Content uploaded by Veronika Konok
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Veronika Konok on Oct 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is the final version of the manuscript sent to journal for publication after
acceptance. Note the final printed version might be different from this one due to the
editing process.
The full citation:
Konok, V., Pogány, Á., Miklósi, Á. 2017. Mobile attachment: Separation from the mobile
induces physiological and behavioural stress and attentional bias to separation-related
stimuli. Computers In Human Behavior, 71: 228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.002
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
The behavior of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) during separation from and reunion with the
owner - a questionnaire and an experimental study
Veronika Konok, Antal Dóka, Ádám Miklósi
Eötvös University, Department of Ethology, Budapest, Hungary
Address of all authors:
Department of Ethology, Eötvös University
H-1117, Pázmány P. s. 1/c
Budapest, Hungary
Tel: + 36 1 3812179
Fax: +36 1 3812180
e-mail addresses:
VK: konokvera@gmail.com
AD: dokaantal@gmail.com
AM: amiklosi62@gmail.com
Corresponding author: konokvera@gmail.com
2
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
3
4
Abstract
We have constructed a questionnaire to investigate the separation behavior in a sample of family dogs
(Canis familiaris) (N=45) and in parallel we have observed dogs’ separation-related behavior in a
simple behavioral test (Separation and greeting test, S&G). We recorded the dogs’ behavior during the
separation from and reunion (greeting) with the owner. We investigated whether owners’ report about
their dogs’ separation behavior reflected the separation behavior under controlled testing conditions.
Furthermore, we wanted to find out whether the duration of separation affected the behavior of dogs
and whether there was some relationship between separation and greeting behavior.
Dogs that were rated by their owner to be more “anxious” during separation and “happier” at reunion,
showed more activity and stress-related behavior during separation, and more affection toward the
owner during greeting. Dogs with owner-reported Separation-related disorder (SRD) showed more
stress-related behavior, they spent less time near the owner’s chair during separation, and were more
active during greeting than dogs without SRD. The two groups of dogs did not differ in affectionate
behavior shown toward the owner. Non-affected dogs’ activity decreased with increasing separation
duration, but dogs with SRD did not show this change in their separation behavior.
Our results show that owners’ have a realistic view on their dogs’ separation behavior. In addition,
dogs with SRD may not be “hyper-attached” to their owners because they do not show more affection
during greeting. Moreover, dogs with SRD do not show preference for the owners’ objects left behind
and they cannot be easily calmed by the returning owner.
Our questionnaire and the Separation and greeting test could be used for screening dogs with
suspected separation-related behavior problems.
Key words: dog, separation behavior, greeting behavior, separation-related disorder
3
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
5
6
1. Introduction
For social animals the group has a survival function because being alone could be dangerous. Pairs
and larger groups are held together by social bonds (Carter, 1998). Attachment can be considered as a
particular kind of affectionate bond which can exist between peers (Higley et al., 1992), monogamous
sexual mates (Remage-Healey et al., 2003) and most obviously between parent and its offspring
(Ainsworth and Bell, 1970). According to Bowlby (1969) the ultimate function of parent-offspring
attachment is to protect against predators and maintain the supply of resources for offspring if they
remain in proximity to the parent(s). Attached individuals (e.g. offspring) tend to maintain proximity
to and contact with the attachment figure (e.g. parent) and become distressed when separation occurs
(Bowlby, 1969). Several studies showed that in many species a brief separation from the mother
induced behavioral and/or physiological indicators of stress (e.g. human infants: Ainsworth and Bell,
1970; squirrel monkey (Saimiri sp): Coe et al., 1978; dog (Canis familiaris): Elliot and Scott, 1961).
The attachment is controlled through proximity-seeking and proximity-maintaining behaviors. These
behaviors may modulate the reaction of the mother (or other social partners). In the case of human
infants crying elicits approach in the mother, while smiling, babbling or eye-contact keep the mother
close to the baby (Bowlby, 1969).
Dog-human relationship manifests a very special case because social ties develop among members of
two different species. Nevertheless it has been argued that family dogs live in a mutual attachment
relationship with their human companion(s) (e.g. Kurdek 2009; Serpell 1996). In addition, the
application of the Strange Situation Test (Ainsworth, 1969) revealed that dogs shows functionally
analogue behaviors to human infants: they tend to maintain proximity and showing stress-related
behaviors after brief separations from the owner (Topál et al., 1998; Prato-Previde et al., 2003). Dogs
utilize the owner as a “secure base” for exploring the environment (Prato-Previde et al., 2003)
similarly to human infants. It has been supposed that the domestication predisposed dogs to form
attachment relationships with humans (Topál et al., 2005). The emergence of an attachment
relationship could be facilitated by some “infantile” morphological and behavioral features in dogs
(Coppinger et al., 1987).
4
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
7
8
Although the stress-related behavior to separation is an adaptive response of the attached individual,
normal maturation results in increased tolerance to both spatial and temporal separation from the
attachment figure. However, both in humans and in dogs some in the course of development some
individuals maintain a lower threshold for the activation of the attachment system which is often
considered to be problematic (abnormal), due to its extreme degree, form and consequences.
Separation-related disorder (SRD) (Gaultier et al., 2005) is a common behavior problem in dogs, when
the problematic behavior occurs exclusively in the owner’s absence or virtual absence. Owners of dogs
with SRD complain most frequently about destructive behavior displayed at home, excessive
vocalization (often noticed by neighbors), or inappropriate elimination (urination/defecation)
(Sherman, 2008). A recent study showed that dogs with SRD are characterized with a negative
affective state which manifests in a cognitive bias in an ambiguous choice task (Mendl et al., 2010).
In the veterinary literature questionnaires are often used (e.g. Overall et al., 2001; McGreevy and
Masters, 2008) to measure separation behavior and separation-related disorder in dogs, but so far the
questionnaires have not been validated by the means of behavior tests. Some studies have been carried
out to observe separation behavior directly and to make standardized behavioral measurement (Lund
and Jørgensen, 1999; Parthasarathy and Crowell-Davis, 2006; Palestrini et al., 2010, Rehn and
Keeling, 2011), but there were no collations of these behavioral observations and the reports of the
owners. Owners report was used mostly for screening of dogs.
In some cases owners may infer the separation behavior of the dog indirectly only, for example by
observing the intensity of the greeting behavior of the dog. One may assume that the amount of
stressful experience influences directly the greeting behavior of the dog, or alternatively, it is possible
that regardless of the separation some dogs greet their owners more or less enthusiastically. Previous
studies on attachment (e.g. Topál et al., 1998; Prato-Previde et al., 2003; Gácsi et al., 2001, etc.)
observed behavior both during separation and at greeting but they did not focus on the association
between them. In line with this a recent study (Rehn and Keeling, 2011) reported that the longer the
separation the more interaction the dog initiates with the owner and the more tail-wagging and owner-
directed attentive behavior the dog displays in the post-separation period (10 minutes after owner’s
arrival).
5
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
9
10
It has been assumed that the behavior may change with increasing time of separation. Bowlby (1969)
observed that children and young primates went through the same behavior sequence when separated
from the attachment figure. The initial “protest” phase which consists of crying, screaming and burst
of anger was followed by the “despair” phase which is characterized by the decrease of motor and
vocal activity. If separation continues, the process eventuates in “detachment” from the attachment
figure, and the young animal/child will be active and independent. Each phase can be considered as an
adaptive strategy to survive. In accordance with this, and in the case of the dog, Lund and Jørgensen
(1999) found that activity and the frequency of some distress-related behavior elements decreased with
time during a four-hour long period. In contrast, in the study of Rehn and Keeling (2011) dogs’
behavior did not change in parallel with different (half-, two- and four-hour long) separation durations.
However, the comparability of the two studies is limited, because in the former only dogs with SRD,
while in the latter only dogs without SRD were observed. However, Palestrini et al. (2010) found no
significant change even in the separation behavior of dogs with SRD, during a 40-minute long
separation at home.
Thus, the aim of the present study was threefold. First, we introduced a questionnaire (Separation
Questionnaire) to estimate the prevalence of separation related disorder in a small sample of family
dogs. Second, we designed a simple behavioral test (S&G) in order to validate owner’s report on their
dogs’ separation-related behavior. We assumed that owner’s indication of SRD in their dog will be
associated with certain behavior pattern displayed during separation and greeting. Third, we wanted to
see whether the manipulation of separation duration affects the behavior of the dogs, predicting that
the duration of separation affects the dog’s separation and greeting behavior.
2. Method
2.1. Subjects
45 dogs and their owners participated in the test. One Separation Questionnaire was lost due to
technical reasons. Dogs’ median age was 4.2 years (ranging from 1.2 to 11.6 years); there were 18
males, 27 females, 16 mixed and 29 pure breeds. From the 45 dogs 15 had separation problem
according to the Separation Questionnaire (see below). From the 15 dogs 12 were males, and only
6
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
11
12
three were females, which is in contrast with the gender-proportion of the whole sample. The median
age of the dogs with separation problem did not differ from the dogs without a problem (Mann-
Whitney test; U=199.5; p=0.656).
All procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee of Eötvös Loránd University, Department of
Ethology and conducted in accordance with the Hungarian State Health and Medical Service
(ÁNTSZ).
2.2. Materials
The experiments took place in the laboratory of the Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest, Hungary. The layout of the testing room is depicted on Figure 1. A ball, a paper
box, a cupboard, and a chair were placed into the room before starting the experiment. The video-
recording was made with four cameras. The view of the cameras was transferred to a computer in the
adjacent room, where the experimenter could observe the events in the testing room. The experimenter
gave instructions to the owner via a headset.
Insert Figure 1.
Before the experiment the owners were asked to fill out the Separation Questionnaire regarding their
habits and feelings in connection with leaving their dogs alone. The items of the questionnaire are
listed in the Appendix.
2.3. Procedure
From the 45 dogs 15 were tested with a 1-minute-long separation, 15 with a 3-minute-long separation,
and 15 with a 5-minute-long separation (between subject design). In the different conditions the
proportion of dogs with and without separation problem did not differ (G-test, G=0.627; p=0.731). The
test consisted of three phases.
7
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
13
14
Introduction phase: The dog and the owner entered the testing room, and dog was allowed to walk
around off leash. The owner closed the door, put the leash on the back of the chair and sat down. The
observation started one minute after the owner had taken the seat. During this period the owner was
allowed to look at the dog and talk to it, but he/she was not allowed to touch it. If the dog brought the
ball to the owner, he/she was not allowed to play with the dog. After one minute the experimenter told
the owner via the headphone to say goodbye to the dog and to go out from the testing room through
„door 1” (see Figure 1.). Then the owner went out to the corridor, and came into the room, where the
experimenter was sitting.
Separation phase: The phase started when the owner closed „door 1”. Depending on the condition, the
separation phase lasted 1, 3 or 5 minutes. At the end of the separation the owner was asked to go to
„door 2” and call the dog loudly twice by its name separated by 5 seconds break. This was done in
order to move the dog away from “door 1” before the owner returned to the testing room. This allowed
us to observe how fast the dogs approach the owner.
Greeting phase: The owner entered through „door 1”. After stepping in he/she closed the door and
greeted the dog. Owners were free to interact with the dog, however, they were told that they should
greet the dog intensely, pet it and talk to it. The greeting lasted for 15 seconds from the owner stepping
in the testing room.
After the greeting the owner was told to put the leash back and leave the room with the dog.
2.4. Behavior coding
The videotapes of the experiments were coded with Solomon Coder beta 10.11.29 (Copyright © 2010
András Péter; http://solomoncoder.com/). The behavior of the dogs was coded during the last minute
of separation (which was the only minute in the case of the 1-minute-long separation) and during the
greeting. Coded behavior elements, their definitions and the corresponding test phases are listed in
Table 1. The relative percentage of the time spent with these behaviors was established.
Insert Table 1.
8
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
15
16
Twenty percent of the videos (N=9, three per conditions) were coded also by a second observer. Inter-
observer reliability was determined for each variable category by counting Cohen’s Kappa coefficients
between the coding of the two observers. The reliability can be considered as very good, the Cohen’s
Kappa ranged from 0.698 to 0.88.
2.5. Data analysis
Before analyzing the questionnaire and the S&G test, we formed scales in order to reduce data and to
avoid multiple comparisons.
Internal consistencies of the questionnaire scales were high, Cronbach’s alphas are presented in
brackets. We formed a scale called “Owner-worry” (0.87) from the items reflecting the owners’ worry
about leaving the dog alone (items 7-9). In parallel, we constructed a scale named “Dog-worry”
(0.837) from the items describing the dogs’ worry when separated from owner (items 10-12). Similarly
we merged items 13 to 15 in a scale called “Need-for-calming” (0.782), and items 16 to 17 were
merged to a scale named “Dog-joy” (0.83). Neither of the scales was normally distributed.
We formed scales also from the correlating behavioral variables of the S&G test which seemed to refer
to the same underlying construct. The Separation Activity scale was formed from standing, walking,
running, and lying (inverse) (0.69). The Separation Distress scale consisted of whining, tail-wagging
(fast and slow together), physical contact with the door (scratching), and rearing on the wall or the
door (0.68). [There are several reports supporting this scale; vocalization can occur as a consequence
of fear or anxiety (Landsberg et al., 2003; Overall, 1997). Tail-wagging may indicate stress (Beerda et
al., 2000). Destruction is one of the main symptoms of separation-related disorder of dogs (Sherman,
2008)]. The Greeting Affection scale with moderate internal consistency (0.543) was formed based on
proximity to owner, looking at owner, fast tail-wagging, rearing to the owner and walking (inverse).
Additionally, we used “running” as a separate variable to indicate Greeting Activity (Running did not
correlate with any other behavior).
From these four scales, three (Separation Activity, Separation Distress and Greeting Activity) were not
normally distributed, because a large percent of the dogs had zero values (Separation Activity: 22.2%,
N=10, Separation Distress: 40%, N=18 and Greeting Activity: 57.7%, N=26). The large number of
9
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
17
18
tied values which would occur with standard non-parametric comparisons may lead to inappropriate
results (Ruxton et al., 2010). Thus we chose to form binary variables, that is, to recode the original
variables, according to whether the behavior occurred or not. We applied this method to the
Separation Activity, Separation Distress and Greeting Activity scales. The Greeting Affection scale was
however normally distributed, so we left it unchanged, as a continuous variable (for the summary of
the questionnaire and behavior scales, see Table 2).
Insert Table 2.
2.6. Statistical analyses
We used SPSS 16.0 for the statistical analysis. Associations among questionnaire scales were analyzed
by Spearman correlation because most of the items were not normally distributed. With the binary
behavior variables Chi-square tests (or Fisher’s exact tests, when cells had expected count less than 5)
were applied when analyzing the association with the presence of SRD; Chi-square tests when
analyzing the effect of separation duration (condition); and Mann-Whitney or T-tests when analyzing
the associations between the binary variables and certain behavioral (e.g. Greeting Affection) or
questionnaire (e.g. Owner-worry) scales. With the Greeting Affection scale ANOVA was used to
analyze the effect of condition and Spearman correlations to analyze associations with questionnaire
scales. We used 0.05 as the value of alpha.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analysis of the questionnaire (N=44)
Most of the owners (39 from the 44) leave their dog alone at least 3-6 times per week. Half of them
(22) leave the dog alone for 4-8 hours, 11 owners for more than 8 hours, and 10 owners for 1-4 hours.
Owners usually leave the dog alone at home (in the flat or in the garden).
10
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
19
20
From the 15 owners whose dog has separation problem, 11 owners complained about continuous
vocalization (whining, howling and/or barking), seven about destructive behavior (scratching of the
door/wall, chewing of objects), and only one about urination. There were four other responses, which
referred to anxiousness, “hissy” or waiting for the owner at the gate.
3.2. Correlations between the questionnaire scales (N=44)
Owner-worry correlated positively with Dog-worry (rs= 0.763, p<0.001) and with Need-for-calming
(rs=0.551, p<0.001) scales. Dog-worry correlated with Dogjoy (rs=0.414, p=0.005), and with Need-for-
calming (rs=0.746, p<0,001). Because of these strong correlations and the possibly similar background
construct (both scales describe dogs’ anxiety), we merged the Dog-worry and the Need-for-calming
scales into a new scale, that we called Dog-anxiety (Cronbach’s Alpha=0.885, normally distributed).
Thus for further analysis we used three scales (Owner-worry, Dog-anxiety and Dog-joy) (Table 2).
3.3. Analyses of the S&G test
3.3.1. Validation of behavioral observations with the Separation Questionnaire scales (N=44)
Dogs displaying more activity during separation (Separation Activity) got higher scores on both the
Dog-anxiety scale and the Dog-joy scale. The more stressful a dog was during separation (Separation
Distress), the higher scores it obtained on the Dog-anxiety, Owner-worry and Dog-joy scale (for the
summary of the results, the test and p values, and the medians of the subgroups, see Table 3).
Dogs showing more affection toward the owner (Greeting Affection) got higher points on the Dog-
anxiety and Dog-joy questionnaire scales, and dogs who were more active in greeting (Greeting
Activity), obtained higher scores on Owner-worry scale (see also Table 3).
Insert Table 3.
3.3.2. Comparison of the behavior of dogs with and without SRD (N=44)
Comparing Separation Activity, Separation Distress, Greeting Activity and Greeting Affection in dogs
with and without an owner-reported separation problem (SRD) we found that in dogs with SRD the
11
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
21
22
proportion of those who showed Separation Distress during separation and Greeting Activity at
encountering the owner was significantly higher than in dogs without SRD (Fisher’s exact test,
p=0.003; p=0.03 respectively) (Figure 2). There was no significant difference between the two groups
in Separation Activity and Greeting Affection.
In addition in dogs with SRD the proportion of those who stayed (for any duration) in proximity to the
chair was lower than in dogs without SRD (Fisher’s exact test, p=0.009) (Figure 2).
Insert Figure 2.
For further comparison we selected dogs from the non-SRD group that had higher “Dog-anxiety”
score (N=13) than the group average. We compared these, highly anxious dogs with SRD dogs
(N=15). The two groups did not differ in any of the questionnaire scales, however we found that in
SRD dogs the proportion of those who stayed (for any duration) in proximity to the chair was lower
than in highly anxious dogs without SRD (X2=12.253; p<0.001). In contrast, in SRD dogs the
proportion of dogs who had physical contact with the doors (X2=3.877; p=0.049) was higher than in
highly anxious dogs without SRD.
3.3.3. Effects of separation duration (N=45)
First we analyzed the effect of condition on the whole sample (N=45). From the 4 variables, separation
time affected only the Separation Activity (Chi² test, X2=7.2; p=0.027), dogs became less active with
longer separation. We got similar results when we analyzed the effect of condition on the non-affected
dogs solely (N=29): i.e. dogs became less active with longer duration of separation (X2=6.913;
p=0.032) (Figure 3), but separation time did not affect the other three variables. However, in dogs with
SRD (N=15) separation duration had no influence on activity, either (X2=2.143; p=0.34) (Figure 3).
While in the non-affected group nine dogs were passive during separation (i.e. they had a zero value
on the Separation Activity variable) independently from the condition, from the SRD group only one
did not show Separation Activity, which can explain the lack of time-effect in this group.
12
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
23
24
Insert Figure 3.
3.3.4. Association between separation and greeting behavior (N=45)
We found that dogs that were active during separation (Separation Activity) showed significantly more
affection toward the owner during greeting (Greeting Affection) (T-test, t=2.454, p=0.018) (Figure 4).
Additionally, there were significantly more active dogs during greeting (Greeting Activity) among
dogs who showed Separation Distress than among dogs without any sign of Separation Distress (Chi²
test, X²=4.919, p=0.027) (Figure 5).
Insert Figure 4.
Insert Figure 5.
4. Discussion
4.1. Validation of behavioral observation with the questionnaire
We assumed that owners are aware of the separation behavior of their dogs (McGreevy and Masters,
2008). Thus we aimed at validating our behavioral observations in the test situation by the means of
the separation questionnaire. We found that dogs with higher Separation Activity and Separation
Distress in the test are more anxious when alone according to their owners’ report, and dogs showing
higher affection toward their owner during greeting are perceived by the owner as the most “happy”
on reunion. These associations provide strong convergent validity for our observations. Further,
owners worry mostly about dogs with higher separation distress and greeting activity, which is in
accordance with the finding that dogs with separation problem have higher scores on these behavior
variables. This is the first demonstration that there is an association between dogs’ separation behavior
and owners’ reports on its situation-related feelings.
4.2. Association between separation and greeting behavior
We assumed that separation behavior is associated with greeting behavior. This idea has received some
support because we found that the more active dogs were during the separation, the more affection
13
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
25
26
they displayed toward the owner during greeting. In parallel the more stressful dogs were during the
separation, the more active they behaved during greeting.
4.3. Effects of separation duration
We have also hypothesized that duration of separation affects the separation and greeting behavior of
dog. In the present study we have found evidence only for the former, specifically, that during
separation activity decreased with time (in accordance with Bowlby’s observation on children, see
above). Similar finding was reported by Lund and Jørgensen (1999), although they observed the dogs
during a four-hour long separation in their homes. Additionally, they observed only dogs with SRD,
while our sample was a random family dog sample consisting of both healthy and SRD dogs. In a
parallel study dogs without SRD did not change their behavior over long durations (half-, two- and
four-hour long) of separation, when they were left alone at home (Rehn and Keeling, 2011). Dogs
could be more or less habituated to the absence of the owner at home because this situation may occur
frequently. Thus, separation at home may not activate strongly their attachment system. This may
explain the lack of behavioral change in dogs without SRD (Rehn and Keeling, 2011). However, dogs
with SRD may react strongly even to such common cases of separation (Lund and Jørgensen, 1999).
Our findings show that at a strange place (which may activate to a larger degree the dog’s attachment
system (Topál et al., 1998) even normal dogs show these changes in the separation behavior, and even
during a shorter period of separation. In contrast, dogs with SRD maintain their activity also during the
five-minute-long separation. This shows that these latter dogs show a mal-adaptive behavior with
regard to the current situation (see also Bowlby, 1969), and keep on “protesting” against separation.
We found no effect of separation duration on the greeting behavior which is in contrast with a recent
study (Rehn and Keeling, 2011). These authors reported that after longer separation dogs initiated
more interaction with the owner and showed more tail-wagging and owner-directed attentive behavior
in the post-separation period than after shorter separation. Importantly, in our case the separation time
was much shorter.
4.4. Comparison of the behavior of dogs with and without SRD
14
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
27
28
Stress-related behaviors such as vocalization, scratching of the door, rearing to the wall or door and
tail-wagging during separation were more common in affected dogs than in dogs without SRD. The
former were also more active during greeting, that is, they preferred to run instead of being in
proximity to and contact with the owner. Thus these dogs cannot be easily calmed down by the
presence of the owner. In parallel, dogs with owner-reported SRD did not show more affection (e.g.
proximity to, body contact (rearing) and eye-contact with the owner and fast tail-wagging) toward the
owner at re-union. In line with this Parthasarathy and Crowell-Davis (2006) reported also that dogs
with SRD spent equal time in proximity to or contact with the owner in the modified Strange Situation
Test than non-affected dogs.
This result is relevant because some authors (e.g. Sherman, 2008) suggested that SRD is a result of the
dog’s “hyper-attachment” to the owner. According to Appleby and Pluijmakers (2004) hyper-
attachment is characterized by staying constantly in proximity to, following and maintaining physical
contact with the owner. Hyper-attached dogs express distress when constrained in a room/area
detached from the owner, and react with distress behavior to departure cues of the owner. They also
greet their owner excessively (Appleby and Pluijmakers, 2004). In a retrospective clinical case record
study (Flannigan and Dodman, 2001) found that dogs with SRD were three-five times more likely to
follow their owner around the house than dogs with other behavior problems and they also greet their
owners excitedly for over 2 minutes. However, with regard to greeting behavior our result and the
finding of Parthasarathy and Crowell-Davis (2006) do not support the view that SRD dogs are hyper-
attached to the owner.
Most dogs characterized as having SRD did not spend any time near the owner’s chair during
separation. Instead, they wanted to escape and resume the contact/proximity with the owner by
vocalizing and trying to open the doors or searching for other exits. Prato-Previde et al. (2003) suggest
that owners’ objects left with the dog may have a calming effect. In their study dogs contacted their
owners’ clothes more often and for longer durations compared to the stranger’s clothes and spent more
time near the owner’s chair when the owner’s objects were present. In our experiment the dog could
see the leash and probably smell the owner’s scent on the chair. Our observations show that dogs may
utilize the owner’s objects (and their scent) for reassurance (which is reminiscent to human children
15
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
29
30
who use blankets or toys for reassurance in the absence of the mother). However, dogs with SRD were
not attracted by the owners’ objects. This may have contributed to the escalation of stress to a level
which could not be reduced during the short reunion with the owner.
The above aspects of dogs’ behaviors is reminiscent of the insecure-ambivalent (“C”-type) attachment
style of human infants who do not use the parent as a secure base, who are very distressed during
separation and cannot be easily calmed by the mother at reunion. Several studies (e.g. Warren et al.,
1997; Muris et al., 2000) showed that infants with insecure attachment style are more liable to develop
anxiety disorders (e.g. separation anxiety disorder). Studies with monkeys and infants suggest that a
secure attachment to the parent figure helps the infants mediating the stress response (Kraemer, 1997).
This suggest that we may refer to this type of relationship as being ambivalent (or “insecure”) using
the terminology of developmental psychology and abandon the concept “hyper-attachment”. This
latter term does not exist in human developmental psychology and has not yet been defined in terms of
behavior.
In the present study dogs with SRD were mostly males. Similar gender proportion was reported by
Takeuchi et al. (2001) and Mcgreevy and Masters (2008). It may be that males and females are equally
anxious but owners discover more easily the behavior problem in males because as a consequence of
greater body size and strength their destructive behavior and vocalization is more conspicuous.
4.5. Screening for SRD in dogs
Our behavior test was carried out in a laboratory setting, in contrast with former studies in which dogs
were filmed at home while alone. There are several reasons why we chose the laboratory setting in
addition to the practical reasons (saving time and cost). The laboratory tests can be more controllable
and objective, and as we have found (see above) a strange place can provoke separation behavior more
easily and intensely, so shorter testing duration is possible. We could use more cameras which may
have increased the quality of the behavioral observations. The behavior of the owners is also more
controllable. However, it should be investigated how much the behavior of the dog in a laboratory is
generalizable to other settings and how relevant it is in connection to SRD. But dogs are often brought
16
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
31
32
to strange places and the laboratory simulates this situation. In addition, we thought that our test can
be applied in veterinary offices in the future to diagnose SRD and evaluate treatment efficacy.
4.5 Conclusion
In conclusion we provided support that our questionnaire reliably indicates dogs’ separation-related
problem and behaviors associated with separation. Thus it can be a useful device to diagnose SRD in
the veterinary practice. For getting a more subtle picture we propose the inclusion of our short
behavior test by the means of which the veterinary clinician can get further insights on the dog’s
specific behavior during separation, e.g. whether their activity during separation endures after minutes,
or whether they use owners’ objects for self-reassurance, which may assist the process of correcting
such behavioral problems.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the EU FP7 ICT-215554 LIREC. We are grateful to the dog owners for
their participation in this experiment.
References:
Ainsworth, M.D.S., 1969. Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the
infant-mother relationship. Child. Dev., 40, 969-1025.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Bell, S.M., 1970. Attachment, exploration, and separation: Individual differences
in strange-situation behavior of one-year-olds. Child. Dev., 41, 49-67.
Appleby, D., Pluijmakers, J., 2004. Separation Anxiety in Dogs : The Function of Homeostasis in its
Development and Treatment. Vet. Clin. North. Am. Small. Anim. Prac., 33, 321-44.
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., Bernardina, W., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., de Vries, H.W., Mol, J., 2000.
Behavioural and hormonal indicators of enduring environmental stress in dogs. Anim. Welf., 9,
49-62.
Bowlby, J., 1969. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment, Basic Books, New York.
17
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
33
34
Carter, C.S., 1998. Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779 - 818.
Coe, C.L., Mendoza, S.P., Smotherman, W.P., Levine, S., 1978. Mother-infant attachment in the
squirrel monkey: Adrenal Response to Separation. Behav. Biol., 22, 256-263.
Coppinger, R.J., Glendinning, E., Torop, C., Matthay, C., Sutherland, M., Smith, C., 1987. Degree of
behavioral neoteny differentiates canid polymorphs. Ethology, 75, 89-108.
Elliot, O., Scott, J.P., 1961. The development of emotional distress reactions to separation, in puppies.
J. Genet. Psychol., 99, 3-22.
Flannigan, G., Dodman, N.H., 2001. Risk factors and behaviours associated with separation anxiety in
dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 219, 460-466.
Gaultier, E., Bonnafous, L., Bougrat, L., Lafont, C., Pageat, P., 2005. Comparison of the efficacy of a
synthetic dog appeasing pheromone with clomipramine for the treatment of separationrelated
disorders in dogs. Vet. Rec., 156, 533-538.
Gácsi, M., Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Dóka, A., Csányi, V., 2001. Attachment behavior of adult dogs
(Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: Forming new bonds. J. Comp. Psychol., 115, 423-431.
Higley, J.D., Hopkins, W.D., Thompson, W.W., Byrne, E.A., Hirsch, R.M., Suomi, S.J., 1992. Peers as
primary attachment sources in yearling rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Dev. Psychol., 28,
1163-1171.
Kraemer, G.W., 1997. Psychobiology of early social attachment in rhesus monkeys. Ann. NY. Acad.
Sci., 807, 401-419.
Kurdek, L.A., 2009. Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners. J. Fam. Psychol., 23, 439-46.
Landsberg, G., Hunthausen, W., Ackerman, L., 2003. Handbook of Behavior Problems of the Dog and
Cat, Saunders, Edinburgh.
Lund, J.D., Jørgensen, M.C., 1999. Behaviour patterns and time course of activity in dogs with
separation problems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 63, 219-236.
McGreevy, P.D., Masters, A.M., 2008. Risk factors for separation-related distress and feed-related
aggression in dogs: Additional findings from a survey of Australian dog owners. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci., 109, 320-328.
Mendl, M., Brooks, J., Basse, C., Burman, O., Paul, E., Blackwell, E., Casey, R., 2010. Dogs showing
separation-related behaviour exhibit a “pessimistic” cognitive bias. Curr. Biol., 20, R839-40.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., Merckelbach, H., Hülsenbeck, P., 2000. Worry in children is related to
perceived parental rearing and attachment. Behav. Res. Ther., 38, 487-497.
Overall, K.L., Dunham, A.E., Frank, D., 2001. Frequency of nonspecific clinical signs in dogs with
separation anxiety, thunderstorm phobia, and noise phobia, alone or in combination. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc., 219, 467-473.
Overall, K.L., 1997. Neurobiology and neurochemistry of fear and aggression. in: North. Am. Vet.
Conf. pp. 33-39.
18
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
35
36
Palestrini, C., Minero, M., Cannas, S., Rossi, E., Frank, D., 2010. Video analysis of dogs with
separation-related behaviors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 124, 61-67.
Parthasarathy, V., Crowell-Davis, S.L., 2006. Relationship between attachment to owners and
separation anxiety in pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). J. Vet. Behav., 1, 109-120.
Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D.M., Spiezio, C., Sabatini, F., 2003. Is the dog – human relationship an
attachment bond? An observational study using ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour, 140,
225-254.
Rehn, T., Keeling, L.J., 2011. The effect of time left alone at home on dog welfare. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci., 129, 129-135.
Remage-Healey, L., Adkins-Regan, E., Romero, M., 2003. Behavioral and adrenocortical responses to
mate separation and reunion in the zebra finch. Horm. Behav., 43, 108-114.
Ruxton, G.D., Rey, D., Neuhäuser, M., 2010. Comparing samples with large numbers of zeros. Anim.
Behav., 80, 937-940.
Serpell, J.A., 1996. Evidence for an association between pet behavior and owner attachment levels.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 47, 46-60.
Sherman, B.L., 2008. Separation Anxiety in Dogs. Compend. contin. educ. pract. vet., 30, 27-42.
Takeuchi, Y., Ogata, N., Houpt, K.A., Scarlett, J.M., 2001. Differences in background and outcome of
three behavior problems of dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70, 297-308.
Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., Virányi, Z., Kubinyi, E., Csányi, V., 2005. Attachment to humans: a
comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies. Anim. Behav.,
70, 1367-1375.
Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., Dóka, A., 1998. Attachment Behavior in Dogs (Canis familiaris): A
New application of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. J. Comp. Psychol., 112, 219-229.
Warren, S.L., Huston, L., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L.A., 1997. Child and adolescent anxiety disorders and
early attachment. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry., 36, 637−644.
19
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
37
38
Table legends
Table 1. The behavior units coded in the Separation (S) and Greeting (G) phase
Table 2. Description of the questionnaire and behavior scales
Table 3. Summary of the results regarding the associations between the behavioral and questionnaire
variables
Figure captions
Figure 1. The layout of the testing room
Figure 2. Separation Distress and staying at the owner’s chair (Proximity to Chair) during separation,
and activity (running) during greeting (Greeting Activity) in the Separation and Greeting test were
more common in dogs with owner reported SRD (Separation-related disorder) (Chi-square test ,*
p<0.05, ** p<0.01)
Figure 3. The number of dog categorized as passive or active which were tested under different
durations of separation (1, 3 and 5-minutes). (G-test, ** p<0.01)
Figure 4. Effect of dogs’ Separation Activity (whether they were active or passive in the separation
phase of the Separation and Greeting test) on the time they spent with Greeting Affection (affectionate
behaviors towards the owner). (T-test, * p<0.05)
20
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
39
40
Figure 5. The percentages of active and non- active dogs’ during greeting in dogs categorized as either
showing distress or not showing distress during separation. (Chi-square test, * p<0.05)
21
557
558
41
42
