of body contact was
33% of the intervals, as opposed to 2% in phase
1. Fewer vocalizations were emitted in Ph 2, and
the frequency of play increased. The cat ap-
proached the person less often but showed more
head rubbing.
When we look at the reaction of individual
cats, we have to remember that the difference be-
tween Ph 1 and Ph 2 depends partlyon the be-
havior shown in Ph 1, when consistent individual
differences were already present. Still, the direc-
tion of behavioral changes (increase or reduction
in frequency) was generally the same for all cats,
and, with few exceptions, only the amount of
change was affected by the cat's individuality.
With respect to individual differences in the
amount of behavioral change, two findings de-
serve comment:
1. Over all A experiments and cats, the
frequency of withdrawals did not increase signifi-
cantly from Ph 1 to Ph 2. Nevertheless, the mean
value in Ph 2 is so high relative to Ph 1 that one
might expect a significant difference, similar to
that found for approaches (see Figure 2). In real-
ity, most cats did not withdraw more often, but a
few reacted to the dyadic situation by withdraw-
ing constantly from the person, which created an
artificially high mean frequency.
2. Play and head rubbing were seen signifi-
cantly more often in Ph 2 than in Ph 1, and al-
most all cats showed an increase in the frequency
of the two elements. Qualitatively, it seemed that
many cats had a pronounced preference for either
play or body contact (head/ flank rubbing, wh ich
elicited frequent petting) and increased the fre-
quency of their favorite behavior. All 19 cats were
therefore ranked for their frequency of play and of
body contact (the sum of head rubbing and flank
rubbing) in Ph 2. Those cats having a rank differ-
ence of at least 5 between the two forms of social
behavior were defined as having a preference.
C1audiaMertens and Dennis C. Turner
FREQUENCY
(lntervals/exP.l
FREQUENCY
(events/exP.l
5
..
SNIFFING
PLAY
FREQUENCY
(events/exP.l
WITHDRAWAL
~K-RUBBING
5 5
HEAD- RUBBI NG
1
1
APPROACH
-
1
phase 1 phase 2 phase 1 phase 2 phase
1
phase 2
Figure
2.
Changes in Cat Behavior Between the Reading and Interaction Phases of the
A
Experiments
(N
=
19
cets).
Note: See Table 2 for the effects of activity state and cat individuality.
Seven cats could be classified as "play cats," five
as "contact cats," and seven as having no prefer-
ence (doing both or neither), The negative corre-
lation between play and body contact was not
significant when calculated over all 19 cats
(Spearman Id
=
-0.21;
P
>
.05).
Human Behavior
Speed of Contact lnitietion. The latency times an-
alyzed for the cat in the A experiment were
measured and analyzed for the humans in the B
experiments. In addition, the latency time for the
first human vocalization was recorded and ana-
Iyzed. The results for all four elements are given
in Table 3. Naturally, during the B experiments,
although observation focused on the test persons,
the cats were also interacting, whereas the human
partners were looking at a book for five minutes
when the cats' initiation speed was measured.
The analyses of variance tested the influence of
age and sex on the test persons' behavior. Interac-
tions between age and sex were never significant.
On the average over all 115 experiments, the
test persons showed their first social element 14
seconds after the cat entrance was opened, a first
vocalization within 64 seconds, and the first body
contact at 74 seconds. Interestingly, the first
human approach (at
116
seconds) generally oc-
Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Interactions
curred after the first body contact had been estab-
lished. The tests show a significance of the whole
variance model for the first vocalization and the
first approach but not for the first social element
or the first body contact. Both latency times with
a significant model show a significant age effect
but no sex effect. Adults vocalized earlier than
children and approached later than children.
The choice of the first social element appears
to be dependent on age. In 98% of the experi-
ments with adults, the first social element was a
vocalization. Children showed a vocalization first
in only 38% of their experiments, an approach in
36%,
and playing or petting in
27%.
Adults al-
ways used the same method to attract an un-
known cat; children chose among different meth-
ods. The result, with respect to the time point of
the first body con ta ct, was the same for adults
and children. The adult strategy and the sum of
child strategies had the same mean efficiency.
Still, the different child strategies are not nec-
essarily equally efficient For example, a Spear-
man correlation between the time point of the
first approach and the first body contact was not
significant (rd
=
-0.11;
P
>
.05),
wh ich means that
an approach is a relatively inefficient first social
element. In contrast, the correlation between first
vocalization and first body contact was highly
significant (rd
=
0.30;
P
<
.01),
indicating that
speaking to the cat attracted it, making an ap-
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2 91
Table 2. Effect of Human Activity State (Reading versus Interacting Freely) and of Individual Cat on Human-Cat
Distances and Cat Behavior: Results of the MANOVAs, with One Effect and One Covariance
F-value
for model;
Mean levelof Effect of Effect of
difference significance SO activity state individual cat
Variable (Ph 2-Ph 1) SO (cat) (df
=
19) (residuurn) (df
=
1,18) (df
=
18)
Oistance class 0 6.1 (3.0) 17.66*** 4.1 7.69*** 4.34***
Oistance classes
0+1 9.0 (3.4) 18.51*** (5.6) 9.48*** 3.23***
Oistance class 3 -6.3 (4.6) 13.81*** (5.3) -5.24*** 5.61 ***
Vocalizations -2.8 (3.6) 9.52*** (3.8) -3.08** 6.53***
Play 3.6 (2.5) 7.33*** (4.3) 5.13*** 3.15***
Approaches -1.4 (1.6) 5.02*** (2.5) -3.40** 3.31***
Withdrawals 1.8 (3.6) 8.00*** (3.6) 1.90 (*) 6.91 ***
Sniffing 0.2 (1.1) 3.76*** (1.6) -0.52 3.92***
Head-rubbing 3.0 (3.8) 9.01 *** (4.2) 3.26** 6.00***
Flank-rubbing 0.4 (0.5) 1.25
(*)
(2.2) 1.76 (*) 1.38
Note: Levels of significance as in Table 1.
proach by the human partner unnecessary. As in
the A experiments, the correlation between the
time point of the first social element (regardless of
what it was) and the first body contact is highly
significant (rd
=
0.43;
P
<.001).
The Influence of Person Type on Distance Regula-
tion. The results on distance regulation by the
human partner are also summarized in Table 3.
Withdrawing was not influenced by age or sex.
Children approached a resting cat or followed a
withdrawing cat more often than adults (p
:5
.05
and
p
s;
.001, respectively). Boys followed the cat
most often, significantly more often than girls (p
:5
.05). Children were more active in redudng the
distance to the cat than were the adults.
The Influence of Person Type on Three Possible
Body Postures. Each of the three possible postures
was tested separately for a person-type effect. The
results of the analyses of variance are given in
Table 3.
The variance model is significant for each pa-
rameter. Standing shows an age-class effect: chil-
dren stood more than adults. Sitting has both an
age-class and a sex-class effect, and the contrast
between men and women is also significant:
adults sat more than children and men sat more
than women. Crouching has a highly significant
sex-cl ass effect, and a tendency for an age-class
effect: males crouched less than females, and this
92 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume
11,
Number 2
holds for adults as weil as for children. Since the
three body postures are not independent of each
other, we may conclude that body posture was
generally influenced by the person type.
The Influence of Person Type on Speaking to the
Cat. Adults and children differed not only in
the time point of their first vocalization but also in
the duration and quality of their vocalizations.
Adults vocalized much more than children during
the experiment (see Table 3), and females vocal-
ized more than males. Adults used complete sen-
tences, whereas children used mostly single
words or sounds. In 95% of the experiments with
adults, at least one complete sentence was
spoken (most often together with other sounds).
Thirty-four percent of the children did not vocal-
ize at all; 33% used single words or sounds ex-
clusively; and only 33% spoke complete sen-
tences.
The Influence of Person Type on Petting and Play
Behavior. The two intimate interactions that the
test persons could have with the cat were playing
and petting. Person type had no effect on these
two behavior patterns (see Table 3). On the aver-
age over all experiments, play by the test person
was observed in 8.4 intervals per experiment.
This does not necessarily correspond with the
cat's frequency of play, since test persons often at-
tempted to interact playfully with the cat by play-
C1audiaMertens and Dennis C. Turner
Table 3. Influence of Person Type on Human Behavior: Results of the MANOVAs, with Two Effects
F-value for Effect of Effect of
model; level age class sex class
Mean SD of significance (adults- (males- Interactions
Variable value (residuum)
(df
=
3)
children) females) (age x sex)
First social
element (seconds)
14 (34) 2.04
First vocalization
(seconds)
64 (l09) 13.51*** -6.23*** 1.35 -0.85
First body contact
(seconds)
74 (98) 0.13
First approach
(seconds)
116 (120) 3.67* 3.02** 0.55 1.14
Approaches
(events)
3.2 (3.2) 2.78* -2.49* 1.33 -0.86
Following the Cat
(events)
1.5 (2.4) 8.95*** -4.60*** 1.73 (*) -1.86
(*)
Lifting the Cat
(events)
0.9 (1.3) 2.49 (*) 2.65*' -0.78 0.26
Withdrawals
(events)
1.4 (2.0) 0.66
Vocal ization
(intervals)
9.5 (5.4) 30.14*** 9.32*** 2.40* 0.24
Play (intervals)
8.4 (6.5) 0.72
Petting (intervals)
10.8 (6.6) 1.16
Standing
4.8 (5.0) 3.25' -2.89** 0.99 0.8
Sitting
(intervals)
4.8 (5.4) 9.95*" 4.36'" 2.86" 1.0
Crouching
(intervals)
10.5 (6.4) 5.23" -1.78 (*) -3.14'" -0.2
'-
Note: Levels of significance as in Table 1.
ing with an object. Indeed, the play frequency of
the cats was only an average of 4.8 intervals over
all Ph 2 replicates.
Petting the cat was observed during an aver-
age of 10.4 intervals per experiment. This does
not necessarily mean that the cat participated
freely. The parts touched by most of the test per-
sons were the head, neck, and back of the cat.
DISCUSSION
The very first moments of an encounter between
unfamiliar individuals are unquestionably impor-
tant for the subsequent relationship, since they re-
veal much about the partners' motivation and be-
havioral strategies. In the case of two partners
from different species, contact initiation becomes
Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Interactions
even more complex, involving two different com-
munication systems and, most probably, moti-
vational contexts. The behavior and interactions
observed in our experiments represent such initial
steps in the establishment of a future relationship.
It was important to examine both partners' con-
tributions, as weil as the influence of the human's
behavior on the cat We would also expect an in-
fluence of the cat on the human, but, since most
studies on human-pet relationships have empha-
sized the human partner and applied psychologi-
cal methods (Turner, 1984), we decided to focus
on the animal aspect and use ethological
methods.
Several reasons were behind the choice of
adults and children as test persons. Cats tend to
live in larger families with children (Messent and
Horsfield, 1985), and most cats have to deal with
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
93
children. Secondly, the developmental and ther-
apeutic importance of a pet to a child has been
pointed out by several authors, most emphatically
by Levinson (1969, 1972, 1978); however, be-
havioral investigations of the development and
dynamics of child-pet relationships are rare.
Thirdly, the age and sex of a person have been
described as factors influendng the attitude
toward pets, espedally cats (Brown, 1984; Kellert,
1984; Stewart, 1983), but no study exists exarnin-
ing behaviora I differences between adults and
children in relation to a cat or the potential influ-
ence of those differences on the cat's subsequent
behavior.
Children between six and ten years old ap-
peared to be the most suitable for our study: their
fear of animals is low (Bauer, 1976), their interest
is high (lersild, 1968), and they are old enough to
stay alone in an unfamiliar observation room for
ten minutes.
Useful Parameters for Studying Hurnan-Cat
Interactions and Relationships
Of the large list of parameters that we recorded,
we would like to discuss those that proved to be
the most useful and interesting.
Speed and Species-Specific Contributions
of
Con-
tact Initiation. The first body contact between cat
and test person is a key event, since both partners
are visibly involved. Also, most of the test persans
actively tried to establish/maintain body contact,
and most of the cats sought contact or at least
tolerated the humans' initiative. Body contact ap-
pears to be important to both partners and for the
relationship.
The time point of the first occurrence of body
contact depends greatly upon the social context
(rnean latency in the A experiments
=
279 sec-
onds, in the B experiments
=
74 seconds). This
proves that contact initiation is a mutual process
that is delayed when one partner appears to be
uninterested (reading phase of experiment A).
The latency for the first social element, the ini-
tiator of this very first step, and its content also
are useful parameters, since the timing of the first
body contact depends upon them. As the social
situation was different at the starts of experiments
94
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
A and B, we must combine the results of both to
determine which partner most probably would
initiate social contact first in an unrestricted
dy-
adic situation.
The mean latency time for the cats' first social
element is 156 seconds, which lies within the
reading phase, during which the human partner
did not react to or encourage the cat However,
we had high-initiative cats, which showed their
first social element within a few seconds, together
with more reserved and even a few shy cats. The
humans' mean latency for their first social element
is 14 seconds, and we may conclude that, in a
free situation, it generally would be the human
partner who would initiate the social contact.
Humans mainly initiate by vocalizing or by
approaching the cat; cats will generally react by
approaching or withdrawing, and we could dis-
tinguish between trustful and shy cats, as did
Meier and Turner (1985). We therefore conclude
that, in further studies, recording the chronology
of events up to the first body contact, determining
the initiating partner, and analyzing the interin-
dividual sequence of behavior shown will con-
tribute greatly to the ethological analysis of inter-
actions (and relationships).
Distance Regulation. Records of the distances ob-
served between partners and of distance-regulat-
ing behavior (approaching, following, withdraw-
ing) are another very useful tool in analyzing
social relationships. We found that the distance
between cat and person was dependent on the
social situation (person reading or interacting
freely), the individual cat, and the person type.
Furthermore, distance-regulating behavior of the
cat varied with the social context (Ph 1 and Ph 2),
from cat to cat, and partly (for approaching but
not withdrawing) with the partner type en-
countered. But the humans also showed age-class
differences in their behavior. We therefore con-
clude that the combination of partners (trustful or
shy cats, adults or children), and their behavioral
contributions, as weil as the resulting distances
are all important when analyzing human-cat in-
teractions and relationships in different contexts.
Single Behavioral Elements Important to the Rele-
tionship. With respect to cat behavior, three ele-
ments appear to be important since their duration
Claudia Mertens and Dennis C. Turner
or frequency changed with the social situation:
the amount of vocalizing; the amount of playing
(whether social or not); and the frequency of head
rubbing on the partner. In the dyadic situation,
the majority of cats vocalized less, played more,
and head rubbed more frequently than in the
reading phase. Social behavior of the human usu-
ally motivated the cat to become more active so-
dally.
Although no functional analysis was made, the
fact that cat vocalizations are reduced in the in-
teraction phase leads us to two plausible explana-
tions for cat vocalizations during first encounters:
they may represent contact-initiation behavior or,
on the contrary, a sign of distress. Since contact in
the interaction phase is established positively in
most dyads and the social situation generally is
norrnalized by an interacting partner, the cat is
less motivated to vocalize than it is during the
reading phase, either because of its success at
making contact or because of reduced stress after
contact.
With respect to human behavior, the amount
and quality of the vocalizations and the
frequency of lifting the cat are interesting. AI-
though the variance model for lifting showed only
a tendency, the effect of age dass was highly sig-
nificant, with adults lifting the cats more often
than children. This needs to be substantiated and
ana Iyzed further. That human postures depend
upon the person's age and sex dass is proven
statistically, but they have no apparent influence
on key events such as first body contact.
Factors Influencing Cat Behavior
Of the four factors tested for a possible influence
on the cat's behavior, the cat's individuality and
the person's activity status proved to have a sig-
nificant effect; the cat's sex had no effect, and the
human's age-sex class affected only distance reg-
ulation. Individuality proved to be the most im-
portant factor influencing cat behavior, since it
was operative independent of the human's activ-
ity state, that is, whether the person was reading
or interacting with the cat.
We use the term "individuality" (or personal-
ity) as a synonym for individual differences at two
different levels: the level of measurement, for
single behavioral elements, and the level of inter-
Experimental Analysis of Human-Cat Inleractions
pretation, for the sum of the differences found.
Feaver, Mendl, and Bateson (1986) also use the
term "behavioral style." In a descriptive study, it is
impossible to determine whether such differences
are due to genes (Slater, 1981; Turner et al.,
1986), early experience (Karsh, 1983; 1984), later
learning, or, possibly, other factors. But it is
possible to describe personality types (Mendl and
Harcourt, 1988), wh ich differ from each other
with respect to specific characteristics. For our
study cats, we were able to differentiate qualita-
tively between shy and trustful individuals, initia-
tors of social contact and more reserved cats, and
individuals having a preference for body contact
or play and those showing no preference. It was
not our goal to work out behavioral profiles for
the cats; still, the general finding that each cat re-
acts consistently in its personal way, significant
even with only six experiments per cat, cannot be
overemphasized. This is even more astonishing,
given that all 19 cats were raised in practically
the same way, housed similarly, and sired by just
two fathers (see Turner et al., 1986). Individual
differences among cats do not necessarily have to
be stable over time or across situations (Steven-
son-Hinde, 1983). Even so, they must be con-
sidered, espedally when matching cats to people
and when prescribing pets as therapists.
Cat behavior differs considerably in Ph 1 and
Ph 2 of experiment A. This indicates that cats
react strongly to the human behavior shown
toward them, since it is improbable that they
would change their behavior for other reasons
after having observed the inactive partner for five
minutes. This is just another manifestation of the
well-known fact that partners in a relationship
indeed act and react according to the behavior
directed toward them. What may be less obvious
is that this also holds in interspecific relationships.
Therefore, one must not neglect or, worse yet, ig-
nore the animal when studying human-pet rela-
tionships (even if one is only interested in benefits
for the human), since the animal, too, influences
this relationship.
The fact that the cats showed only a weak re-
action to differences in the behavior of the four
person types can be explained by the restricted
opportunities for major differences in this be-
havior in the experimental room and the time
given.
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
95
Cat behavior was not influenced by the sex of
the animal. However, 14 of the 19 cats were
castrated/neutered, which might have eliminated
a potential sex effect But, since a large propor-
tion of privately owned cats are also castrated,
our results suggest that cat sex is of little impor-
tance in the establishment of a relationship.
Factors Influencing Human Behavior
Of the two factors tested for a possible influence
on human behavior, age proved to be more im-
portant than sex. Adults and children behaved
differently with respect to contact-initiating be-
havior, vocalizations, distance regulation, and
postures assumed. But they were similar with re-
spect to the time point of the first social element
and that of first body contact and the amount of
play and petting. From the cats' reactions, we
may condude that adult and child strategies were
equally effective.
Adults preferred a vocalization as first socia I
element and maintained almost constant vocal
contact with the cat when interacting. Children
used a vocalization as one possible way of com-
ing into contact but did not usually vocalize
while interacting actively. It seems that vocaliza-
tions and approaches to the cat were used alter-
natively and with the same success, resulting in a
reduction of distance and frequent body contact.
By vocalizing, the adults left the active locomo-
tion to the cats; children more often took the ini-
tiative themselves.
The sex-dass differences involved only pos-
tures and the amount of vocalizing. Still, we
gained the impression that the onset of the rela-
tionship was less harmonious with boys than with
girls. A larger sampie size would be necessary to
establish whether sex-dass differences (which
might disappear later on) exist in children, or the
slight age difference between our test boys and
girls was responsible for our qualitative impres-
sion.
Concluding Remarks
This study has demonstrated the usefulness of ap-
plying ethological methods to analyze human-pet
interactions and relationships. Since we found
that the animal also influences the interactions in
96
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume
11,
Number 2
a relationship, the contribution of the pet's be-
havior should not be ignored. Psychological
methods, although still very useful, can only be
applied to the human partner, whereas identical
ethological methods can be applied to record the
behavior of both the human and the animal part-
ners in these relationships. We therefore recom-
mend the continued use of ethological methods
for studying human-pet interactions. And, with re-
spect to human-cat relationships, we can now
recommend the use of these rnethods in a less re-
stricted environment (e.g., the normal home set-
ting) and for longer observation periods.
REFERENCES
Bauer, D. H.
1976.
An exploratory study of developmen-
tal changes in children's fears. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry
17: 69-74.
Bergler, R.
1986.
Mensch und Hund. Psychologie einer
Beziehung. Cologne, West Germany: Edition Agrippa.
Brown, D.
1984.
Personality and gender influences on
human relationships with horses and dogs. In The pet
connection: Its influence on our hea/th and qua/ity of
Iife, ed. R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, and L. A. Hart, pp.
216--23.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Collard,
R.
R.
1967.
Fear of strangers and play behavior
in kittens with varied social experience. Chi/d
Deve/opment
38: 877-91.
Corson, S. A., E. O. O'Leary-Corson, and P. Gwynne.
1975.
Pet-facilitated psychotherapy. In Pet animals
and society, ed. R. S. Anderson, pp.
19-36.
London:
Bayllere and Findall.
Deag, j. M., A. Manning, and C. E. Lawrence.
1988.
Fac-
tors influencing the mother-kitten relationship. In The
domestic cat: The biology of its behavior, ed. D. C.
Turner and P. Bateson. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Feaver, j., M. Mendel, and P. Bateson.
1986.
A method
for rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic
cats. Anima/ Behaviour 34:
1016--25.
Hliatre, j.-c., j.-L. Millot, and H. Montagner.
1986.
New
data on communication behavior between the young
child and his pet dog. Behavioral processes 12:
33-44.
Fitzgerald, B. M.
1988.
Diet of domestic cats and their
impact on prey populations. In The domestic cat: The
biology of its behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P.
Bateson. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Friedmann, E., A. H. Katcher, M. Eaton, and B. Berger.
1984.
Pet ownership and psychological status. In The
pet connection: Its influence on our health and quali-
tyof/ife, ed. R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, and L. A. Hart,
pp.
300-308.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Guttmann, G.
1981.
The psychological determinants of
C1audiaMertens and Dennis C. Turner
keeping pets. In Interrelations between people and
pets,
ed. B. Fogle, pp.
89-98.
Springfield, 111.:CharIes
C. Thomas.
Hart, B. L., and L. A. Hart. Canine and feline behavioral
therapy. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.
jersild, A. T.
1968.
Child psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
New jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Karsh, E. B.
1983.
The effects of early handling on the
development of social bonds between cats and
people. In New perspectives on our lives with com-
panion animals, ed. A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck, pp.
22-28.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvan ia Press.
---. 1984.
Factors influeneing the soeialization of
cats to people. In Thepet connection: Its influence on
our health and quality of life, ed. R. K. Anderson, B. L.
Hart, and L.A. Hart, pp.
207-15.
Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press.
Karsh, E. B., and
D.
C. Turner.
1988.
The human-cat
relationship. In The domestic cat: The biology of its
behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kellert, S. R.
1984.
Attitudes towards animals: Age-re-
lated development among children. In The pet con-
nection: 1tsinfluence on our health and quality of life,
ed. R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, and L. A. Hart, pp.
76-
88.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kerby, G., and D. W. Macdonald.
1988.
Cat society and
the consequences of colony size. In The domestic cat:
The biology of its behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P.
Bateson. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Levinson, B. M.
1969.
Pet-oriented child psychotherapy.
Springfield, 111.:CharIes C. Thomas.
--.1972.
Petsandhumandevelopment. Springfield,
111.:CharIes C. Thomas.
--. 1978.
Pets and personality development.
Psychological Reports 42:
1031-1038.
Leyhausen, P.
1979.
Catbehavior. The predatory and
50-
cial behavior of domestic and wild cats. New York:
Garland. STPM Press.
--.1988.
The tarne and the wild-Another just so
story? In The domestic cat: The biology of its be-
haviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Liberg, 0., and M. Sandeil.
1988.
Spatial organisation
and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other
felids. In The domestic cat: The biology of its be-
haviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
McCulloch, M.
1983.
Animal-facilitated therapy: Over-
view and future direction. In New perspectives on our
lives with companion animals, ed. A. H. Katcher and
A.
M. Beck, pp.
410-27.
Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Macdonald, D. W., P. I. Apps, G. M. Carr, and G. Kerby.
1987.
Social dynamics, nursing coalitions and infan-
tieide among farm cats, Felis catus. Advances in Erhol-
ogy, no. 28:
1-66.
Martin, P., and P. Bateson.
1988.
Behavioural develop-
ment in the cat. In The domestic cat: The biology of its
ExperimentalAnalysis of Human-Cat Interactions
behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Meier,
M.,
and
D.
C. Turner.
1985.
Reactions of house
cats duringencounters with a strange person: Evidence
for two personality types. journal of the Delta Society
2:
45-53.
Mendl,
M.,
and R. Harcourt.
1988.
Individuality in the
domestic cat. In The domestic cat: The biology of its
behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Messent, P., and S. Horsfield.
1985.
Pet population and
pet-owner bond. In The human-pet relationship, ed.
Institute of Interdiseiplinary Research on the Human-
Pet Relationship, pp.
9-17.
Vienna, Austria: IEMT.
Moelk, M.
1944.
Vocalizations in the house cat: A
phonetic and functional study. American journal of
Psychology 57:
184-205.
Slater, P. [. B.
1981.
Individual differences in animal
be-
havior. In Perspectives in Erhology, ed. P. P. G. Bateson
and P. H. Klopfer, vol.
4,
pp.
35-49.
London: Plenum
Press.
Stevenson-Hinde, j.
1983.
Individual characteristics and
the social situation. In Primate social relationships: An
integrated approach, ed. R. A. Hinde, pp.
28-35.
Ox-
ford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Stewart, M. F.
1983.
Children's attitude to companion
animals: The controversial cat. Paper presented at
Society for Companion Animal Studies Meeting, Lon-
don.
Turner, D. C.
1984.
Overview of research on human-
animal interaction in Switzerland. journal
oithe
Delta
Society 1:
44-45.
Turner, D. c., and P. Bateson, eds.
1988.
The domestic
cat: The biology of its behaviour. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner,
D.
c.,
l-
Feaver, M. Mendl, and P. Bateson. Varia-
tions in domestic cat behavior towards humans: A
paternal effect. Animal Behaviour 34:
1890-92.
Turner, D. c., and O. Meister.
1988.
Hunting behaviour
of the domestic cat. In The domestic cat: The biology
of its behaviour, ed. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Voith, V. L.
1983.
Animal behavior problems: An over-
view. In New perspectives on our lives with com-
panion animals, ed. A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck, pp.
181-86.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Wilson,
M.,
l-
M. Warren, and L. Abbott,
1965.
Infantile
stimulation, activity and learning by cats. Child
Development
36:
843-53.
ANTHROZOÖS, Volume 11,Number 2
97
