Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction

Abstract

Child safety around dogs is an important issue since most dog bites involve small children. The supervision of children and dogs whilst they are together is therefore crucial. This study aimed to investigate the ability of adults to interpret canine body language and behavior during a child–dog interaction. An online survey about three selected videos, each showing small children interacting with dogs, was sent to four different groups of participants: dog owners with children, dog owners without children, non-dog owners with children, and non-dog owners without children. The dogs appearing in the videos were categorized as fearful/anxious and lacking in confidence by an expert panel. According to the answers given by 71 participants, people mostly classified the dogs as relaxed (68.4%) and confident (65.1%) during the dog–child interaction. Respondents reported the predominant behaviors of the dogs whilst they interacted with children as play (23.0%) and friendly behaviors (19.2%). Holistic cues (44.6%) were the most common cues referred to by respondents; these being cues that are qualitative assessments based on the dogs’ behaviors, such as descriptions about the dogs’ feelings, intentions, and judgments. Significant differences were found between dog owners and non-dog owners in describing the dogs’ emotions in the videos. Participants without dogs were more successful than dog owners when classifying the emotional states of the dogs. These findings indicate that adults have difficulty in reading behavioral signs of anxiety and fear in dogs interacting with children. Moreover, it was shown that having experience with a dog without any theoretical knowledge of dog behavior may be a detriment to interpreting canine language. Therefore, the education of adults on dog behavior as well as on safe practices during child–dog interaction is important in the prevention of dog bites to children.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Download by: [Ankara Universitesi] Date: 18 December 2017, At: 06:10
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals
ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language
during a Dog–Child Interaction
Yasemin Salgirli Demirbas, Hakan Ozturk, Bahri Emre, Mustafa Kockaya,
Tarkan Ozvardar & Alison Scott
To cite this article: Yasemin Salgirli Demirbas, Hakan Ozturk, Bahri Emre, Mustafa Kockaya,
Tarkan Ozvardar & Alison Scott (2016) Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a
Dog–Child Interaction, Anthrozoös, 29:4, 581-596, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1228750
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228750
Published online: 22 Nov 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 259
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 29, ISSUE 4 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2016
PP. 581–596 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Address for correspondence:
Dr Salgirli Demirbas,
Department of Physiology,
Faculty of Veterinary
Medicine, Ankara University,
Irfan Bastug Cad., 06110,
Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail:
yaseminsalgirli@gmail.com
581 Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1228750
Adults’ Ability to Interpret
Canine Body Language
during a Dog–Child Interaction
Yasemin Salgirli Demirbas*, Hakan Ozturk*,
Bahri Emre*, Mustafa Kockaya†, Tarkan Ozvardar‡
and Alison Scott§
*Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
†Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
‡Ankara Canine College, Ankara, Turkey
§Full Member of the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors,
Malmesbury, Wiltshire, UK
ABSTRACT Child safety around dogs is an important issue since most dog
bites involve small children. The supervision of children and dogs whilst they are
together is therefore crucial. This study aimed to investigate the ability of adults
to interpret canine body language and behavior during a child–dog interaction.
An online survey about three selected videos, each showing small children in-
teracting with dogs, was sent to four different groups of participants: dog own-
ers with children, dog owners without children, non-dog owners with children,
and non-dog owners without children. The dogs appearing in the videos were
categorized as fearful/anxious and lacking in confidence by an expert panel.
According to the answers given by 71 participants, people mostly classified
the dogs as relaxed (68.4%) and confident (65.1%) during the dog–child inter-
action. Respondents reported the predominant behaviors of the dogs whilst
they interacted with children as play (23.0%) and friendly behaviors (19.2%).
Holistic cues (44.6%) were the most common cues referred to by respondents;
these being cues that are qualitative assessments based on the dogs’ behav-
iors, such as descriptions about the dogs’ feelings, intentions, and judgments.
Significant differences were found between dog owners and non-dog owners
in describing the dogs’ emotions in the videos. Participants without dogs were
more successful than dog owners when classifying the emotional states of the
dogs. These findings indicate that adults have difficulty in reading behavioral
signs of anxiety and fear in dogs interacting with children. Moreover, it was
shown that having experience with a dog without any theoretical knowledge of
dog behavior may be a detriment to interpreting canine language. Therefore,
the education of adults on dog behavior as well as on safe practices during
child–dog interaction is important in the prevention of dog bites to children.
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 581
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
582 Anthrozoös
Keywords: canine body language, children-dogs interactions, dogs, dog bites
Dogs play a significant role in family settings. Studies show that families often accept
their dogs as family members and use them as a resource in terms of a nonverbal
third party in communicating within the family unit; for instance, to resolve family con-
flicts or teach values to children (Tannen 2007; Power 2008). Important effects of dogs on
children’s emotional development, in particular with regards to empathy and prosocial behav-
ior, have also been documented (Vidovic, Stetic and Bradko 1999). However, despite these
benefits, it has also been acknowledged that dogs and children often misinterpret each other’s
behaviors whilst interacting, which can lead to bite incidents. Some behaviors of small children
are unpredictable, with sudden movements and postural and vocal changes being misinter-
preted by dogs (Beck, Loring and Lockwood 1975; Overall and Love 2001). Children, on the
other hand, tend to misinterpret or overlook changes in canine behavior (Overall and Love
2001; Meints, Racca and Hickey 2010; Lakestani, Donaldson and Waran 2014). Adults are
also subject to wrongly interpreting the signals of dogs, particularly warning signals (Wright
1985; Dixon et al. 2012), and have been demonstrated to underestimate the risk of dog bites
to children (Villar 1998; Reisner and Shofer 2008; NHS 2014).
Various studies show that medically attended dog-bite incidence rates are significantly
higher among children younger than 7 years of age (Weiss, Friedman and Coben 1998; Kahn,
Bauche and Lamoureux 2003; Schalamon et al. 2006). According to Australian data, children
under the age of 5 years have the highest rate of serious injuries from dog bites (Ozanne-
Smith, Ashby and Stathakis 2001), whilst NHS Choices in the UK (2014) corroborates such
findings in reporting that the rate of hospital admission due to dog bites is highest in the 0–9
age group. Individual characteristics of children also influence the risk of dog bites. A number
of studies report that boys are bitten more often than girls (Mathews and Lattel 1994; Brogan
et al. 1995; Matthias et al. 2015), and temperamental traits, such as a child’s shyness, have
been found to influence bite incidence rates, with a greater degree of shyness being associ-
ated with lower risk-taking with dogs, and vice versa (Davis et al. 2012). Although it was shown
that children high in impulsivity and low in inhibitory control are more likely to be at risk of
injuries (Schwebel 2003), impulsivity and inhibitory control were unrelated to risk-taking in the
case of children interacting with an unfamiliar dog (Davis et al. 2012).
Body areas affected in bite incidents also differ between adults and children. Most bites
targeting adults involve extremities (Gershman, Sacks and Wright 1994; Weiss et al. 1998),
whereas children are more often bitten in the regions of the head, neck and face (Ozanne-
Smith, Ashby and Stathakis 2001; Schalamon et al. 2006; NHS 2014). Due to this, children
are exposed to more serious injuries.
The most common reasons for dog bites targeting children are resource guarding and
pain-causing interactions (Reisner, Shofer and Nance 2007). Researchers indicate the im-
portance of developing skills in recognizing and judging situations to correctly interpret dog
behavior and give appropriate responses (Overall and Love 2001; Meints and De Keuster
2009). Dog bites mostly occur when the child initiates a risky interaction with the dog and
accidentally triggers an aggressive response (Millot et al. 1988; Overall and Love 2001;
Morrongiello et al. 2013). A recent study investigating the interpretation of dog behavior by
children of different age groups and young adults showed that younger children, in partic-
ular 4-year-olds, tend to misinterpret fearful expression in dogs (Lakestani, Donaldson and
Waran 2014). This age group showed a tendency to focus on dogs’ faces instead of body
❖
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 582
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

gestures. Meints, Racca and Hickey (2010) also demonstrated that children struggle in cor-
rectly interpreting canine behavior by showing that children from 4–7 years of age misread
dogs’ aggressive facial expressions as happy expressions, with this confusion having
serious safety implications
It has been recognized that most dog bites occur when children are without adult
supervision, either in or around the house, in situations where the dog is known to the child
(Kahn, Bauche and Lamoureux 2003; Schalamon et al. 2006). Parental supervision is there-
fore important in lowering the risk of injuries to children (Morrongiello 2005; Morrongiello,
Corbett and Brison 2009). It has been acknowledged, however, that risk-taking (in terms of
the child taking risks) increases in children under full supervision (Barton and Schwebel
2007). The quality of supervision is therefore of crucial importance. The individual supervis-
ing must possess knowledge of dog behavior, demonstrate cautiousness in the presence
of unknown dogs, and employ safe practices of dog–child interaction in order to mitigate the
chances of a dog bite (Meints and De Keuster 2009; Morrongiello et al. 2013; Lakestani,
Donaldson and Waran 2014).
Aggression can occur in any situation in which a dog receives inappropriate social re-
sponses to appeasement behavior (Shepherd 2002). The “ladder of aggression” ranges from
mild gestures of social interaction (i.e., blinking, snout licking) to more severe responses (i.e.,
biting), with these threat-averting expressions escalating if the dog perceives an increase in
the threat. Therefore the ability to interpret dog behavior and prevent the need for escalation,
in particular of appeasement gestures, is critical to reducing dog bites. Several studies have
recently investigated adults’ ability to interpret dog behavior. Tami and Gallagher (2009) re-
ported that adults generally have difficulty in recognizing aggression, confidence, and play in
dogs, whereas fear is one of the most easily recognized behaviors. In contrast, Lakestani,
Donaldson and Waran (2014) reported that people were more successful in recognizing ag-
gression while they had greater difficulties in interpreting fearful expression in dogs. Another
study, conducted by Pongrácz et al. (2005), suggested that people were able to recognize
and classify dog-barking situations above chance, and more easily recognize aggressiveness
than fearfulness on the basis of listening to vocalizations.
The effects of education and experience with dogs on preventing dog bites has also been
examined. Tami and Gallagher (2009) suggested that experience with dogs without any
theoretical knowledge might not be sufficient in recognizing certain canine behaviors, and
concluded that theoretical knowledge is important in interpreting canine body language.
Alternatively, Wan, Bolger and Champagne (2012), reported that emotional interpretations,
such as of fearful behavior, increased with dog experience. It is therefore apparent from these
conflicting results that this field of research requires further investigation.
Since fear and/or anxiety play a significant role in aggression (Reisner, Shofer and Nance
2007), the correct interpretation of behavioral signs of fear and anxiety (and in particular,
appeasement gestures) is of paramount importance in attempting to reduce dog-bite rates.
This, in addition to data which show that children are most at risk of dog bites, suggests that
appeasement gestures in dogs, in the context of dog to child interaction, need to be studied.
To our knowledge, however, no study has been conducted to investigate adults’ skills in
interpreting dog behavior during a dog–child interaction
This study was designed to evaluate adults’ ability to interpret canine body language from
videos showing dog–child interactions. The interpretations of canine behavior by four different
groups of participants were evaluated.
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
583 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 583
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Table 1. Details of the respondents.
Category Sex Age Range (years) Median Age (years)
Male (n) Female (n)
Dog Owners 9 10 30–58 38
(with Children)
Dog Owners 5 11 21–61 37
(No Children)
Non-dog Participants 5 4 35–50 39
(with Children)
Non-dog Participants 18 8 24–53 34
(No Children)
Methods
Participants
A total of 71 adults (37 males and 34 females) responded to the survey and were included in
the analyses (Table 1). All participants were over 21 years of age, lived in Turkey and were
recruited through Facebook to complete an online survey. Participants were divided into four
categories: dog owners with children, dog owners without children, non-dog owners with
children, and non-dog owners without children.
Videos
Video extracts showing babies or young children interacting with dogs were selected from
YouTube. Selection criteria for videos were as follows: each video presented i) a different con-
text, ii) a different breed of dog, and iii) a dog displaying obvious anxious/fearful body language,
such as a tense body posture, backward position of ears, head turning, looking/turning away,
or lip smacking.
The first video, entitled “Lying dog,” featured a Dalmatian lying on the floor with a ball at his
side, while a baby crawls toward him. The second video, entitled “Standing dog,” showed a
Doberman in a standing position as a toddler walks around him and touches and holds different
body parts of the dog. In the third video, entitled “Active dog,” a baby is seen crawling around
the room while a Boxer follows licking the baby’s face. Lengths of the videos were 61 seconds,
47 seconds, and 98 seconds, respectively. Prior to the study, all videos were reviewed by an
expert panel. The expert panel was comprised of two applied animal behaviorists with up to 10
years of practical experience, and a certified dog trainer with 20 years work experience.
According to blind evaluations of the experts, all dogs in the videos were classified as being in
emotional conflict, lacking in confidence, and fearful/anxious (Table 2).
Procedure
An online survey including the selected videos was designed for this study. It was created
using the website host SurveyMonkey. Informed consent was obtained from each participant
via a consent form featured on the first page of the survey. An opening question enabled the
classification of participants into one of the four predetermined groups; dog owners with
children, dog owners without children, non-dog owners with children, or non-dog owners
without children. Non-dog owners comprised participants who had never previously owned
a dog and had little or no contact with dogs in general. For each video, participants were
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
584 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 584
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

asked four questions, in parallel with the study conducted by Tami and Gallagher (2009). The
first three questions were multiple-choice questions. Respondents were first asked to choose
between two options to best describe the emotional state of the dog featured in the video, that
is, emotionally relaxed or in emotional conflict. The second question related to the dog’s re-
sponse to the situation in the video extract, such as whether the dog was confident. In the third
question, respondents were asked to choose an adjective from a list—“playful,” “fearful/
anxious,” “aggressive,” “indifferent,” “confident,” “friendly”—to best define their perception of
the predominant behavior of the dog in the video clip. The fourth question expanded on the
third question, with respondents being asked to clarify their response to the third question; that
is, participants were asked which body parts and behaviors of the dog made them decide on
the predominant behavior. The final part of the survey was designed to provide participants with
the option to write their own comments.
A dog ethogram was created based on the descriptions of behaviors and body languages
given by the experts and the respondents (Table 3), thus paralleling Tami and Gallagher (2009).
Accordingly, the ethogram had three different parts consisting of behavioral cues, holistic cues,
and various other cues. Holistic cues can be described as qualitative assessments based on
the observed expressive state of the animal, in which descriptions such as happy, nervous, and
calm were used (Wemelsfeder et al. 2001; Tami and Gallagher 2009). Since it has been sug-
gested that dogs have an ability to experience happiness, sadness, and anger (Broom 2016),
emotional holistic cues describing dogs’ feelings, as well as intentional cues describing dogs’
intentions (e.g., the dog wants to …, the dog is trying to …) were analyzed in this study. The
term “holistic cues” for descriptions which failed to fit in any other category is in accordance
with the study by Tami and Gallagher (2009). Qualitative holistic cues included judgments
based on dogs’ behaviors, such as active, passive, and placid.
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
585 Anthrozoös
Table 2. Analysis of the three dogs in the video clips by an expert panel.
Breed Emotional State Dog’s Response Predominant Behavioral Cues Shown
of Dog of the Dog to the Situation Behavior by the Dog
of the Dog
Dalmatian In emotional Unconfident Fearful/Anxious Tense through head and body, ears
conflict/Anxious tense and held back, head turning,
looking/turning away, blinking, lip
smacking, stretching, sniffing, anxious
tail wag—tip moving quickly, yawning
Doberman In emotional Unconfident Fearful/Anxious Tense through head and body, ears
conflict/Anxious tense and held back, head turning,
looking/turning away leaning away, lip
smacking, licking child’s face, watching
child/following child, tail tucked between
legs
Boxer In emotional Unconfident Fearful/Anxious Tense through head and body, ears
conflict/Anxious tense and held back, turning away,
licking child’s face, high levels of
arousal, spinning (possible stress
response/displacement behavior),
moving towards and away from child
(conflict behavior), high respiration,
sniffing, lip smacking
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 585
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
586 Anthrozoös
Table 3. Ethogram based on descriptions given by an expert panel and
respondents.
1. Behavioral Cues
Body Posture
Low
Standing still
Low body posture
Self-confident body posture
Relaxed body posture
Tensed body posture
Piloerection
Raising of the front paw
Movement
Approaching the baby/child
Withdrawal from the baby/child
Play bowing
Chasing the baby/child
Spinning
Ears
Ears back
Ears forward
Ears down
Ears erect
Ears moving back and forth
Head/Eyes
Head turning
Head up
Averting eye contact
Scanning
Tail
Tail tucked between legs
Tail low
Tail high
Slow wagging
Tail tip moving quickly
Tail still
Tail stiff
Oral Behaviors
Yawning
Nuzzling (touching the baby/child with mouth closed)
Sniffing the baby/child
Panting
Licking the baby/child
Snout llicking
2. Holistic Cues
Emotional (cues related to dog’s feelings)
Intentional (cues related to dog’s intention)
Qualitative (cues related to dog’s behavior)
3. Other Cues
Miscellaneous cues
Non-specific cues (cues which were not qualified)
Absence of cues (e.g. no biting, no tail wagging)
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 586
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Data Analysis
Since 71 participants responded to questions regarding three videos, the total number of
responses, for the purpose of calculating cue percentages, was 213 (number of respondents’
videos). Behavioral cues were obtained from the comments made by the respondents.
Descriptive statistics (frequency analyses) were employed to analyze the distribution of answers
given by the respondents, in addition to the behavioral cues and body expressions referred to
by respondents. A one/zero scoring system was used according to the presence or absence
of the cues featured in the ethogram.
The generalized linear model (Wald chi-square test) was used to compare answers given
by the different classes of respondents for each of the three videos, and to compare gender
differences. The dog ownership variable, parenthood variable, and video variable were each
considered as factors. All statistical analyses were performed using the PASW Statistics 18.0
software program, and pvalues less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Results
Survey
The dogs in all the videos were mostly classified as relaxed (68.4 %) and confident (65.1%) by
the respondents. Predominant behaviors of the dogs were often stated as play (23.0 %) and
friendly behaviors (19.2%). No significant differences were found between dog owners with or
without children with regards to responses about the dogs’ emotional states (Wald ␹2= 0.017,
p> 0.05), perceptions (Wald ␹2= 0.406, p> 0.05), and predominant behaviors
(Wald ␹2= 0.138, p> 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the two
groups of non-dog owners with or without children, as to their interpretation of the dogs’
emotional states (Wald ␹2= 0.069, p> 0.05), perceptions (Wald ␹2= 0.457, p> 0.05), and
predominant behaviors (Wald ␹2= 1.224, p> 0.05).
Subdivisions: Significant differences were found between dog owners and non-dog owners in
interpreting the emotional state of the dog (Wald ␹2= 9.961, p= 0.002) and the dog’s re-
sponse to the situation (Wald ␹2= 10.537, p= 0.001). The majority of dog owners (53.8%)
classified the emotional states of the dogs as relaxed, while non-dog owners mostly reported
that the dogs depicted in the videos were in emotional conflict (61.9%). Dog owners (34.6%)
assessed the dog’s response to the situation as not confident more frequently than did non-
dog owners (23.8%). No significant difference was found between responses made by parents
and non-parents (Wald ␹2= 0.103, p> 0.05) with regards to the emotional state of the dog.
Similarly, no significant difference was found between participants with or without children
(Wald ␹2= 0.030, p> 0.05) in interpreting the dog’s response to the situation in the video
extract (Table 4).
Gender: Significant differences were found between male and female participants in describ-
ing the emotional states of the dogs (Wald ␹2= 9.085, p= 0.003), with 71.4% of the male
respondents described the emotional state of the dogs as relaxed, in comparison to 58.1%
of the female participants. There were no significant differences between male and female
participants with regards to their answers on the perceptions (Wald ␹2= 0.071, p> 0.05) and
predominant behaviors (Wald ␹2= 0.218, p> 0.05) of the dogs.
Analysis of the Ethogram
In total, 184 behavioral and holistic cues were used by 71 respondents in describing the dogs’ be-
havior. Holistic cues were the most commonly referred to cues by respondents (51.5%, Table 5).
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
587 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 587
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Respondents frequently used these holistic descriptions, which were essentially qualitative as-
sessments derived from the observed expressive state of the animal, such as “the dog knows
that it is just a small child,” “the dog is acting like a mother,” or the “dog is happy.” With regards
to behavioral cues, participants generally commented on oral behaviors (15.2%, Table 5).
No significant differences were found between dog owners with or without children with re-
gards to comments on head and eye positions (Wald ␹2= 0.018, p> 0.05) and ear positions
(Wald ␹2= 0.505, p> 0.05). Significant differences did exist, however, between dog owners
with or without children in relation to referencing of holistic cues (Wald ␹2= 8.284, p= 0.004).
Qualitative holistic cues were more often used by dog owners without children (40%),
compared with dog owners with children (14.2%).
Tail wagging (80%) was the most frequently mentioned behavioral cue. All of the respon-
dents (100%) used tail wagging as a behavioral cue for positive emotion. Backward position
of ears (75%) and averting of eye contact (70%) were the other cues frequently alluded to by
respondents (Table 6).
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
588 Anthrozoös
Table 5. Number (and percentage) of behavioral and holistic cues reported by the respondents.
Cues Dog Owners Dog Owners Non-dog Non-dog Total
(with Children) (No Children) Participants Participants n(%)
n(%) n(%) (with Children) (No Children)
n(%) n(%)
Movement 7 (3.8 %) 4 (2.2 %) 2 (1.1 %) 5 (2.7%) 18 (9.8 %)
Ears 4 (2.2 %) 3 (1.6 %) 0 (0.0 %) 1 (0.5 %) 8 (4.3 %)
Head/Eyes 6 (3.3 %) 4 (2.2 %) 2 (1.1 %) 8 (4.4 %) 20 (10.9 %)
Tail 5 (2.7 %) 2 (1.1 %) 0 (0.0 %) 8 (4.4 %) 15 (8.2 %)
Oral Behavior 5 (2.7 %) 7 (3.8 %) 5 (2.7 %) 9 (4.9 %) 28 (15.2 %)
Holistic Cues 25 (13.6 %) 20 (10.9 %) 14 (7.6 %) 36 (19.6 %) 95 (51.6 %)
Table 4. Summary of the answers obtained from the survey.
Emotional State Dog’s Response to Predominant Behavior of the Dog (%)
of the Dog (/%) the Situation (%)
Relaxed In Emotional Confident Un- P F A I C FR
Conflict/ confident
Anxious
Dog Owners
(with Children) 64.4a35.6a57.8a42.2a28.9 15.6 0.0 22.2 11.1 22.2
Dog Owners
(No Children) 62.8a37.2a60.4a39.6a25.6 21.0 0.0 16.2 14.0 23.2
Non-Dog
Participants
(with Children) 25.0b75.0b75.0b25.0b33.3 16.7 0.0 16.7 20.8 12.5
Non-Dog
Participants
(No Children) 27.7b73.3b69.8b30.2b26.6 15.6 0.0 12.5 18.8 26.5
P: playful, F: fearful/anxious, A: aggressive, I: indifferent, C: confident, FR: friendly.
Within columns different letters indicate significant differences (p> 0.05).
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 588
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Subdivisions: Significant differences were found between dog owners and non-dog owners in
relation to the referencing of ear positions (Wald ␹2= 10.286, p= 0.001), head and eyes po-
sitions (Wald ␹2= 4.720, p= 0.030), and holistic cues (Wald ␹2= 26.135, p> 0.001). Back-
ward position of ears was recognized significantly more often by dog owners than by non-dog
owners. Dog owners did not comment on head position, while 5% of non-dog owners eval-
uated the head position of the dogs as elevated. No significant differences were found between
parents and non-parents in describing behavioral cues (Wald ␹2, p> 0.05).
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
589 Anthrozoös
Table 6. The cues as a percentage of the respondents who reported behavioral and holistic cues.
Cues Dog Owners Dog Owners Non-dog Non-dog Total
(with Children) (No Children) Participants Participants n(%)
n(%) n(%) (with Children) (No Children)
n(%) n(%)
Movement
Approaching
the baby/child 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 11.2
Withdrawal from
the baby/child 11.1 11.1 5.6 0.0 27.8
Play bow 16.6 5.6 5.6 27.8 55.6
Chasing the
baby/child 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6
Ears
Ears back 37.5 25.0 0.0 12.5 75.0
Ears down 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5
Ears moving
back and forth 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5
Head/Eyes
Head up 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
Averting eye contact 20.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 70.0
Scanning 10.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 25.0
Tail
Tail wagging 33.3 6.7 0.0 40.0 80.0
Slow wagging 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7
Tail still 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7
Tail stiff 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7
Oral Behaviors
Panting 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 7.8
Licking 15.4 11.5 7.7 26.9 61.5
Yawning 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0 7.8
Snout licking 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.9
Growling 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.9
Sniffing 0.0 7.7 3.9 3.9 15.5
Holistic
Emotional 10.5 5.3 5.3 7.4 28.5
Intentional 6.3 4.2 1.0 8.4 19.9
Qualitative 9.5 11.6 8.4 22.1 51.6
Miscellaneous cues 14.3 7.1 7.1 14.3 42.8
Non-specific cues 17.9 14.3 3.6 10.7 46.5
Absence of cues 0.0 0.0 0 10.7 10.7
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 589
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Gender: No significant differences were found between male and female participants in
mentioning the head and eye positions (Wald ␹2= 0.070, p> 0.05) and ear positions
(Wald ␹2= 1.187, p> 0.05).
Discussion
The effect of experience on how adults describe canine behavior has been examined in sev-
eral studies, with conflicting results (Bahlig-Pieren and Turner 1999; Tami and Gallagher 2009;
Wan, Bolger and Champagne 2012). According to Bahlig-Pieren and Turner (1999), experience
with dogs may increase the likelihood of correctly interpreting canine behavior, yet these find-
ings conflict with Tami and Gallagher (2009), who found that experience did not have a signif-
icant impact on interpreting canine behavior. Wan, Bolger and Champagne (2012) reported that
experience with dogs is an important predictor for successfully labeling fearful behaviors in
dogs, whereas a recent study by Bloom and Friedman (2013) suggests that experience with
dogs may actually be a detriment to successfully interpreting anger—in that study, inexperi-
enced people showed a greater rate of success in identifying anger from photographs of a
dog’s face. In the current study, it was found that participants without dogs were significantly
more successful than dog owners in classifying the emotional states of dogs. This finding may
indicate that dog owners have a tendency to “give dogs the benefit of the doubt as being
friendly,” as suggested by Bloom and Friedman (2013). Another possible explanation may be
that the non-dog owners were more cautious while observing a child–dog interaction since
they had less experience with dogs, and hence were more receptive to the subtleties of the
dogs’ behavioral cues, whilst the dog owners had more confidence in the dogs in such inter-
actions. The results may also reflect that dog owners had little awareness and knowledge of
the factors associated with dog aggression toward children, as suggested by Reisner and
Shofer (2008). Although it is unclear whether one or more of these factors influenced the find-
ings, this study suggests that having experience with dogs is not sufficient for avoiding injury
in the context of a dog–child interaction.
The correct description of a dog’s emotional state may also be insufficient in mitigating
the risk of a dog bite as most of the non-dog owners in this study, who successfully
described the emotional states of the dogs, were unable to correctly identify the dogs’
responses to the situation. This finding demonstrates that most of the non-dog owners
found it difficult to link the emotional state of the dog to its response in the situation. One
possible explanation for this may be that the participants possessed little knowledge of “the
canine ladder of aggression” and thus assumed a lack of aggression and that the situation
was safe until the dogs showed more obvious signs of aggression. In a study by Lakestani,
Donaldson and Waran (2014), it was found that individuals who correctly described the
aggressive expressions of dogs were more likely to have focused on the sounds made by
the dogs. This suggests that vocalization is an important cue for individuals, especially for
those who have little or no knowledge of canine behavior, in aiding them to recognize if a dog
poses a risk of biting. Since the videos used in the present study did not portray dogs show-
ing more overt signals of aggression, in particular vocalizations such as growling and barking,
observers may have assumed that the dog was confident in the situation. This finding shows
the importance of bite prevention programs aimed at teaching both the correct description
of canine body language and the early signals of aggression, to equip adults with the
necessary knowledge to safely supervise child–dog interactions, as epitomized by the Meints
et al.’s (2014) dog body-language intervention.
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
590 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 590
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Although the dogs in the selected videos in this study displayed certain signs of fear and
anxiety, their emotions and responses were mostly described as relaxed by participants in each
category, with the exception of non-dog owners, and as confident by all participants. Moreover,
the interactions between the dogs and the children were most often described as play or friendly
behavior. It has been recognized that dog and baby facial configurations are often perceived as
“cute” (Borgi et. al. 2014), and this may result in adults giving a positive appraisal when
interpreting canine behavior, in particular in the context of a dog–child interaction.
The research on adults’ ability to recognize fear in dogs is contradictory. For example,
Bahlig-Pieren and Turner (1999) reported that the fearful expression of dogs can be rec-
ognized by adults with an accuracy of more than 80%. Tami and Gallagher (2009) also
found that fear is one of the most easily recognized behaviors in dogs. Lakestani, Donald-
son and Waran (2014), on the other hand, found that adults find it harder to interpret fear-
ful expressions in dogs, in comparison with aggression. This contradiction may be due to
the different contexts analyzed in the experiments. Studies which reported that fearful ex-
pression can easily be recognized by adults were based on videos portraying dog–dog or
dog–human interactions (Bahlig-Pieren and Turner 1999; Tami and Gallagher 2009),
whereas the study by Lakestani, Donaldson and Waran (2014) utilized video material in
which there was only one dog in each clip. The current study used videos portraying dog–
child interactions. Context may therefore influence success rates in correctly recognizing
fear/anxiety-related behaviors in dogs.
Meints, Racca and Hickey (2010) reported that children misinterpret aggression in the facial
expression of dogs as happy and smiling. Yet Bloom and Friedman (2013) demonstrated that
although adults were in general successful in identifying anger in a dog’s facial expression,
experienced adults more frequently made the same mistake as children in misinterpreting the
facial expression, in comparison with inexperienced adults. Experienced adults more often
identified an angry dog as being happy. In the current study, it was also observed that
experienced adults more often incorrectly labeled the dogs as relaxed. Although the exact
mechanism underlying these errors is still unknown, potential reasons may include a
combination of factors such as context, emotional perspectives of participants, and theoretical
knowledge of dog behavior.
Since the majority of bite incidents occur in a home environment and involve small chil-
dren (Reisner, Shofer and Nance 2007; NHS Choice 2014), parental supervision is crucial
to reducing pediatric injuries arising from dog bites (Barton and Schwebel 2007;
Morrongiello, Corbett and Brison 2009). The quality of supervision when supervising a dog–
child interaction depends on many factors such as knowledge and awareness of a dog’s
early warning signaling, the ability to correctly assess the situation, and a readiness to in-
tervene appropriately (Love and Overall 2001; Morrongiello 2005; Barton and Schwebel
2007). In a study by Reisner and Shofer (2008), it was demonstrated that dog owners who
themselves were parents and female tended to be more knowledgeable about dog behav-
ior, in comparison with dog owners who were non-parents and males. In the current study,
no significant differences were found between dog owners with or without children. Although
the data in this study did not include detailed information concerning parental supervision,
the participants with children may have tended to misinterpret canine behaviors due to a
limited awareness and knowledge of dog behavior. It raises the question therefore whether
these participants as parents possess the necessary skills and knowledge to correctly
supervise their children in a child–dog interaction.
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
591 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 591
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

In the present study, male participants described the emotional states of the dogs signifi-
cantly more often as relaxed, in comparison with female participants. This finding is not
surprising since it is known that men are more likely to focus on physical activity when
describing canine behaviors, while women have a tendency to focus on emotions (Ramirez
2011). Female participants in this study were more likely to pay attention to the emotional state
of the dogs. Further research should, however, be conducted in order to investigate gender
effects on describing dogs’ behaviors in different contexts.
One interesting finding in the current study was that oral behaviors such as panting, lick-
ing, nuzzling, yawning, and snout licking, were the behavioral cues most frequently used by
respondents. Moreover, the backward position of ears and averting eye contact were cues fre-
quently used by respondents who described behavioral cues. Participants were thus capable
of correctly diagnosing certain facial expressions of dogs, yet many had difficulties in
associating these cues with the dogs’ emotions and intentions. The fact that participants most
frequently used oral behaviors as behavioral cues can be explained by people’s tendency to
gaze at dogs’ heads longer than at dogs’ bodies (Kujala et. al. 2012). Bloom and Friedman
(2013) found that people tended to interpret the facial expression of dogs based on people’s
emotional expressions. They showed, for example, that observers frequently misinterpreted the
facial expression of disgust in a dog as sad, since they mainly focused on the dog’s wrinkled
muzzle, and a nasolabial furrow indicates sadness in people. Lakestani, Donaldson and Waran
(2014) also reported that individuals who incorrectly identified fearful expressions in dogs were
more likely to pay attention to the dog’s face. Fearful facial expressions in humans include
elements such as higher brows, rounder looking eyes, and a higher upper lid (Marsh, Adams
and Kleck 2005). Consequently, one could suggest that since fearful facial expressions in
humans and dogs differ, participants in this study might have had difficulties in interpreting
these behavioral elements in dogs.
In the present study, backward position of the ears was more often recognized by dog
owners than non-dog owners. Despite acknowledging this behavioral detail, however, dog
owners were more likely to misinterpret dogs’ emotions. This suggests that although the
development of observational skills increases with experience, as stated by Wan, Bolger and
Champagne (2012), this does not necessarily have a positive effect on a person’s ability to
correctly describe emotional behaviors in dogs.
In agreement with the findings of Tami and Gallagher (2009), tail wagging was the most fre-
quently referred to cue among the behavioral cues described by participants in this study.
Lakestani (2014) found that people who misinterpreted aggressive behavior as friendly were
more likely to pay attention to the tail. In the current study, it was also observed that respon-
dents considered tail wagging to be a cue for a positive emotional state in all cases. In contrast
to the findings of Wan, Bolger and Champagne (2012), no significant difference was found
between dog owners and non-dog owners who considered tail wagging a behavioral cue.
Considering these results, it appears that people mostly rely on tail movements when assessing
dogs’ emotions. It has been recognized, however, that not only the movement of the tail but
also its position, the wagging frequency, and the wagging direction are important in convey-
ing information on the emotional state of the dog (Bradshaw and Nott 1995; Quaranta,
Siniscalchi and Vallortigara 2007; Siniscalchi et al. 2013). Quaranta, Siniscalchi and Vallortigara
(2007), for instance, demonstrated that stimuli-eliciting approach tendencies were associated
with a higher amplitude of tail-wagging movements to the right side, whereas stimuli-eliciting
withdrawal tendencies were associated with a higher amplitude of tail-wagging movements to
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
592 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 592
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

the left side in dogs. In another study, it was shown that dogs looking at video images of con-
specifics expressing left-biased tail wagging had higher scores of anxiety behavior (Siniscalchi
et al. 2013). Given that participants perceived all tail wagging as a cue for positive emotion, they
risked misinterpreting the dog’s emotion even though they correctly described the behavioral
element. This finding reflects the significance of applicable knowledge of canine behavior in
order to correctly interpret canine signaling.
In this study, holistic cues were the cues most frequently used by respondents. This find-
ing supports the hypothesis that when people have difficulties in interpreting elements of canine
body language, they resort to using qualitative descriptions (Tami and Gallagher 2009). The
advantages of using qualitative descriptions have been recognized in animal behavior, with
Wemelsfeder (1997) reporting that people achieved significant agreement on qualitative
assessments of behavioral expressions in pigs, and furthermore that qualitative behavioral
assessment was a reliable method in evaluating the welfare of animals. In contrast in the
present study, holistic cues (i.e. qualitative descriptions used by participants) were mostly
unreliable assessments of dog behavior.
Limitations
A few limitations of this study deserve attention. Firstly, videos in this study featured only
medium- and large-sized breeds, although the size of the breed or breed itself might be an
important factor influencing the perception of canine body language, especially in the
context of a dog–child interaction. Pit bull type dogs and Rottweilers are the most fre-
quently reported breeds involved in fatal bite cases (Clifton 2014), and as a consequence
of this, people may be more cautious when observing children interacting with such breeds
of dog or with other breeds referred to in dangerous-dog legislation. It is therefore neces-
sary for further studies to investigate the ability of people to interpret canine behavior of
different breeds and of dogs of differing sizes, to assess how breed type affects the
description of dog behavior in dog –child interactions. The use of data derived from dog
owners, who are more likely to have a fondness for dogs, may constitute another limitation
in this study as there might be a potential bias in their responses in describing the emotions
and behaviors of dogs. This limitation is however deemed of little relevance since similar
results were obtained from different groups of non-dog owners, and exclusion of dog own-
ers did not affect the results. The last limitation is the number of video stimuli. An increased
number of stimuli would have created a larger and more accurate sample size. This study
therefore recommends further research to include more stimuli, as this would allow for the
results of the current study to be verified.
Conclusion
This research constitutes the first effort in evaluating adult human perceptions of canine
behavior in the context of a dog–child interaction. According to the data obtained from this
study, one can conclude that people have little awareness of the risk of biting during a dog–
child interaction. Furthermore, people particularly have difficulties in interpreting the behavioral
signs of anxiety and fear in dogs. The results also suggest that having experience with a dog
without any applicable knowledge does not provide an advantage in correctly interpreting dog
behavior. Therefore the education of parents on canine behavior, as well as on safe practices,
is essential to effectively supervise a child during a dog–child interaction, and to mitigate the
chances of children sustaining injury as a result of being bitten.
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
593 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 593
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Acknowledgements
We acknowledge Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Ciftci for his help with the statistical analysis. We also thank
Suzanne Weinberger for editing the English, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Bahlig-Pieren, Z. and Turner, D. C. 1999. Anthropomorphic interpretations and ethological descriptions of dog
and cat behavior by lay people. Anthrozoös 12(4): 205–210.
Barton, B. K. and Schwebel, D. C. 2007. The roles of age, gender, inhibitory control, and parental supervision
in children’s pedestrian safety. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 32(5): 517–526.
Beck, A. M., Loring, H. and Lockwood, R. A. 1975. Theecologyofdog bite injuryin St. Louis, Missouri. Public
Health Reports 90: 262–267.
Bloom, T. and Friedman, H. 2013. Classifying dogs’ (Canis familiaris) facial expressions from photographs.
Behavioural Processes 96: 1–10.
Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints, K. and Cirulli, F. 2014. Baby schema in human and animal faces
induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology 5(411): 1–12.
Bradshaw, J. W. S. and Nott, H. M. R. 1995. Social and communication behaviour of companion dogs. In The
Domestic Dog, Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, 115–130, ed. J. Serpell. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brogan, T. V., Bratton, S. L., Dowd, M. D. and Hegenbarth, M. A. 1995. Severe dog bites in children. Pediatrics
96: 947–950.
Broom, D. M. 2016. Considering animals’ feelings. Précis of “Sentience and Animal Welfare” (Broom 2014).
Animal Sentience. http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol1/iss5/1/.
Clifton, M. 2014. Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014.
http://www.dogsbite.org. Accessed on December 31, 2014.
Davis, A. L., Schwebel, D. C., Morrongiello, B. A., Stewart, J. and Bell, M. 2012. Dog bite risk: An assessment
of child temperament and child–dog interactions. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 9: 3,002–3,013.
Dixon, C. A., Mahabee-Gittens, E. M., Hart, K. W. and Lindsell, C. J. 2012. Dog bite prevention: An assessment
of child knowledge. Journal of Pediatrics 160(2): 337–341.
Gershman, K. A., Sacks, J. J. and Wright, J. C. 1994. Which dogsbite? Acase-control studyofrisk factors.
Pediatrics 93: 913–917.
Kahn, A., Bauche, P. and Lamoureux, J. 2003. Child victims of dog bites treated in emergency departments: A
prospective survey. European Journal of Pediatrics 162: 254-258.
Kujala, M. V., Kujala, J., Carlson, S. and Hari, R. 2012. Dog experts’brains distinguish socially relevant body
postures similarlyindogsandhumans. PloS ONE 7(6): e39145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039145.
Lakestani, N. N., Donaldson, M. L. and Waran, N. 2014. Interpretation of dog behaviour by children and young
adults. Anthrozoös 27(1): 65–80.
Love, M. L. and Overall, K. 2001. How anticipating relationships between dogs and children can help prevent
disasters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 219(4): 446–453.
Marsh, A. A., Adams, R. B. and Kleck, R. E. 2005. Why do fear and anger look the way they do? Form and social
function in facial expressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 73–86.
Mathews, J. R. and Lattel, K. A. 1994. A behavioral analysis of dog bites to children. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics 15: 44–52.
Matthias, J., Templin, M., Jordan, M. M. and Stanek, D. 2015. Cause, setting and ownership analysis of dog
bites in Bay County, Florida from 2009 to 2010. Zoonoses and Public Health 62(1): 38–43.
Meints, K., Brelsford, V., Just, J. and De Keuster, T. 2014. How children and parents (mis)interpret dogs’ body
language: a longitudinal study. Poster presentation at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the International Society for
Anthrozoology (ISAZ), Vienna, Austria, July 19–21, 2014.
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
594 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 594
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Meints, K. and De Keuster, T. 2009. Don’t kiss a sleeping dog: The First Assessment of “The Blue Dog” Bite
Prevention Program. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34: 1,084–1,090.
Meints, K., Racca, A. and Hickey, N. 2010. How to prevent dog bite injuries? Children misinterpret dog facial
expressions. Injury Prevention 16 (Suppl. 1): A68. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029215.246.
Millot , J. L., Filiatre, J. C., Gagnon, A. C., Eckerlin, A. and Montagner, H. 1988. Children and their pet dogs:
How they communicate. Behavioural Processes 17: 1–15.
Morrongiello, B. A. 2005. The role of supervision in child-injury risk: Assumptions, issues, findings and future
directions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 30: 536–552.
Morrongiello, B. A., Corbett, M. R. and Brison, R. J. 2009. Identifying predictors of medically attended injuries
to young children: Do child or parent behavioural attributes matter? Injury Prevention 15(4): 220–225.
Morrongiello, B. A., Schwebel, D. C., Stewart, J., Bell, M., Davis, A. L. and Corbett, M. R. 2013. Examining
parents’ behaviors and supervision of their children in the presence of an unfamiliar dog: Does The Blue Dog
intervention improve parent practices? Accident Analysis and Prevention 54: 108–113.
NHS. 2014. Animal and human bites: NHS Choices. www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Bites-human-and animal.
Accessed on February 8, 2016.
Overall, K. L. and Love, M. 2001. Dog bitestohumans—demography, epidemiology, injury, andrisk. Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218(12): 1,923–1,934.
Ozanne-Smith, J., Ashby, K. and Stathakis, V. Z. 2001. Dog biteandinjury prevention—analysis,critical review,
andresearch agenda. Injury Prevention 7(4): 321–326.
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, A. and Csányi, V. 2005. Human listenersareable to classify dog (Canis
familiaris)barks recordedindifferent situations. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119(2): 136–44.
Power, E. 2008. Furry families: Making a human–dog family through home. Social and Cultural Geography
9(5): 535–555.
Quaranta, A., Siniscalchi, M. and Vallortigara, G. 2007. Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different
emotive stimuli. Current Biology 17(6): R199–R201.
Ramirez, M. 2011. My dog’s just like me: Dog ownership as a gender display. Symbolic Interaction 29:
373–391.
Reisner, I. R. and Shofer, F. S. 2008. Effects of gender and parental status on knowledge and attitudes of dog
owners regarding dog aggression toward children. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
233(9): 1,412–1,419.
Reisner, I. R., Shofer, F. S. and Nance, M. L. 2007. Behavioral assessmentofchild-directed canine aggression.
Injury Prevention 13: 348–351.
Schalamon, J., Ainoedhofer, H., Singer, G., Petnehazy, T., Mayr, J., Kiss, K. and Hollwarth, M. E. 2006. Analysis
of dog bites in children who are younger than 17 years. Pediatrics 117: E374–E379.
Schwebel, D. C. 2003. Temperamental risk factors for children’s unintentional injury: The role of impulsivity and
inhibitory control. Personality and Individual Differences 37: 567–578.
Shepherd, K. 2002. Development of behaviour, social behaviour and communication in dogs. In BSAVA Manual
of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine, 8–20, ed. D. Horwitz, D. Mills and S. Heath. Gloucester: British
Small Animal Veterinary Association.
Siniscalchi, M., Lusito, R., Vallortigara, G. and Quaranta, A. 2013. Seeing left- or right-asymmetric tail wagging
produces different emotional responses in dogs. Current Biology 23: 2,279–2,282.
Tami, G. and Gallagher,A.2009. Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced
and inexperienced people.Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120: 159–169.
Tannen, D. 2007. Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. In Family Talk,
49–71, ed. D. Tannen, S. Kendall and C. Gordon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vidovic, V. V., Stetic, V. V. and Bratko, D. 1999. Pet ownership, type of pet and socio-emotional development
of school children. Anthrozoös 12(4): 211–217.
Villar, R. G. 1998. Parent and pediatrician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding pet-associated hazards.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 152(10): 1,035– 1,037.
Wan, M., Bolger, N. and Champagne, F. A. 2012. Human perception of fear in dogs varies
accordingtoexperiencewithdogs. PloS ONE 7(12): e51775. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051775.
Weiss, H. B., Friedman, D. I. and Coben, J. H.1998. Incidenceofdog bite injuries treatedinemergency
departments. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(1): 51–53.
Wemelsfelder, F. 1997. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal behaviour. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 53: 75–88.
Salgirli Demirbas et al.
595 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 595
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017

Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, E. A., Mendl, M. T. and Lawrence, A. B. 2001. Assessing the “whole animal”: A free-
choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220.
Wright, J. C. 1985. Severe attacks by dogs: Characteristics of the dogs, the victims, and the attack settings.
Public Health Reports 100 (1): 55–61.
Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction
596 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 596
Downloaded by [Ankara Universitesi] at 06:10 18 December 2017