Content uploaded by Lori R Kogan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lori R Kogan on Jul 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH
Behavioral effects of auditory stimulation
on kenneled dogs
Lori R. Kogan, Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher, Allen A. Simon
Clinical Sciences Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
KEYWORDS:
dog;
auditory;
music;
kennel;
welfare
Abstract Dogs are kenneled in professional facilities for a variety of reasons; however, the kennel
environment, even for short periods, is a potential psychogenic stressor for most dogs. Continual stress
and the resultant anxiety are undesirable for both ethical and physiological reasons. One growing area
of research pertaining to the welfare of kenneled dogs is environmental enrichment, including auditory
stimulation. The current study investigated the impact of music (classical, heavy metal, and specifically
designed/altered classical) on activity level, vocalization, and body shaking of 117 kenneled dogs.
Results suggest that classical music leads to kenneled dogs spending more time sleeping (F
8,354
5
12.24, P.0.0001) and less time vocalizing (F
8,354
53.61, P.0.0005) than when exposed to other
music types or no music. Heavy metal music, compared with other music types, appears to increase
body shaking (F
8,354
596.97, P.0.0001), a behavior suggestive of nervousness. It is suggested that
playing classical music in a shelter environment may help mitigate some of the stress inherent for many
kenneled dogs.
Ó2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Countless dogs are kenneled, either short term or long term,
for a variety of reasons (Hubrecht and Turner, 1998). Some
dogs are kenneled for short-term boarding, whereas others,
including strays or those relinquished by owners, are ken-
neled in a rescue setting for varying amounts of time,
some indefinitely. Other dogs are bred as laboratory ani-
mals and spend their entire lives in a kennel environment
(Wells, 2004).
The kennel environment, even for short periods, is a
potential psychogenic stressor for most dogs owing to its
novel surroundings and separation from social attachment
figures (Beerda et al., 2000; Hennessy et al., 2002; Pullen
et al., 2010). A kennel is spatially and socially restrictive,
and as a result, many dogs show signs of acute stress
when housed in kennels (Hiby et al., 2006; Rooney et al.,
2007). Social isolation or restriction, a major stressor for
many dogs, can lead to the development of both physiolog-
ical and behavioral problems (Bergamasco et al., 2010;
Hubrecht and Turner, 1998).
Continual stress, and resultant anxiety, is undesirable
for both ethical and physiological reasons. Stress in
animals has both short-term and long-term effects on
health and life span (McEwen, 2005). A recent study
(Dreschel, 2010) found that increased stress in dogs is cor-
related with shorter life spans and increased skin disorders.
Anxiety, demonstrated through physical and behavioral
manifestations, is a growing welfare concern in veterinary
medicine (Overall and Dyer, 2005), and as a result, there
Address for reprint requests and correspondence: Lori R. Kogan, PhD,
Clinical Sciences Department, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery
1601, Fort Collins, CO 80523; Tel: 11 (970) 491-7984; Fax: 11 (970)
491-7569.
E-mail: lori.kogan@colostate.edu
1558-7878/$ - see front matter Ó2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.11.002
Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2012) 7, 268-275
has been increasing awareness and concern for the welfare
of kenneled dogs and the development of potential strate-
gies to improve their environment (Bergamasco et al.,
2010).
The primary means that have been used to assess stress
are physiological measures and behavioral observations
(Bergamasco et al., 2010). Physiological measures to assess
stress include immune functions, heart rate, sympathetic
nervous system activation monitoring, and hormonal indi-
cators (Bergamasco et al., 2010; Rooney et al., 2007). Be-
havioral observations include lowered body posture,
panting, vocalizing, paw-lifting, body shaking, and repeti-
tive or stereotypic behaviors (pp. 49-62, Beerda et al.,
2000, 1997;Hetts et al., 1992).
One growing area of research pertaining to the welfare
of kenneled dogs is the idea of environmental enrichment.
Environmental enrichment can be defined as any technique
designed to improve the functioning of an animal through
modifications to the environment (Newberry, 1995). The
goals of environmental enrichment for kenneled animals
include helping these animals to handle the inherent
challenges in kennel environments (i.e., lack of control
and unpredictability), encouraging more species-specific
behaviors, and reducing abnormal or stereotypic behaviors
(Wells, 2009; Young, 2003). One area of environmental
enrichment that has started to receive more attention is
that of sensory stimulation. This stimulus type is presented
to trigger one or more senses (i.e., vision, smell, and/or
hearing) as a method of environmental enrichment. This
line of inquiry, however, is still new and sporadic
(Wells, 2009), and conclusive evidence on effectiveness is
still unclear.
Auditory stimulation
Auditory stimulation is one aspect of sensory stimula-
tion that has received increased attention in current years
with a variety of species. Listening to music has been found
to be a mood-regulatory behavior (Saarikallio and Erkkila
¨,
2007), and several studies involving humans have found
mood regulation and emotional management to be among
the most important reasons for music consumption
(North et al., 2000;Saarikallio and Erkkila, 2007;
Sloboda, 1992; Wells and Hakanen, 1991).
Numerous studies on humans have found listening to
relaxing or classical music to be beneficial in a variety of
areas (Bechtold et al., 2009), including a decrease in
anxiety (Dubois et al., 1995), increase in prosocial behav-
iors (Gueguen et al., 2010), improvement in satisfaction
with medical procedures, decrease in blood pressure and
heart rate (Chlan et al., 2000), increased tolerance for un-
comfortable procedures, reduction in pain perception
(Bampton and Draper, 1997; Nelson et al., 2008), and de-
creased need for sedative medications (Nelson et al.,
2008; Schiemann et al., 2002).
Within other nonmedical settings, music has been found
to positively affect various behaviors (Magnini and Parker,
2009), including the amount of time spent by customers in
an establishment (Milliman, 1982, 1986) and how much
money people spend (Areni and Kim, 1993).
The recognition of the effect music can have on humans
has generated interest in investigating the effect of music
on other species. A limited number of studies have
explored the effects of music on nonhuman animals. For
example, classical music has been suggested to enhance
the well-being of chickens (Gvaryahu et al., 1989), carp
(Papoutsoglou et al., 2007), Asian elephants (Wells and
Irwin, 2008), western lowland gorillas (Wells et al.,
2006), and domestic dogs (Wells et al., 2002). Other types
of auditory stimulation that have been studied include the
effects of country music on cattle (Uetake et al., 1997;
Wisniewski et al., 1977) and ponies (Houpt et al., 2000).
Exactly why music affects animal stress and behavior is
not thoroughly understood.
Despite the uncertainty regarding what causes the
positive effects seen with music, the fact that some studies
have found that music can positively affect animal stress
and behavior has stimulated the development of a growing
number of music selections, created and marketed specif-
ically to enhance companion animal well-being. Despite
the growing popularity of music tailored toward dogs,
there remains a dearth of studies to investigate these
claims. The only study published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal to date that has investigated the effect
of music on dogs was done by Wells et al. (2002). Given
that the study by Wells et al. (2002) involved only 1 expo-
sure to each type of auditory stimulation, further explora-
tion of the effect of music on dogs was thought to be
important. Therefore, the current study investigated the
effect of auditory stimulation on activity, vocalization,
and body shakingda behavior suggestive of anxiety or
nervousness.
Material and method
The study was conducted within a building, in Northern
Colorado, that housed both a dog shelter and boarding
facility (a place where dogs are temporarily housed for a
fee). The shelter had space for approximately 160 dogs. It
consisted of 2 long runs, with kennels on each side of the
concrete walkways. The kennels were rectangular concrete
enclosures with a wire mesh front gate. The dogs were
housed either singly or in pairs. Two populations of dogs
were studied: dachshund rescue dogs and dogs of all breeds
housed for short-term boarding. The boarding dogs and
rescue dogs were placed randomly in kennels in both long
lines of runs. The dogs were let outside twice a day and
fed once daily in the late afternoon. The kennels were
cleaned in the morning and then again as necessary
throughout the day.
Kogan et al Effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs 269
Subjects
The sample consisted of 117 dogs. There were 34 rescue
dogs with a mean age of 5.27 years (SD: 3.65) and a mean
time of 155.97 days (SD: 84.72) in the shelter before the
study. The rescue dog group included 12 spayed/altered
females, 1 intact/unaltered female, 21 neutered/altered
males, and 0 intact/unaltered males. The boarding dog
group consisted of 83 dogs with a mean age of 5.92 years
(SD: 3.34) and a mean time of 4.27 days (SD: 2.96) in the
shelter before the study. This group included 38 spayed/
altered females, 4 intact/unaltered females, 31 neutered/
altered males, and 10 intact/unaltered males. The rescue
dogs were either pure breed dachshund or mixed dachs-
hund, whereas the boarding dogs were a variety of pure and
mixed breeds. All dogs were healthy with no identifiable
hearing impairments. Owing to the fact that some dogs
were boarded for short periods, not all dogs were exposed
to all music selections. Boarded dogs were exposed to the
auditory stimulation presented on the day(s) they were
present in the facility.
Auditory variable
The dogs were exposed to 3 general types of music:
classical (4 selections), heavy metal (3 selections), and a
modification of classical music designed specifically for
dog relaxation (1 selection), as well as a control period, in
which no music was played. The specific classical and
heavy metal songs were chosen based on most popular
songs within each genre (Table 1). The modified dog relax-
ation track was one created and marketed for the purpose of
calming and soothing dogs in shelter and home conditions.
The creators of the modified music explained that the music
has been psychoacoustically designed with the specific goal
of creating soothing music for dogs (Leeds and Wagner,
2008). The music is selected and arranged to create a sim-
ple sound, defined by Leeds and Wagner (2008) as music
that minimizes the amount of auditory information
(Leeds and Wagner, 2008). Volume 1, Music to Calm
Your Canine Companion was used in the current study.
Multiple selections from the classical and heavy metal gen-
res were used to help determine whether any potential
differences in dog behavior were due to the specific song
or the music genre. Additionally, beats per minute (BPM)
for each song was noted to assess whether any differences
in dog behavior were due to music genre or BPM. There-
fore, a variety of songs with different BPM were used
within each genre. In addition to BPM, it is possible that
other elements of music might affect psychological and
physiological states of dogs, including rhythm, melody,
pitch, harmony, and interval (Murrock, 2005). Because of
the exploratory nature of this study, however, these ele-
ments were not assessed. Follow-up studies to assess these
other elements of music are seen as important next steps.
Procedure
The 9 experimental conditions of auditory stimulation
(4 tracks of classical, 3 tracks of heavy metal, 1 track of
psychoacoustically designed music, and no music (used as a
control) were presented using an iPod (Apple Store) music
player and Eos wireless speakers (Eos Wireless, San Diego,
CA). The speakers are rated at 15 W total root mean square
@ 4_(3 !%W).0.01% total harmonic distortion. Each
speaker had 2 !1’’ neodymium tweeters and a 3’’ ported
subwoofer. The long kennel runs were divided into half, and
speakers were placed in the center of each half of each run to
ensure even distribution of sound to all sheltered dogs. A
total of 4 speakers were used for the 2 runs. The sound level
was gauged by 2 experimenters and a shelter worker who
agreed that the sound seemed equal in each kennel.
Dogs were exposed to each of the 9 conditions of
auditory stimulation over the course of 4 months (July-
October). Exposure consisted of 45 minutes for each
condition, followed by 15 minutes of no music/silence.
Three conditions (including the control condition) were
tested each day between 9 AM and 12 PM on Tuesday,
Table 1 Type of music, artist, and BPM
Artist Songs BPM
Classical (average BPM 5121)
C1 Beethoven Fu¨r Elise 111
C2 Beethoven Moonlight Sonata 143
C3 Strauss Blue Danube Waltz 130
C4 Bach Air on a G String 100
Heavy metal (average BPM 5131)
HM1 Motorhead Ace of Spades 140
HM2 Slayer Angel of Death 102
HM3 Judas Priest Turbo Lover 151
Psychoacoustically designed (BPM 595)
Psych Through a dog’s ear Song 1 95
BPM, beats per minute.
270 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 7, No 5, September/October 2012
Wednesday, and Thursday. Monday, Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday were not used as research days owing to the fact
that these days involved more activity within the shelter,
as boarding dogs were more frequently dropped off or
picked up by owners on these days. The time frame
between 9 AM and 12 PM was used to eliminate confounds
associated with cleaning, feeding, and outdoor times. The
presentation order of auditory conditions was randomly
assigned each day to eliminate any potential order effects.
The dogs’ behaviors were recorded by 1 observer (used
throughout the study) every 5 minutes over the course of
the exposure to auditory stimulation using instantaneous
time sampling. After the first 5 minutes of each exposure
period, the experimenter would begin observing each
dog’s behavior every 5 minutes. Therefore, each 45-minute
exposure led to 9 behavior recordings. The observer began
the music exposure in one run (separated by concrete walls
and 2 separate heavy metal doors from the second run),
waited 5 minutes to record behaviors, and then began music
exposure in the second run. It took approximately 2 minutes
for the observer to complete the behavior assessments in
each run.
Three aspects of behavior were recorded at each obser-
vation. These included activity, vocalization, and body
shaking. For each of these behaviors, the number of times
the dog was observed performing the behavior in each
category was recorded (e.g., silent, barking, other). A
checklist was used by the observer for each behavior.
The 3 categories of behavior measured included the
following:
Activity
a. Sleeping
b. Other (i.e., moving standing, sitting, lying down)
Vocalization
c. Silent
d. Barking
e. Other (i.e., whining or yipping)
Body movement
f. Shaking
g. Not shaking
Results
A mixed model analysis of variance was used to control for
multiple readings from the same dog and the fact that some
dogs received more exposures to the auditory stimulus than
other dogs, based on how long they were kenneled. The
statistical significance level was accepted at P,0.05.
Because there was no significant interaction between audi-
tory stimulus type and type of dog (i.e., rescue or boarding)
or type of housing (singly or housed with other dogs) for
any of the 3 categories of assessed behavior, data from
all dogs were analyzed together. Two-tailed ttests were
used for post hoc analysis, with significance level accepted
at P,0.05. The percentage of time dogs were seen
displaying each of the behaviors analyzed (sleeping vs.
not sleeping, vocalizing vs. silent, and shaking vs. not
shaking) is presented in Tables 2-4.
Activity
A significant difference was found in the number of
observations of sleeping behavior versus other activity
behavior based on auditory stimulus (F
8,354
512.24,
P.0.0001). Although there was a significant difference
Table 2 Percentage of time spent sleeping for each music
selection
Music Percent SE
C2 4.8 1.5
C3 4.7 1.9
C4 6.0 1.3
C1 3.7 0.9
Control 1.1 0.3
Psych 1.4 0.6
HM2 1.2 0.4
HM3 1.2 0.4
HM1 0.8 0.2
C1, Beethoven, Fu¨r Elise; C2, Beethoven, Moonlight Sonata; C3,
Strauss, Blue Danube Waltz; C4, Air on a G String; HM1, Motorhead,
Ace of Spades; HM2, Slayer, Angel of Death; HM3, Judas Priest, Turbo
Lover; Psych, Through a Dog’s Ear, Song 1; SE, standard error.
Table 3 Percentage of time spent silent for each music
selection
Music Percent SE
C2 95.1 1.6
C3 88.4 4.2
C4 92.7 1.8
C1 91.7 2.1
Control 85.9 2.7
Psych 88.8 3.0
HM2 93.5 1.9
HM3 89.5 2.6
HM1 88.6 2.7
Table 4 Percentage of time spent shaking for each music
selection
Music Percent SE
C2 0.5 0.3
C3 2.8 1.2
C4 0.7 0.2
C1 0.9 0.3
Control 1.2 0.3
Psych 0.5 0.3
HM2 71.2 5.3
HM3 49.9 5.8
HM1 37.8 5.1
Kogan et al Effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs 271
in the number of observations of sleeping behavior for res-
cue dogs versus boarding dogs (F
1,115
58.58, P.0.004),
where rescue dogs slept more than boarding dogs, there was
no interaction between type of dog (rescue vs. boarding)
and music type for sleeping behavior.
Post hoc ttests indicated that both groups of dogs spent
the most time sleeping during classical music selections
compared with heavy metal, psychoacoustically designed,
or the control. There was no significant difference in the
number of observations of sleep time between any of the
classical selections, but all classical selections resulted in
more sleep time than any heavy metal selections, dog relax-
ation track, or control. There were no significant differences
between the control, psychoacoustically designed, and any
heavy metal selections in the number of observations of
sleep time (Table 5).
Vocalization
Although data collection included 3 potential aspects of
vocalization (silent, barking, and other), a decision was made
to combine ‘‘barking’’ with ‘‘other’’ because of the difficulty
in clearly identifying what constituted a ‘‘bark’’ versus other
vocalizations that approximated a bark. Therefore, assess-
ment was completed with 2 levels of vocalization: barking/
other and silent. A significant difference was found in
vocalization (silent or not silent) based on auditory stimulus
(F
8,354
53.61, P.0.0005). Although there was a significant
difference in the number of observations of silent time be-
tween rescue dogs and boarding dogs (F
1,115
512.17,
P.0.0007), where rescue dogs spent more time silent
than boarding dogs, there was no interaction between type
of dog (rescue vs. boarding) and music type for vocalization.
Post hoc ttests indicated that the dogs spent the most time
silent during the classical 2 (Moonlight Sonata) selection
and least time silent during the control periods. There was
a significant difference between classical 2 and classical 3,
control, psychoacoustically designed, and heavy metal
1 and 3. Classical 2 was not significantly different from clas-
sical 1 and 4 or heavy metal 2. Classical 1 and 4 were only
significantly different from control (more silent time than
control). Control was also different from heavy metal 2
(with less silent time for control). There were no differences
between psychoacoustically designed and other auditory
stimuli, with the exception of classical 2 (Table 6).
Body movement–shaking
There was no significant difference between rescue and
boarding dogs in the number of observations of observed
body shaking. There was a significant difference in the
number of observations of shaking and type of auditory
stimulation (F
8,354
596.97, P.0.0001). Post hoc ttests
indicated that the dogs were observed shaking more with
all heavy metal selections. Two selections were signifi-
cantly different from most others. There was a statistical
difference between classical selection 3 and all other stim-
uli, excluding the control. There was also a statistical differ-
ence observed between heavy metal selection 2 and all
other stimuli (Table 7).
Discussion
Both boarded and rescue dogs responded to all the classical
music selections by sleeping more than during exposure to
any other auditory stimulation type. The number of obser-
vations of silence was greatest during 1 classical selection
(classical 2) and least during the control period (no music).
These results are consistent with human studies, which
have suggested that music can reduce agitation (Sung et al.,
2008), promote sleep (de Niet et al., 2009), improve mood,
and lower stress and anxiety (Cooper and Foster, 2008).
Table 5 Post hoc ttests for music selections and activity
(sleeping or not sleeping)
Music Music Estimate SE df t value Pvalue
C2 C3 0.02 0.48 354 0.03 0.9744
C2 C4 20.23 0.34 354 20.68 0.4946
C2 C1 0.27 0.36 354 0.74 0.4591
C2 Psych 1.30 0.48 354 2.68 0.0076
C2 HM2 1.46 0.41 354 3.59 0.0004
C2 HM3 1.39 0.40 354 3.51 0.0005
C2 HM1 1.89 0.42 354 4.54 ,0.0001
C3 C4 20.25 0.44 354 20.56 0.5791
C3 C1 0.25 0.46 354 0.55 0.5851
C3 Control 1.46 0.44 354 3.29 0.0011
C3 Psych 1.28 0.57 354 2.27 0.0240
C3 HM2 1.45 0.49 354 2.97 0.0032
C3 HM3 1.38 0.49 354 2.81 0.0052
C3 HM1 1.88 0.51 354 3.71 0.0002
C4 C1 0.50 0.29 354 1.74 0.0826
C4 Control 1.70 0.25 354 6.79 ,0.0001
C4 Psych 1.53 0.42 354 3.67 0.0003
C4 HM2 1.69 0.36 354 4.67 ,0.0001
C4 HM3 1.62 0.31 354 5.18 ,0.0001
C4 HM1 2.12 0.35 354 6.03 ,0.0001
C1 Control 1.21 0.27 354 4.44 ,0.0001
C1 Psych 1.03 0.45 354 2.28 0.0232
C1 HM2 1.19 0.39 354 3.09 0.0021
C1 HM3 1.12 0.36 354 3.13 0.0019
C1 HM1 1.62 0.33 354 4.87 ,0.0001
Control Psych 20.17 0.43 354 20.41 0.6853
Control HM2 20.01 0.36 354 20.03 0.9766
Control HM3 20.08 0.33 354 20.25 0.8054
Control HM1 0.42 0.33 354 1.25 0.2128
Psych HM2 0.16 0.50 354 0.33 0.7448
Psych HM3 0.09 0.47 354 0.20 0.8439
Psych HM1 0.59 0.40 354 1.19 0.2338
HM2 HM3 0.07 0.42 354 20.17 0.8662
HM2 HM1 0.42 0.44 354 0.98 0.3281
HM3 HM1 0.50 0.41 354 1.21 0.2281
df, degrees of freedom; ,, less than.
Pvalues in boldface are statistically significant at P,0.05.
272 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 7, No 5, September/October 2012
Both boarded and rescue dogs exhibited more body
shaking behavior during all heavy metal selections when
compared with any other auditory stimulus. Therefore,
while we found that classical music has a relaxing effect on
kenneled dogs, heavy metal music, in contrast, appears to
have the opposite effect, resulting in increased behaviors
that could be a result of stress and/or add to their stress
level at the same time (i.e., barking, body shaking, and less
sleep time). Research pertaining to the effects of heavy
metal music on humans has shown similar trends (Becknell
et al., 2008).
The psychoacoustically arranged selection, a piece of
classical music that was designed specifically to promote
dog relaxation, was found to have minimal effect on the
dogs’ behaviors. The reason for this is unknown. Certainly
more research into psychoacoustically altered music selec-
tions designed to affect animals’ behaviors is warranted.
Our findings replicate some of the findings by Wells
et al. (2002) in their study of the effect of auditory stimu-
lation on shelter dogs. We found that classical music
promoted more restful behaviors that might be associated
with a reduced stress level. Heavy metal music was found
to have the opposite effect, leading to behaviors that
suggest increased agitation.
Shelters are inherently stressful environments for most
dogs, and results of this study suggest that playing classical
music might help ameliorate some of these negative
aspects. It is also possible that the positive effects that
classical music has been found to have on humans may also
affect both shelter employees and potential adopters. In
Table 6 Post hoc ttests for music selections and
vocalization (silent or not silent)
Music Music Estimate SE df t value Pvalue
C2 C3 0.93 0.46 354 2.04 0.0416
C2 C4 0.43 0.34 354 1.27 0.2048
C2 C1 0.57 0.35 354 1.62 0.1051
C2 Control 1.16 0.31 354 3.74 0.0002
C2 Psych 0.89 0.37 354 2.39 0.0176
C2 HM2 0.30 0.35 354 0.87 0.3864
C2 HM3 0.82 0.35 354 2.38 0.0178
C2 HM1 0.91 0.35 354 2.64 0.0087
C3 Classical 4 20.50 0.40 354 21.24 0.2152
C3 C1 20.37 0.41 354 20.88 0.3792
C3 Control 0.23 0.38 354 0.60 0.5512
C3 Psych 20.04 0.44 354 20.09 0.9290
C3 HM2 20.63 0.41 354 21.51 0.1314
C3 HM3 20.11 0.41 354 20.26 0.7953
C3 HM1 20.02 0.41 354 20.05 0.9624
C4 C1 0.14 0.26 354 0.52 0.6051
C4 Control 0.73 0.21 354 3.54 0.0004
C4 Psych 0.46 0.28 354 1.62 0.0959
C4 HM2 20.12 0.30 354 20.42 0.6763
C4 HM3 0.40 0.24 354 1.63 0.1041
C4 HM1 0.48 0.26 354 1.85 0.0658
C1 Control 0.59 0.22 354 2.72 0.0069
C1 Psych 0.33 0.30 354 1.07 0.2840
C1 HM2 20.26 0.31 354 20.84 0.4012
C1 HM3 0.26 0.28 354 0.93 0.3534
C1 HM1 0.35 0.24 354 1.47 0.1438
Control Psych 20.27 0.26 354 21.04 0.3002
Control HM2 20.86 0.27 354 23.19 0.0015
Control HM3 20.34 0.22 354 21.51 0.1319
Control HM1 20.25 0.21 354 21.16 0.2473
Psych HM2 20.59 0.34 354 21.73 0.0838
Psych HM3 20.07 0.30 354 20.23 0.8198
Psych HM1 0.02 0.30 354 0.06 0.9488
HM2 HM3 0.52 0.31 354 1.69 0.0928
HM2 HM1 0.61 0.31 354 1.97 0.0500
HM3 HM1 0.09 0.27 354 0.32 0.7511
,, less than.
Pvalues in boldface are statistically significant at P,0.05.
Table 7 Post hoc ttests for music selections and body
movement (shaking or not shaking)
Music Music Estimate SE df t value Pvalue
C2 C3 21.79 0.78 354 22.30 0.0218
C2 C4 20.42 0.72 354 20.58 0.5644
C2 C1 20.70 0.71 354 20.99 0.3235
C2 Control 20.93 0.68 354 21.37 0.1721
C2 Psych 20.12 0.86 354 20.14 0.8862
C2 HM2 26.26 0.68 354 29.18 ,0.0001
C2 HM3 25.35 0.68 354 27.83 ,0.0001
C2 HM1 27.86 0.68 354 27.14 ,0.0001
C3 C4 1.37 0.53 354 2.57 0.0107
C3 C1 1.09 0.53 354 2.06 0.0398
C3 Control 0.86 0.48 354 1.81 0.0705
C3 Psych 1.66 0.71 354 2.33 0.0202
C3 HM2 24.47 0.48 354 29.28 ,0.0001
C3 HM3 23.56 0.48 354 27.37 ,0.0001
C3 HM1 23.07 0.48 354 26.36 ,0.0001
C4 C1 20.29 0.42 354 20.68 0.4989
C4 Control 20.51 0.36 354 21.43 0.1530
C4 Psych 0.29 0.63 354 0.46 0.6428
C4 HM2 25.84 0.39 354 215.14 ,0.0001
C4 HM3 24.93 0.35 354 213.92 ,0.0001
C4 HM1 24.44 0.37 354 212.12 ,0.0001
C1 Control 20.22 0.33 354 20.67 0.5027
C1 Psych 0.58 0.63 354 0.91 0.3613
C1 HM2 25.55 0.37 354 214.87 ,0.0001
C1 HM3 24.64 0.36 354 213.00 ,0.0001
C1 HM1 24.15 0.32 354 212.83 ,0.0001
Control Psych 0.80 0.59 354 1.36 0.1751
Control HM2 25.33 0.30 354 217.94 ,0.0001
Control HM3 24.42 0.27 354 216.18 ,0.0001
Control HM1 23.93 0.26 354 215.31 ,0.0001
Psych HM2 26.13 0.61 354 210.03 ,0.0001
Psych HM3 25.22 0.60 354 28.77 ,0.0001
Psych HM1 24.73 0.60 354 27.93 ,0.0001
HM2 HM3 0.91 0.31 354 2.95 0.0033
HM2 HM1 1.40 0.31 354 4.58 ,0.0001
HM3 HM1 0.49 0.29 354 1.73 0.08
,, less than.
Pvalues in boldface are statistically significant at P,0.05.
Kogan et al Effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs 273
addition to creating a more positive work environment for
employees, playing classical music might help potential
adopters feel more comfortable at the shelter, thereby
increasing the likelihood of them finding a suitable animal
to adopt. This would be consistent with research that has
demonstrated that slower-paced music can increase the
amount of time people spend shopping (Milliman, 1982).
Additionally, research conducted on humans suggests that
uplifting music can positively affect helping behaviors
(North et al., 2004), and adopting from a shelter is often
viewed and marketed as a type of helping behavior. For
example, the Humane Society of the United States lists
the top reason to adopt as ‘‘to save a life’’ (HSUS, 2009),
and American Humane indicates that ‘‘one way to start put-
ting an end to pet overpopulation is to adopt your next pet
from your local shelter or breed rescue group’’ (American
Humane, n.d.). Perhaps, therefore, uplifting music in this
context could positively affect adoption rates.
In contrast, it is suggested that playing heavy metal
music might negatively affect dogs’ welfare as well as the
general experience of shelter employees and potential
adopters. Human studies have found that listening to
grunge or heavy metal rock is correlated with increased
hostility, sadness, tension, and fatigue, as well as inappro-
priate behaviors, in addition to significant reductions in
behaviors related to caring, relaxation, mental clarity, and
vigor (Harris et al., 1992; McCraty et al., 1998).
Conclusion
Results from this study suggest that auditory stimulation
can affect kenneled dogs’ behaviors and stress levels, and
therefore, auditory stimulation can be used to enhance the
welfare of shelter dogs. The findings from this study have
potential welfare implications for shelter dogs. As outlined
in the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal
Welfare Principles, ‘‘Procedures related to animal housing,
management, care, and use should be continuously evalu-
ated, and when indicated, refined or replaced’’ (AVMA,
2006). The fact that kenneled dogs can be effected either
positively or negatively by the music played within a facil-
ity offers the opportunity to create a more positive environ-
ment for dogs for relatively minimal cost and effort. The
potential benefits of music on shelter dogs, however, are
likely to be altered by shelters’ level of ambient noise.
In conclusion, it is suggested that shelters refrain from
playing heavy metal music owing to the detrimental effect it
may have on dogs’stress and anxiety levels. Instead, it is sug-
gested that shelters play classical music as a cost-efficient,
practical way to enhance the environment and, therefore,
the welfare of shelter dogs. Classical music can reduce
dogs’ stress levels and potentially increase the likelihood of
adoption. Limitations to the current study include the fact
that only 1 kennel was used for assessment and other kennels
might show different results. The kennel selected for this
study had a minimal amount of ambient or background noise.
Dogs at shelters with higher levels of background noise might
respond differently to auditory stimulation. Future studies in-
volving settings with varying levels of background noise will
be important to further determine the effects of auditory stim-
ulation in shelters. Additionally, although sound level (of
stimulus or background) was not measured in this prelimi-
nary study, further research should include this information
for more complete understanding of the outcomes of auditory
simulation.
It should also be noted that only 1 type of rescue breed
(dachshund) was used for this study and other rescue breeds
or other types of boarded dogs might respond differently. It
is also possible that age and sex of dogs might affect how
they react to different types of auditory stimulation. More
research to determine what aspects of classical music help
reduce stress the most (i.e., BPM or tone) would be helpful
in determining which classical music to play. Additionally,
further research investigating effects of classical music in
other stressful environments (e.g., veterinary clinics) would
help advance the field of knowledge pertaining to the use of
sensory stimulation to improve animal welfare.
References
American Humane (n.d.). Adoption and pet care. Available at: http://www.
americanhumane.org/protecting-animals/adoption-pet-care/. Accessed
November 15, 2010.
Areni, C.S., Kim, D., 1993. The influence of background music on shop-
ping behavior–classical versus Top-40 music in a wine store. Adv.
Consum. Res. 20, 336-340.
AVMA, 2006. Animal welfare principles. Availableat: http://www.avma.org/
issues/policy/animal_welfare/principles.asp. Accessed November 15,
2010.
Bampton, P., Draper, B., 1997. Effect of relaxation music on patient toler-
ance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. J. Clin. Gastroenterol.
25, 343-345.
Bechtold, M.L., Puli, S.R., Othman, M.O., Bartalos, C.R., Marshall, J.B.,
Roy, P.K., 2009. Effect of music on patients undergoing colonoscopy:
a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig. Dis. Sci. 54, 19-24.
Becknell, M.E., Firmin, M.W., Hwang, C., Fleetwood, D.M., Tate, K.L.,
Schwab, G.D., 2008. Effects of listening to heavy metal music on
college women: a pilot study. Coll. Stud. J. 42, 24-35.
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B., van Hooff, J.A.R., de Vries, H.W., Mol, J.A.,
2000. Behavioural and hormonal indicators of enduring environmental
stress in dogs. Anim. Welf. 9, 49-62.
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B., vanHooff, J.A.R., deVries, H.W., 1997. Man-
ifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 52, 307-319.
Bergamasco, L., Osella, M.C., Savarino, P., Larosa, G., Ozella, L.,
Manassero, M., Badino, P., Odore, R., Barbero, R., Re, G., 2010. Heart
rate variability and saliva cortisol assessment in shelter dogs:
human-animal interaction effects. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 125, 56-68.
Chlan, L., Evans, D., Greenleaf, M., Walker, J., 2000. Effects of a single
music therapy intervention on anxiety, discomfort, satisfaction, and
compliance with screening guidelines in outpatients undergoing flexi-
ble sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterol. Nurs. 23, 148-156.
Cooper, L., Foster, I., 2008. The use of music to aid patients’ relaxation in
a radiotherapy waiting room. Radiography 14, 184-188.
de Niet, G., Tiemens, B., Lendemeijer, B., Hutschemaekers, G., 2009.
Music-assisted relaxation to improve sleep quality: meta-analysis. J.
Adv. Nurs. 65, 1356-1364.
274 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 7, No 5, September/October 2012
Dreschel, N.A., 2010. The effects of fear and anxiety on health and life-
span in pet dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 125, 157-162.
Dubois, J.M., Bartter, T., Pratter, M.R., 1995. Music improves patient com-
fort level during outpatient bronchoscopy. Chest 108, 129-130.
Gueguen, N., Jacob, C., Lamy, L., 2010. ‘‘Love is in the air’’: effects of
songs with romantic lyrics on compliance with a courtship request.
Psychol. Music 38, 303-307.
Gvaryahu, G., Cunningham, D.L., Vantienhoven, A., 1989. Filial imprinting,
environmental enrichment, and music application effects on behavior
and performance of meat strain chicks. Poult. Sci. 68, 211-217.
Harris, C.S., Bradley, R.J., Titus, S.K., 1992. A comparison of the effects
of hard rock and easy listening on the frequency of observed inappro-
priate behaviors - control of environmental antecedents in a large
public area. J. Music Ther. 29, 6-17.
Hennessy, M.B., Voith, V.L., Hawke, J.L., Young, T.L., Centrone, J.,
McDowell, A.L., Linden, F., Davenport, G.M., 2002. Effects of a pro-
gram of human interaction and alterations in diet composition on ac-
tivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in dogs housed in a
public animal shelter. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221, 65-71.
Hetts, S.C., Calpin, J.P., Arnold, C.E., Mateo, J.M., 1992. Influence of
housing conditions on beagle behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
34, 137-155.
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W., 2006. Behavioural and physio-
logical responses of dogs entering re-homing kennels. Physiol. Behav.
89, 385-391.
Houpt, K., Marrow, M., Seeliger, M., 2000. A preliminary study of the
effect of music on equine behavior. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 20, 691-737.
Hubrecht, R.H., Turner, D.C., 1998. Companion animal welfare in private
and institutional settings. In: Turner, D., Wilson, C.C. (Eds.), Compan-
ion Animal in Human Health. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 267-289.
Humane Society of the United States, 2009. Top five reasons to adopt.
Available at: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/adopt/tips/top_
reasons_adopt.html. Accessed November 16, 2010.
Leeds, J., Wagner, S., 2008. Through a dog’s ear: using sound to improve
the health & behavior of your canine companion. Sounds True, Boul-
der, CO.
Magnini, V.P., Parker, E.E., 2009. The psychological effects of music: im-
plications for hotel firms. J. Vacat. Mark. 15, 53-62.
McCraty, R., Barrios-Choplin, B., Atkinson, M., Tomasino, D., 1998. The
effects of different types of music on mood, tension, and mental clar-
ity. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 4, 75-84.
McEwen, B.S., 2005. Stressed or stressed out: what is the difference? J.
Psychiatry Neurosci. 30, 315-318.
Milliman, R.E., 1982. Using background music to affect the behavior of
supermarket shoppers. J. Mark. 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E., 1986. The influence of background music on the behavior
of restaurant patrons. J. Cons. Res. 13, 286-289.
Murrock, C.J., 2005. Psychology of moods. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
New York, NY.
Nelson, A., Hartl, W., Jauch, K.W., Fricchione, G.L., Benson, H.,
Warshaw, A.L., et al., 2008. The impact of music on hypermetabolism
in critical illness. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 11, 790-794.
Newberry, R.C., 1995. Environmental enrichment - increasing the biological
relevanceof captive environments.Appl. Anim. Behav.Sci. 44, 229-243.
North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., O’Neill, S.A., 2000. The importance of mu-
sic to adolescents. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 70, 255-272.
North, A.C., Tarrant, M., Hargreaves, D.J., 2004. The effects of music on
helping behavior: a field study. Environ. Behav. 36, 266-275.
Overall, K.L., Dyer, D., 2005. Enrichment strategies for laboratory animals
from the viewpoint of clinial veterinary behavioral medicine: empha-
sis on cats and dogs. Inst. Lab. Anim. Res. J. 46, 202-216.
Papoutsoglou, S.E., Karakatsouli, N., Louizos, E., Chadio, S.,
Kalogiannis, D., Dalla, C., Polissidis, A., Papadopoulou-Daifoti, Z.,
2007. Effect of Mozart’s music (Romanze-Andante of ‘‘Eine Kleine
Nacht Musik’’, sol major, K525) stimulus on common carp (Cyprinus
carpio L.) physiology under different light conditions. Aquac. Eng. 36,
61-72.
Pullen, A.J., Merrill, R.J., Bradshaw, J.W., 2010. Preferences for toy types
and presentations in kennel housed dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 125,
151-156.
Rooney, N.J., Gaines, S.A., Bradshaw, J.W., 2007. Behavioural and gluco-
corticoid responses of dogs (Canis familiaris) to kennelling: investi-
gating mitigation of stress by prior habituation. Physiol. Behav. 92,
847-854.
Saarikallio, S., Erkkila
¨, J., 2007. The role of music in adolescents’ mood
regulation. Psychol. Music 35, 88-109.
Schiemann, U., Gross, M., Reuter, R., Kellner, H., 2002. Improved proce-
dure of colonoscopy under accompanying music therapy. Eur. J. Med.
Res. 7, 131-134.
Sloboda, J.A., 1992. Empirical-studies of emotional response to music. In:
Jones, M.R., Holleran, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Bases of Musical Commu-
nication. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US,
pp. 33-50.
Sung, H.C., Chang, A.M., Abbey, J., 2008. An implementation programme
to improve nursing home staff’s knowledge of and adherence to an in-
dividualized music protocol. J. Clin. Nurs. 17, 2573-2579.
Uetake, K., Hurnik, J.F., Johnson, L., 1997. Effect of music on voluntary
approach of dairy cows to an automatic milking system. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 175-182.
Wells, D.L., 2004. A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled
dogs, Canis familiaris. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 85, 307-317.
Wells, D.L., 2009. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for
captive animals: a review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118, 1-11.
Wells, D.L., Coleman, D., Challis, M.G., 2006. A note on the effect of
auditory stimulation on the behaviour and welfare of zoo-housed
gorillas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 327-332.
Wells, D.L., Graham, L., Hepper, P.G., 2002. The influence of auditory
stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter.
Anim. Welf. 11, 385-393.
Wells, A., Hakanen, E.A., 1991. The emotional use of popular-music by
adolescents. Journalism Quarterly 68, 445-454.
Wells, D.L., Irwin, R.M., 2008. Auditory stimulation as enrichment for
zoo-housed Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Anim. Welf. 17,
335-340.
Wisniewski, E.W., Albright, J.L., Dillon, W.M., Cunningham, M.D.,
Taylor, R.W., 1977. Behavioral-responses of heifers trained to enter
milking parlor by conditioning methods. J. Dairy Sci. 60, 90-90.
Young, R.J., 2003. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Black-
well Science, Oxford, UK, Malden, MA.
Kogan et al Effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs 275
