Content uploaded by Carla Jade Hart
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carla Jade Hart on Dec 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions between people and
other animals
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
“It’s Okay He’s Friendly”: Understanding the
Experience of Owning and Walking a Reactive Dog
Using a Qualitative Online Survey
Carla J. Hart & Tammie King
To cite this article: Carla J. Hart & Tammie King (11 Dec 2023): “It’s Okay He’s Friendly”:
Understanding the Experience of Owning and Walking a Reactive Dog Using a Qualitative
Online Survey, Anthrozoös, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2023.2287314
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2287314
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
View supplementary material
Published online: 11 Dec 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
“It’s Okay He’s Friendly”: Understanding the Experience of
Owning and Walking a Reactive Dog Using a Qualitative
Online Survey
Carla J. Hart and Tammie King
Waltham Petcare Science Institute, Waltham on the Wolds, Leicestershire, UK
ABSTRACT
A range of physical and emotional health benefits to people are
reported to be associated with owning and walking a dog.
However, the experiences of dog ownership are not always
equivalent, and owners of reactive dogs may face additional
challenges that could affect their experience of pet ownership. The
aims of this qualitative study were to understand the lived
experience of self-identified owners of reactive dogs, to identify key
issues and themes that affect their daily lives, and to establish
important future research questions. Thirty-seven UK residents
completed an online survey containing 14 open-ended questions.
Free-text responses were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Five main themes were constructed: lack of understanding,
situational control, learning and progress, guardianship, and
emotions felt. The biggest challenge that all respondents reported
was that other people did not understand their needs, which
caused them to act, or their dogs to act, inappropriately. Other
people’soff-lead dogs were highlighted as being especially
problematic, which sometimes brought owners into conflict with
members of the public. On walks, many owners attempted to
control the situation by avoiding places frequented by others or
walking at antisocial times. The emotions most commonly expressed
regarding walking a reactive dog were stress and anxiety. These
results suggest that self-identified owners of reactive dogs
experience a number of challenges, particularly related to walking
their dog, which negatively impact their experience of dog
ownership. Suggestions about how the needs of reactive-dog
owners and their dogs can be better catered for in society are
highlighted, as well as strategies to improve awareness about
reactive dogs and how other people can help them and their owners.
KEYWORDS
Behavioral problem; dog
behavior; dog owner;
human–animal interaction
(HAI); reactive dog
Despite living alongside dogs for millennia, our scientific understanding of the physical
and mental health benefits associated with human–dog interactions have only been
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is anOpen Access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Carla J. Hart carla.hart@effem.com Waltham Petcare Science Institute, Waltham on the Wolds, Lei-
cestershire LE14 4RT, UK
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2287314.
ANTHROZOÖS
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2287314
developed in recent decades, often viewed through the lens of the biopsychosocial
model (Gee et al., 2021). To date, research shows that dog owners receive a number of
health benefits as a consequence of owning and caring for their dog, including experien-
cing fewer minor illnesses (Serpell, 1991) and visiting a physician less often (Headey, 1999;
Headey & Grabka, 2007; Siegel, 1990). Dog ownership can also contribute toward
improved cardiovascular health as owning or interacting with a dog can reduce a
person’s blood pressure (Allen et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 1992; Friedmann et al.,
1983), heart rate (Allen et al., 2002), triglycerides, cholesterol in men (Anderson et al.,
1992), heart attack risk (Mubanga et al., 2017), and mortality risk following a heart
attack (Mubanga et al., 2019), as well as improve the likelihood of surviving a heart
attack (Friedmann & Thomas, 1995; Mubanga et al., 2019).
Many of the reported physical benefits from owning a dog are thought to be linked to
dog walking as research shows that dog owners perform more physical activity (Christian
et al., 2013; Cutt et al., 2007; Serpell, 1991; Thorpe et al., 2006; Westgarth et al., 2019;Wu
et al., 2017). The reasons for this include increased motivation and social support (Brown &
Rhodes, 2006; Ham & Epping, 2006), as well as purpose (Westgarth et al., 2021). Dog
walking also increases the number of social interactions an individual has with people
in their neighborhood (Potter & Sartore-Baldwin, 2019), which may be particularly impor-
tant for older adults who are often more socially isolated (McNicholas & Collis, 2000;
Rogers et al., 1993). Moreover, walking a dog reduces stress levels (Akiyama & Ohta,
2021), lowers blood pressure (Anderson et al., 1992), and make owners feel happy (West-
garth et al., 2017).
Psychological benefits have also been observed in dog owners more generally, which
are linked to reduced feelings of loneliness (Krause-Parello, 2012; McConnell et al., 2011),
decreased depression (Garrity et al., 1989), decreased anxiety (Grajfoner et al., 2017;
Wright et al., 2015), and decreased stress (Siegel, 1990), as well as increased self-esteem
(Barcelos et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2020)and life satisfaction (Bao & Schreer, 2016; McCon-
nell et al., 2011). However, some research has failed to find a reduction in loneliness
(Gilbey et al., 2007) or depression (Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010; Cline, 2010). Other
research has found negative effects, revealing, for example, that pet owners perceive
themselves as having more mental health problems than non-pet owners (Müllersdorf
et al., 2010) and experience more depression (Parslow et al., 2005). This suggests that
we do not fully understand the relationship between dog ownership and psychological
health outcomes. As research shows that the relationship owners have with their dogs
is influenced by dog and owner characteristics (Dotson & Hyatt, 2008; Meyer &
Forkman, 2014), further research is needed to understand how different types of dog–
owner relationships impact the benefits of dog ownership.
A known source of difficulty which can affect the human–dog relationship is caring for
dogs with physical or behavioral problems (Jensen et al., 2020; Kwan & Bain, 2013). Chris-
tiansen et al. (2013) found evidence for caregiver burden in owners caring for chronically
ill pets, which is a key predictor of negative consequences such as deterioration in carer
health (Liu et al., 2020). Pet behavioral problems have also been shown to negatively
impact owners’lives; it has been suggested that they experience caregiver burden
(Buller & Ballantyne, 2020). Specifically, Buller and Ballantyne revealed four major
themes that affect pet-owners’lives: “caretaking,”“emotions experienced,”“coping
2C. J. HART AND T. KING
strategies,”and “lack of understanding and support.”However, despite the high esti-
mated prevalence of behavioral problems, up to 86% (Dinwoodie et al., 2019; Yamada
et al., 2019), very little research has investigated the impact a specific canine behavioral
problem has on the lives of owners and their dogs. A dog behavioral problem which is
anecdotally believed to disrupt owners’lives, as well as cause emotional distress is “reac-
tivity”; however, to date, this area of research has been almost entirely neglected.
Traditionally, the term “reactivity”or “hyper-reactivity”has been used to describe an
individual who responds to normal stimuli with a higher-than-normal level of intensity.
In the human literature, hyper-reactivity has been reported toward auditory stimuli in
people with autism (Gomes et al., 2008), emotional stimuli in people with borderline per-
sonality disorder (Sansone & Sansone, 2010), and potentially threatening stimuli in people
with anxiety disorders (Zullino et al., 2004). Alternatively, “reactivity”is being increasingly
used to describe a dog that displays problematic behaviors, such as lunging or barking,
toward a specific stimulus or “trigger.”However, a recent study by Stephens-Lewis
et al. (2022) revealed the term’s complex and sometimes contradictory usage, incorporat-
ing both human and dog factors. One contributing factor for the term’s ongoing ambigu-
ity could be the variation in stimuli which can “trigger”a reactive response, underlying
motivations, as well as the types of behaviors performed in response and the intensity
with which they are executed. To date, little research has investigated the cause of reac-
tivity, but Overall et al. (2016) suggest a genetic contribution to sound reactivity in
working dogs as some breeds (e.g., Border Collies) show increased reactivity to noise.
However, Christley et al. (2020) reported a significant increase in all types of reactivity
in dogs during the pandemic, except toward family members being excited or noisy,
implying that exposure could play a role. To date, insufficient research has investigated
how reactivity is developed and maintained or impacts dogs’health and wellbeing.
There are several ways that reactivity might impact a dog’s physical and psychological
health, both directly and indirectly. One direct impact is the clear distress that reactive
dogs show in response to stimuli that trigger reactive behaviors. Behaviors such as
tensing, vocalizing, lunging, and snapping are commonly reported, suggesting that the
dogs are experiencing negative affectivity. It is also likely that these dogs will undergo
physiological changes as previous research shows that dogs displaying aggressive behav-
ior have significantly higher plasma concentrations of cortisol than non-aggressive dogs
(Rosado et al., 2010). Cortisol also influences the regulation of other functions within the
body such as the immune system, inflammation, metabolism, blood sugar, and blood
pressure (Thau et al., 2023). For this reason, chronically high cortisol levels are damaging,
resulting in increased frequency/severity of skin disorders and shortened lifespan
(Dreschel, 2010), implying that reactive dogs may also experience poorer physical
health. On the other hand, reactivity might also affect a dog’s wellbeing indirectly, by
placing them at increased risk of relinquishment. For example, Kwan and Bain (2013)
found that 65% of owners who relinquished their dog reported a behavioral reason,
with 48% saying that it was a strong influence on their reason to relinquish. In particular,
issues including bites or aggression toward people pose the greatest risk for pet relin-
quishment (Salman et al., 2000). Behavioral problems are also a common reason for eutha-
nasia (Lambert et al., 2015; Pegram et al., 2021).
ANTHROZOÖS 3
In addition to affecting dog welfare, dog reactivity is also likely to impact people’s
experience of dog ownership; although, thus far, no research has directly investigated
this issue. Building on the findings of Buller and Ballantyne (2020), it is expected that
owners of reactive dogs will experience difficulties exercising them, and they will face limit-
ations regarding where they can take them. Support for this comes from the Yellow Dog UK
campaign, which aims to promote awareness, by using yellow accessories and signage (e.g.,
yellow ribbon, lead, or bandana), that some dogs, including reactive dogs, need extra space
(Yellow Dog UK, 2023). Reactive-dog owners may also use strategies for coping with behav-
ioral problems related to dog walking, including the avoidance of trigger contexts and the
use of specific training methods/aids for treatment of the problem, as found by Westgarth
et al. (2021). This has the potential to change the quality of walks for owners of reactive
dogs, rendering them more functional and less pleasurable (Westgarth et al., 2021),
which might contradict their reason for choosing a dog as a pet. Therefore, it is possible
that the reported health benefits of dog walking, such as reduced blood pressure (Anderson
et al., 1992) and stress levels (Akiyama & Ohta, 2021), are not applicable to owners of reac-
tive dogs. However, to our knowledge no research has investigated how owning a reactive
dog impacts the experience of dog ownership and dog walking. Therefore, the aims of the
proposed study were to understand the lived experience of self-identified owners of reac-
tive dogs, to identify key issues and themes that affect their daily lives, and to establish
important future research questions.
Methods
Ethics Approval
The study was reviewed and approved for ethical compliance by a Mars Inc. ethical review
panel.
Qualitative Survey
A convenience sample of 37 self-identified owners of reactive dogs were recruited to par-
ticipate in a self-administered online survey. The survey included 14 open-ended
Table 1. Open-ended survey questions about participants’experience of owning and
walking a reactive dog.
Q1. In your own words, can you explain what reactivity is?
Q2. What is your experience of reactivity?
Q3. How is owning a reactive dog different to other non-reactive dogs you have owned or know well?
Q4. What is the biggest challenge of owning a reactive dog?
Q5. What is the best part of owning a reactive dog?
Q6. What situations cause your dog to react?
Q7. What have you learned through owning a reactive dog?
Q8. Please describe how owning a reactive dog makes you feel?
Q9. Tell me about your relationship with your reactive dog.
Q10. How do you feel when walking your reactive dog?
Q11. Tell me about the last walk you did with your reactive dog, what happened?
Q12. Have you used, or are you currently using, any strategies to manage your dog’s reactivity?
Q13. What do you wish others knew about what it’s like to own a reactive dog?
Q14. Are there any products you wish were available to assist you?
4C. J. HART AND T. KING
questions about owners’experiences of owning and walking a reactive dog (Table 1), fol-
lowed by 13 close-ended questions that gathered demographic information about the
owner and dog (Table 2). The survey questions were developed following a social-listen-
ing study on reactive dogs, which established several key themes (Hart et al., 2023). Par-
ticipation criteria were that owners believed their dog was reactive and walked them at
least once a week. They also needed to be aged over 18 years, reside in the UK, and speak
English as a first language. Information about the study and a link to the survey, created in
SurveyMonkey®, were uploaded to the Waltham Petcare Science Institute web page
(www.waltham.com) and shared via social media posts on researchers’Facebook and
Twitter accounts. The survey went live on 28 October 2022 and was open for a period
of two weeks. By clicking on the link, participants were first taken to an information
sheet that explained the purpose of the study, what would happen, their right to with-
draw, how their anonymous data would be stored, and how to make a complaint. If par-
ticipants still wished to participate, they clicked “next”and agreed to the consent form. At
the end, were provided with a debrief form.
Thematic Analysis
Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to analyze the open-ended free-text survey
responses to construct and report common themes, using the six-step process originally
developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). During step 1 of data analysis, the lead researcher
familiarized themselves with the data by reading the responses to each question several
times and noting down initial thoughts (see online supplemental file for reflexivity state-
ments). During step 2, the researcher generated initial codes from the content of the
entire dataset. Steps 3–5 involved searching for, reviewing, defining, and naming
themes. In step 6, a report was created that represented the final opportunity for analysis
and was linked back to the research question. A collaborative additional step (step 7) was
also included to deepen the primary coder’s (CJH) reflexive engagement in order to
develop a richer understanding/interpretation of the data. To do this, three naive
researchers were presented with 10% of participant responses and were asked to gener-
ate themes as a group. After discussing these themes, CJH shared the data subset
grouped in accordance with their interpretation (steps 1–6) and asked the focus group
Table 2. Close-ended questions gathering demographic information about the owner and dog.
Q15. What is your gender? Male/Female/Non-binary/Prefer not to answer
Q16. How old are you in years?
Q17. Which of these words best describes where you live? Rural/Urban
Q18. What sex is your dog? Male/Female
Q19. Is your dog spayed or neutered? Yes/No
Q20. How old is your dog in years?
Q21. What breed is your dog?
Q22. Where did you get your reactive dog from?
Q23. Did you know your dog was reactive before you got him/her?
Q24. If no, how long after getting your dog did you first notice signs of reactivity?
Q25. Do you think your dog’s reactivity is getting better or worse?
Q26. On a scale of 1-5, how reactive do you think your dog is (where 1 = Not at all reactive and 5 = Extremely reactive)?
Q27. On a scale of 1–5 how challenging do you find your dog’s reactivity (where 1 = Not at all challenging and 5 =
Extremely challenging)?
ANTHROZOÖS 5
to name these themes, before sharing what CJH had called them, and explaining them in
detail. When discrepancies were identified, the researchers worked collaboratively to
develop a deeper understanding by discussing their interpretations, and where necessary,
incorporating the insights gained from these discussions into the coding and theme
development.
Results
Demographics
Thirty-seven completed survey responses were collected (labeled P1–P37), and 42
additional incomplete submissions (all fields missing) were excluded from data analysis.
Of the respondents, 36 identified as female, and one participant selected “prefer not to
say.”They had a mean age of 45.69 years, with ages ranging from 20 to 72 years.
When defining their living situation, 21 participants said that “rural”best described the
location, whilst 16 selected “urban.”When answering questions about their dog, 15 par-
ticipants stated that their dog was “female”and 22 stated “male.”The mean age of the
dogs was 6 years (SD = 3.14). Thirty-four dogs were reported as being neutered or
spayed; three dogs were not. Nineteen of the dogs were adopted from rescue shelters,
eight were acquired from breeders, eight were acquired from other sources, such as
local farms, and failed guide dog and police schemes, and two were unknown due to
lack of specificity. Only nine owners reported being aware that their dog was reactive
before they acquired them; the remaining 28 were unaware, and it took on average of
7.4 months before their dog exhibited this type of behavior. When asked, “On a scale
of 1–5, how reactive do you think your dog is (where 1 = Not at all reactive and 5 = Extre-
mely reactive)?”the average score was 3.65, ranging from 2 to 5. When asked, “On a scale
of 1–5 how challenging do you find your dog’s reactivity (where 1 = Not at all challenging
and 5 = Extremely challenging)?”the average score was 3.46, ranging from 1 to 5. See
Table 3 for full details.
Owners’Understanding of Reactivity
To better understand what reactivity means to dog owners, participants were asked to
explain what the term meant to them and were encouraged to share their personal
experiences of their reactive dogs. Many participants reported their dogs behaving
aggressively. Behaviors such as barking, growling, and lunging were frequently reported
as reactions toward an external stimulus or “trigger”(e.g., dogs, people, vehicles). Some
respondents described a loss of behavioral control in these situations, both in terms of
the owner and the dog; however, a few suggested that the behavior was goal orientated
and intended to increase the distance between the dog and stimulus. Some respondents
also emphasized their dog’s perceived negative mental state, saying that the cause of the
behavior was their being fearful, stressed, or frustrated.
Participants were also asked about the situations that caused their dog to display reac-
tivity, to see if there were any similarities or contexts that occurred repeatedly. The most
commonly described situation was when their dog saw or heard another dog, particularly
6C. J. HART AND T. KING
Table 3. Demographic details of the respondents and responses to the other closed-ended questions.
ID Gender Age
Rural/
urban
Sex of
dog Neutered
Age of
dog Breed of dog
Where dog is
from
Prior knowledge
of dog’s reactivity
First sign of
reactivity after
obtaining
Reactivity is
getting better or
worse
Dog reactivity
level
(scale of 1–5)
a
How challenging
dog reactivity is
(scale of 1–5)
b
P1 Female 52 Rural Female Yes 5 Mixed breed Breeder No 2 years No change 2 3
P2 Female 52 Rural Female Yes 5 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Better 3 3
P3 Female 56 Rural Female Yes 8 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A No change 4 4
P4 Female 38 Rural Female Yes 9 Mixed breed Yes N/A Better 3 2
P5 Female 45 Rural Female No 1 German Shepherd Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A No change 5 5
P6 Female 41 Rural Female Yes 4 Mixed breed Breeder No 6 months Better 4 3
P7 Female 72 Rural Female Yes 7 Mixed breed No Worse 4 5
P8 Female 48 Rural Female Yes 3 French Bulldog Breeder No 6 months Better 4 3
P9 Female 26 Rural Female Yes 10 Boxer Breeder No Better 2 1
P10 Female 67 Rural Female Yes 11 Border Collie No 2 years Better 3 3
P11 Female 28 Rural Female No 4 Border Collie Breeder No 6 months Better 3 4
P12 Female 36 Rural Female Yes 3 Labrador Retriever Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 4 3
P13 Female 28 Rural Female Yes 5 Tibetan Spaniel Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Better 4 4
P14 Female 41 Rural Female Yes 4 German Shepherd Rescue/
rehomed
No 2 years No change 5 4
P15 Female 28 Rural Female Yes 7 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 3 3
P16 Female 38 Rural Male Yes 2 Border Collie Breeder No 1 year Worse 5 5
P17 Female 31 Rural Male Yes 9 Whippet Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
No change 5 5
P18 Female 40 Rural Male Yes 9 German Shepherd Rescue/
rehomed
No 6 months No change 3 3
P19 Female 60 Rural Male Yes 2 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Better 3 3
P20 Female 50 Rural Male Yes 6 German Shepherd Breeder No 1 year Worse 5 5
P21 Female 66 Rural Male Yes 3 Pointer (type not
specified)
Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Better 3 2
P22 Female 79 Urban Male Yes 5 Mixed breed No 6 months Better 4 5
(Continued )
ANTHROZOÖS 7
Table 3. Continued.
ID Gender Age
Rural/
urban
Sex of
dog Neutered
Age of
dog Breed of dog
Where dog is
from
Prior knowledge
of dog’s reactivity
First sign of
reactivity after
obtaining
Reactivity is
getting better or
worse
Dog reactivity
level
(scale of 1–5)
a
How challenging
dog reactivity is
(scale of 1–5)
b
P23 Female 57 Urban Male Yes 3 Dalmatian Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Better 4 3
P24 Female 42 Urban Male Yes 12 Lurcher Rescue/
rehomed
No Better 3 3
P25 Female 42 Urban Male Yes 12 German Spitz Rescue/
rehomed
No No change 2 1
P26 Female 49 Urban Male Yes 7 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No 2 years No change 2 2
P27 Female 68 Urban Male Yes 2 Labrador Retriever Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
No change 5 5
P28 Female 68 Urban Male Yes 11 Chihuahua Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 4 2
P29 Female 34 Urban Male Yes 3 Norfolk Terrier Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 3 3
P30 Female 28 Urban Male Yes 3 Beagle Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A No change 4 4
P31 Female 20 Urban Male Yes 6 Norfolk Terrier Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 4 4
P32 Female 60 Urban Male Yes 7 Terrier (type not
specified)
Breeder No 1 year Better 3 2
P33 Female 31 Urban Male No 11 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
Yes N/A Better 4 4
P34 Female 70 Urban Male Yes 5 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No Almost
immediately
Worse 4 4
P35 Female 34 Urban Male Yes 6 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No Better 3 3
P36 Female 20 Urban Male Yes 3 Mixed breed Rescue/
rehomed
No 1 month Better 5 5
P37 Prefer not
to
answer
50s Urban Male Yes 8 American
Staffordshire
Terrier
Rescue/
rehomed
No 1 month No change 4 5
Notes:
a
1 = Not at all reactive; 5 = Extremely reactive.
b
1 = Not at all challenging; 5 = Extremely challenging.
8C. J. HART AND T. KING
if the other dog approached offlead. Behaviors performed by the other dog that
increased the likelihood of a reactive response included staring intently at their dog,
barking at their dog, or running nearby. Other people were also mentioned; in particular,
unfamiliar men with large statures and loud voices or men who were a different ethnicity
from the dog’s owner. Some respondents also mentioned their dogs reacting to moving
objects (e.g., cars, bikes). Noise in the environment was also highlighted (e.g., loud bangs,
noise of the waves, car doors shutting, planes going over, fireworks, knocks on the door).
There was a sense that some dogs reacted to unexpected occurrences or objects within
their environment in different contexts (e.g., men carrying unusual large objects, high visi-
bility jackets, bags, or bins).
Thematic Analysis
The experience of owning and walking a reactive dog can be described using five major
themes: lack of understanding, situational control, learning and progress, guardianship,
and emotions felt. During step 7 of data analysis, six major themes were generated by
the focus group: lack of understanding, feelings, learning, management, dog–owner
relationship, and restrictions. However, following in-depth discussions, it was agreed
that five of the themes captured the same insights as those provided by CJH and that
the sixth theme was redundant as it was already sufficiently covered by the other
themes. As a result of these conversations, CJH renamed one of the themes from “com-
passion and responsibility”to “guardianship”as it more succinctly described the theme.
Lack of Understanding
This theme reflects the perceived lack of understanding or miscommunication between
owners of reactive dogs and other people within their environment, particularly the
owners of non-reactive dogs. This lack of understanding was highlighted as problematic
by almost all respondents because it caused the other party to behave, or allow their dog
to behave, in a manner that potentially exacerbated their dog’s reactive behavior. This
was summarized by one respondent, who stated that “…other dog owners often do
not understand the challenges and allow their dogs to act inappropriately”(Q7, P35).
One of the suggested causes for this miscommunication was that other owners frequently
misinterpret their own, and other people’s, dogs’behavior, and there was a sense
amongst some respondents that this issue was worse for smaller dogs. One respondent
stated, “I feel its [sic] very commonly minimized as ‘being yappy’and not seen as dogs
quite clearly trying to say ‘back the f off’” (Q13, P22).
The situation in which others’lack of understanding was mentioned most frequently
was on walks, especially if the other person was walking their dogs offlead. One respon-
dent stated, “Walks are a nightmare with random dogs running up to shouts of ‘it’s ok he/
she is friendly’…” (Q3, P31). However, other participants suggested that it was not only
that other owners did not see their dog’s running over as a problem, but also that they
were not effectively able to prevent them. This was demonstrated by another respondent,
who said, “…if other owners were better at recalling their dogs, it would make our life 10
x[sic] easier”(Q3, P36). Other participants went further, suggesting that other owners
could help manage their dog’s reactive behavior by increasing the distance between
ANTHROZOÖS 9
themselves and the reactive dog. “Give space and don’t let your offlead dog run at an on
lead dog”(Q13, P8).
In order to more effectively convey the message that their dog is reactive and request
additional space, some respondents reported using color-coded or written signage on
dog equipment or clothing as having their dog on lead was often not viewed as
sufficient. This was captured by one respondent, who stated that, “Other dog owners.
They really don’t think about why other dogs might be on a lead”(Q4, P31). The most
commonly reported signages were yellow/red collar, lead or harness, high visibility
coat, bandanna, and lead slip/sash with words such as “nervous”clearly written:
“They’ve got bright yellow sashes on their leads that say ‘nervous’to try and get other
people to keep their dogs away”(Q12, P22). However, there was still a sense that other
owners did not understand the meaning of these aids or have awareness of the Yellow
Dog UK (2023) campaign.
This sense of misunderstanding also resulted in owners believing that their actions,
and the actions of their dogs, were unfairly judged. In particular, owners of reactive
dogs said their dogs were often believed to be badly behaved, naughty, unfriendly or
dangerous. One respondent stated, “Reactive dogs are not ‘naughty,’‘unfriendly’and
often the guardian of a reactive dog is struggling. Give them space and don’t judge”
(Q13, P8). For this reason, several owners reported that they worry about other
people’s perceptions of them and feel under pressure. One respondent wrote, “I worry
about others’perceptions of me and my dog and how they are treated/ trained (e.g.,
she’s a nasty dog)”(Q8, P28). Several participants also referenced attempts at explaining
the cause of their dog’s behavior: “…trying to explain to people this all stems from fear
and she’s not vicious”(Q4, P11) or wishing that other people could see their behavior in
different situations, “…I wish they could see the other side to him when he’s at home and
all cuddly!”(Q13, P19).
Moreover, several respondents reported that this miscommunication had caused a
change in their attitude or behavior toward others. One respondent wrote, “I have in ret-
rospect become as reactive as my dog, mainly to people who just I [sic] understand!”(Q3,
P12). In particular, a feeling of anger in response to injustice came across: “It’s not hard to
put your dog on a lead when you see another dog on lead or are asked to …or it
shouldn’t be. I shouldn’t have to argue & justify that request!”(Q9, P15). And with this
some derogatory names for other owners: “…sadly there are so many thoughtless
idiots, who just expect everyone to put up with their offlead dogs, regardless of
whether they are friendly or otherwise”(Q2, P32). Another respondent referred to
these owners as, “The ‘It’s[sic] Ok [sic], my dog is friendly Brigade!’” (Q4, P15). However,
a smaller subset mentioned feeling fearful of others: “Afraid of other people (I have
been yelled at by various strangers who accuse me of walking a dangerous dog)”(Q10,
P9).
Situational Control
This theme encompasses the want and apparent need for owners of reactive dogs to
control their environment and ultimately their dog’s behavior. For almost all respondents
this took the form of planning, in particular planning walks where they are less likely to
come into close proximity to stimuli that trigger a reactive response in their dog.
10 C. J. HART AND T. KING
Examples given included avoiding popular dog walking areas, paying to use a secure field,
going out for walks early (5am), and avoiding alleys or narrow lanes that do not allow
dogs to pass a stimulus with sufficient space. These adjustments to their walks were
usually framed as being necessary to support their dog. For example, one respondent
wrote about their dog: “we [sic] have to carefully plan and think about who/ what/
where we will encounter and if they will be able to cope with that”(Q3, P28). To maintain
control over the environment, many respondents also mentioned the need to be vigilant
at all times during the walk, in order to identify potential triggers early, such as other dogs.
If an off-lead dog is identified, a number of respondents said that they would ask the
owner of an approaching dog to recall their dog or to put them on a lead: “I will shout
ahead to ask for offlead dogs to be recalled”(Q12, P15).
Other techniques owners reported using when they encountered triggers that their
dogs reacted to, or had the potential to react to, included distraction (with food or
toys), crossing the road away from triggers, turning around, or generally actions that
served to increase the distance between them and the trigger. Training via positive
reinforcement was often reported as an approach to increase control over their dog’s
behavior, including employing trained behaviors such as strong recall, emergency
turns, “engage-disengage,”incompatible behaviors, and “watch me”and “let’sgo”
cues. However, many respondents also reported using products aimed at increasing
the amount of physical control they have over their dogs, such as a short lead, harness,
head collar, or muzzle. Several owners gave examples of occasions when they had
been pulled over, resulting in broken bones (wrist and ribs). Some respondents also
used medications, supplements, or diffusers designed to reduce their dog’s anxiety,
such as fluoxetine, gabapentin, YuCALM®, Zylkene, and Adaptil
TM
. A range of other
approaches including scent walks, lickimats, or snufflemats were also used with the
same aim.
Learning and Progress
Many respondents reported being unaware of their dog’s reactivity prior to their acqui-
sition, or stated that it developed later, and therefore were unequipped to manage it.
Often owning and caring for a reactive dog required owners to improve their understand-
ing of dog training, dog behavior, and dog behavioral problems and management –
including the Yellow Dog UK (2023) campaign. This information was attained from a
variety of sources, including vets, behaviorists, trainers, Facebook groups, and YouTube
videos. Some respondents expressed the need for more instructional guides or videos
making complex training concepts, such as counter-conditioning, more accessible to
people with little prior experience of animal training and behavior. Overall, this learning
experience was seen as valuable by most dog owners. However, several participants men-
tioned a need for better training materials: “Help with strategies to support your dog for
people with low experience with complex training”(P27).
From improving their understanding of dog behavior, many respondents said that they
had seen progress, either in terms of their dog’s reactivity or in their ability to manage it.
This progress was often framed in terms of “wins,”although it was usually acknowledged
not to be a linear process. Some respondents emphasized the importance of celebrating
small improvements to keep motivated: “The little bits of progress. Celebrating their
ANTHROZOÖS 11
accomplishments and improvements, no matter how small or big”(Q5, P34). A one-size-
fits-all approach was believed to be insufficient, as many of the learnings were individual
to their dog and situation dependent. Further highlighting this individuality, several
respondents emphasized the importance of working at the dog’s pace: “Work at the
dogs [sic] pace and threshold-not what you deem to be right (read the dog and react
to the situation)”(Q7, P20).In order to safeguard their dog’s progression, this was some-
times interpreted as needing to advocate for their dog as setting the dog up for success
and gaining positive experiences were viewed as paramount. However, it was also
accepted that behavioral change would not happen overnight; continual practice and
learning were needed to see improvements in their dog’s behavior. This learning
process was sometimes expressed in terms of a joint endeavor between the owner and
their dog, and this opinion appeared to positively impact their bond –in particular,
growth in trust was mentioned. In addition, a couple of respondents said that understand-
ing their reactive dog had also allowed them to relate or better understand either them-
selves or other people. For example, one respondent wrote, “I can relate to my reactive
dog as I say, because I have PTSD myself”(Q8, P32). Another said, “I’ve learnt more
about my autistic son as their needs are parallel”(Q7, P1).
Guardianship
This theme encompasses the feeling of responsibility felt by owners to keep their dog safe
from physical and emotional harm, as well as protecting others from their behavior. This
sense of responsibility was often linked to the strong bond between dog and owner, but
sometimes was in response to a known, or imagined, history of abuse the dog had been
subjected to: “Given that she is a rescue dog, the best part has been seeing her confidence
and trust in us grow. From a background of being treated very poorly and isolated (locked
away) up to 16mnths old”(Q5, P4). The most frequent scenario in which respondents men-
tioned having a responsibility to protect their dog was when encountering other dogs.
Actions taken to protect their dogs included picking their dog up or walking offin a
different direction. In addition to their dog’s protection, a smaller subsect of respondents
also felt a responsibility to protect others’dogs from their dog’s behavior: “I am constantly
scanning for other dogs as I feel I need to protect them and my own dog from her behav-
iour”(Q3, P35). Another group that participants reported needing to protect were people.
Children were specifically mentioned as a vulnerable group: “I thought about getting rid of
him as I have children”(Q3, P1). Dog walkers and delivery people were also mentioned: “…
having to move [sic] letter box outside to protect the postman”(Q3, P26).
Emotions Felt
A range of positive and negative emotions were reported for all respondents in reference
to different aspects of owning and walking a reactive dog. Pride was one of the most fre-
quently reported positive emotions, particularly pride regarding their dog’s accomplish-
ments and progress: “I used to feel ashamed when he’s[sic] reacted, but I’m over that
now. Now I feel SO proud when we make any progress (no matter how small)”(Q10,
P13). Joy and happiness were also reported: “…the joy of knowing he now is happy
and living his best life”(Q5, P10). Strong feelings of love and affection were also men-
tioned: “best [sic] dog in the world, most affectionate little angel. bond [sic] is amazing.
12 C. J. HART AND T. KING
very [sic] obedient and loving”(Q9, P26).However, participants did acknowledge that the
positives were limited by their dog’s reactivity more than facilitated: “The feeling of
achievement when successfully getting her to meet another dog. Otherwise there is
not much positive about owning a reactive dog”(Q5, P5).
More negative emotions were mentioned than positive, with the most common being
feeling stressed, anxious, or nervous. One respondent reported,“stressed for almost 3
years & my mental health suffered”(Q8, P12). The main reason given for feeling this
way was concern that something could go wrong, particularly whilst on a walk: “Walks
are extremely stressful and unpredictable. I dread taking him out”(Q3, P36). It was
believed by many respondents to be more stressful to walk a reactive dog than a non-
reactive dog: “Owning a reactive dog is stressful, because you cannot relax and forget
about everything around you, as you might with a non reactive [sic] dog”(Q8, P32).
Several respondents went further still, saying that they felt fearful to walk their dog:
“walking [sic] him locally is a no/no for me I just cannot get over my fear …” (Q4, P12).
At the end of the survey when participants were asked if there were any products they
wished were available to assist them, some participants exhibited feelings of helplessness:
“A magic wand”(P30).
Other people’s responses also created additional stress for owners: “It is extremely
stressful walking as my dogs [sic] bark is ear piercing and people stop, stare and glare
angrily”(Q2, P17). On the other hand, some respondents said that other people’s
actions made them feel angry: “I feel angry that the progress he had made has been scup-
pered by the thoughtless individual involved as it has been …”(Q8, P32). Others reported
feeling trapped, isolated, and lonely: “Being a prisoner as we can’t take him anywhere”
(Q4, P1). Some respondents reported feeling sad and like they had failed their dog,
whilst others struggled with frustration at their lack of progress. This frustration and
other negative emotions sometimes had a detrimental effect on the relationship and
bond between the owner and dog, sometimes leaving them feeling conflicted and less
bonded than with others, and in one case completely disconnected: “I now barely tolerate
him. I hate being left responsible for him. We have tried all the strategies and now I just
ignore him”(Q9, P9).
Discussion
The results of the study reveal that self-identified owners of reactive dogs experience a
number of challenges, particularly related to walking their dog, which have not been
explicitly captured before. One of the biggest challenges identified by almost all partici-
pants was a lack of understanding from people who do not own a reactive dog. A lack of
understanding from family, friends, and neighbors was also identified in a study of
families with children with developmental disabilities and behavioral problems (Jones
& Passey, 2004). In the current study, members of the public were highlighted as being
most problematic, in particular other dog owners who walk their dog offlead because
the dog’s actions (e.g., running close by) often triggered a reactive response. Previous
research also found fear of encountering off-lead or uncontrolled dogs as a barrier to
dog walking (Cutt et al., 2008). Some respondents believed that the owners of these
dogs did not realize the impact of their dog’s behavior, as captured by claims that the
ANTHROZOÖS 13
dog is friendly, which implies that the other dog may want to interact. This belief is sup-
ported by previous studies which suggest that people, even experienced dog owners, are
particularly poor at identifying aggressive behavior in dogs (Epperlein et al., 2022; Tami &
Gallagher, 2009). On the other hand, other participants thought that the owners were
unable to effectively recall their dog, but this belief is not supported by previous research
as there are currently no data regarding the long-term maintenance of the basic training
that many pet dogs receive (Hiby et al., 2004).
Some owners attempted to bridge the communication gap via the use of signage,
such as a lead slip or by calling ahead to request the other owner recall their dog
and put them on a lead. The latter approach was considered to be more effective
than the former because signals like a yellow lead or bandana were not thought to
be commonly understood, and the writing on such items is too small to be read from
a distance. This suggests that further awareness of campaigns such as Yellow Dog UK
(2023) is required, particularly amongst people whose dogs do not require additional
space, and it also highlights a need for products which do not rely on writing to com-
municate their meaning. However, there was a sense that asking people to recall their
dogs was socially uncomfortable, suggesting that owners felt some social norms had
been transgressed, which is known to be associated with feelings of guilt and shame
(Van Kleef et al., 2015).
Many respondents also reported feeling unfairly judged by others, who they believed
thought that they were bad dog owners or that their dogs were dangerous. However, this
is not supported by research that found that online mentions of reactive dogs were more
likely to be positive in sentiment than negative (Hart et al., 2023). Several interpretations
of these findings are possible, including that owners of reactive dogs are unable to objec-
tively evaluate their dog’s behavior, although previous research found that the dog–
owner relationship does not impact owners’ability to interpret their dog’s emotional
reactions (Somppi et al., 2022). Alternatively, participants may have underestimated the
other person’s opinion of them –known as the liking gap (Mastroianni et al., 2021).
Another explanation is that the online sentiment reported by Hart et al. (2023) captured
dog-directed sentiment that may be different from owner-directed sentiment: a previous
study found that when viewing dog-bite videos, overall, more blame was placed on the
owners than the dogs (Owczarczak-Garstecka et al., 2018). Finally, the online sentiment of
“reactive dogs”mentions may have been skewed by people who own them; therefore,
they are not representative of the general population.
Support for a more negative view of reactive dogs also comes from the current study:
several respondents reported having altercations with members of the public. This brings
a new perspective to the view of dogs as social lubricants (Wells, 2004): implying that in
certain situations dogs can introduce a degree of social friction. Other situations in which
dogs have been found to bring people into conflict include dog fouling (Wells, 2006),
barking (Flint et al., 2014), presence at playgrounds (Wilson, 2014), and wildlife disturb-
ance (Lord et al., 2001).
This uncertainty regarding what owners might encounter on walks, and how their dogs
could react, was given as the main reason that participants reported feeling stressed or
anxious –which were the most frequently reported emotions throughout the survey.
Again, this is contrary to the widely held view that dog walking is enjoyable and relaxing
14 C. J. HART AND T. KING
(Potter & Sartore-Baldwin, 2019), lowers cortisol (Krause-Parello et al., 2020), and increases
oxytocin (Powell et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2020). Further research is needed to understand
the health implications of owning a reactive dog, or other dogs which exhibit problematic
behaviors, because chronic stress and anxiety increase the risk of mental and physical
health problems, such as depression and hypertension (Shankar & Park, 2016): one
respondent acknowledged that their mental health had been negatively impacted
owing to stress. Several participants also mentioned more direct physical injuries they
had sustained whilst walking their reactive dog, including a broken wrist and ribs. In an
effort to reduce uncertainty, respondents reported using a range of strategies, such as
maintaining vigilance on walks in order to identify potential triggers early and allow
time for evasive action, distraction, or the performance of trained behaviors. This is
likely to make walks more functional and less recreational and, therefore, enjoyable, as
described by Westgarth et al. (2021).
Another strategy was walking in isolated places, at antisocial times, or hiring a private
field, which conflicts with the idea that dogs reduce social isolation and loneliness (Kret-
zler et al., 2022). Social isolation and loneliness were also reported inside the house, with
several respondents saying that they felt trapped because they were unable to have visi-
tors over as people (especially men), knocks on the door, and cars were all identified as
common triggers. This finding is supported by Buller and Ballantyne (2020), who also
found evidence of social isolation in owners caring for dogs with behavioral problems
as owners avoided having visitors to the house and leaving the house themselves. This
is especially concerning as loneliness has been reported to be at “epidemic”levels,
which worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic (Demarinis, 2020), and as harmful to a
person’s health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Our finding
that certain types of dog ownership can also increase social isolation is particularly impor-
tant as it is becoming increasingly common for vulnerable populations, such as older
adults, to be recommended a pet for companionship (Stanley et al., 2014). Further
research is needed to fully understand the situations in which the opposite might be
achieved. This issue was touched on by Westgarth et al. (2014), who raised ethical con-
cerns that although dog walking provides owners with increased physical activity, this
need should be matched with the needs of the dog.
Other strategies used to increase owners’control over their dog’s behavior included
specific types of harnesses as well as the services of behaviorists and trainers, revealing
a previously unknown additional monetary cost of owning a reactive dog, as well as
the significant time investment associated with ongoing training. This finding is also in
line with Buller and Ballantyne (2020), who reported financial and time costs associated
with caring for dogs with behavioral problems. In the current study, the only training
method mentioned was positive reinforcement, although some respondents stated
that they had used a variety of methods in the past.
Limitations
The training methods reported are unlikely to be representative of the dog-owning
population, owing to a selection/response bias, with the same individuals motivated
to complete the survey also being motivated to keep up to date on best practice
ANTHROZOÖS 15
for dog training. Hiby et al. (2004) found that 66% of owners reported using vocal
punishment and 12% used physical punishment, compared with 60% who used
vocal rewards, 51% who used food rewards, and 11% who used play rewards.
However, a one-size-fits-all approach was thought to be inadequate, and respondents
emphasized tailoring the approach to the dog and situation. Other limitations of the
current study are that only self-identified owners of reactive dogs were recruited,
meaning that the experiences of owners whose dogs display the same behaviors
but do not identify as owning a reactive dog were not captured. Also, no information
about owners’previous experience with dogs or dog training were collected. This is
important because the improved understanding of dog behavior and training was
viewed as valuable by the majority of participants and was one of the few positives
of owning a reactive dog.
Seeing improvement in their dog’s behavior resulting from their training and manage-
ment was seen as an important motivational factor to dog owners. Several highlighted
the importance of celebrating improvements, even small positive changes, and many
owners reported feeling very proud of their dog’s accomplishments. This progress was fre-
quently viewed as the product of a joint effort that strengthened the dog–owner relation-
ship. This is supported by previous research that suggests that dogs trained using positive
reinforcement are more strongly attached to their owner (de Castro et al., 2019). Alterna-
tively, other research shows that fearful or aggressive reactions to social stimuli are predic-
tive of a closer perceived emotional bond by owners (Meyer & Forkman, 2014). A suggested
explanation for this is that fearful dogs initiate contact with their owners more often (Wedl
et al., 2010). Moreover, a recent study showed that understanding a dog’s“dislikes”as well
as their “likes”contributed toward the human–dog bond (Samet et al., 2022).
Conclusions
Overall, it is clear that owners of reactive dogs experience unique challenges, particularly
related to walking their dogs, which can negatively impact their experience of dog own-
ership. For this reason, more research is needed to understand whether the same phys-
ical and psychological benefits of dog ownership are valid for owners of reactive dogs.
Future research should also endeavor to evaluate the welfare of reactive dogs. For
example, it is currently unknown if reactive dogs experience increased stress, particularly
during walks. It also remains unclear whether they receive the same amount of exercise
or visit a veterinarian as frequently as their non-reactive counterparts. It is our hope that
by facilitating the direction of future research into reactive dogs, as well as disseminating
the findings of the current study widely, some of the challenges associated with owning
and walking a reactive dog can be alleviated –improving the lives of reactive dogs and
their owners.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr Carri Westgarth for her considered feedback on the project proposal, Dr James
Serpell for his review of the ethical considerations, Dr Zack Ellerby for his statistical advice, and Dr
Hannah Flint and Steph McKay for their support with the analysis.
16 C. J. HART AND T. KING
Disclosure Statement
The authors are both employed by Mars Petcare, manufacturer of pet food and provider of veter-
inary services.
Funding
This research was funded by the Waltham Petcare Science Institute, Waltham on the Wolds, Leices-
tershire, UK.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, CJH; methodology, CJH and TK; analysis, CJH and TK; original manu-
script preparation, CJH; manuscript review and editing, CJH and TK. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
ORCID
Carla J. Hart http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-8116
References
Akiyama, J., & Ohta, M. (2021). Hormonal and neurological aspects of dog walking for dog owners
and pet dogs. Animals,11(9), 2732. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092732
Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets,
friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine,64(5), 727–739.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200209000-00005
Anderson, W. P., Reid, C. M., & Jennings, G. L. (1992). Pet ownership and risk factors for cardiovascular
disease. Medical Journal of Australia,157(5), 298–301. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1992.
tb137178.x
Antonacopoulos, N. M. D., & Pychyl, T. A. (2010). An examination of the potential role of pet own-
ership, human social support and pet attachment in the psychological health of individuals living
alone. Anthrozoös,23(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12627079939143
Bao, K. J., & Schreer, G. (2016). Pets and happiness: Examining the association between pet owner-
ship and wellbeing. Anthrozoös,29(2), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721
Barcelos, A. M., Kargas, N., Maltby, J., Hall, S., & Mills, D. S. (2020). A framework for understanding how
activities associated with dog ownership relate to human well-being. Scientific Reports,10(1),
11363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68446-9
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology,3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, S. G., & Rhodes, R. E. (2006). Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in
western Canadian adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,30(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.007
Buller, K., & Ballantyne, K. C. (2020). Living with and loving a pet with behavioral problems: Pet
owners’experiences. Journal of Veterinary Behavior,37,41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.
2020.04.003
Christian, H. E., Westgarth, C., Bauman, A., Richards, E. A., Rhodes, R. E., Evenson, K. R., Mayer, J. A., &
Thorpe, R. J. (2013). Dog ownership and physical activity: A review of the evidence. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health,10(5), 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.10.5.750
ANTHROZOÖS 17
Christiansen, S. B., Kristensen, A. T., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2013). Looking after chronically III dogs:
Impacts on the caregiver’s life. Anthrozoös,26(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.2752/
175303713X13795775536174
Christley, R., Harvey, N. D., Mead, R., McMillan, K. M., Owczarczak-Garstecka, S., Harris, L., Buckland, E.
L., Giragosian, K., Anderson, K. L., Upjohn, M. M., Casey, R. A., & Holland, K. (2020). The impact of
COVID-19 lockdown restrictions on dogs & dog owners in the UK. Dogs Trust. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/344266118_The_impact_of_COVID-19_lockdown_restrictions_on_
dogs_dog_owners_in_the_UK
Cline, K. M. (2010). Psychological effects of dog ownership: Role strain, role enhancement, and depression.
The Journal of Social Psychology,150(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903368533
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., & Burke, V. (2007). Dog ownership, health and physical activity:
A critical review of the literature. Health & Place,13(1), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
healthplace.2006.01.003
Cutt, H. E., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M. W., & Burke, V. (2008). Barriers and motivators for
owners walking their dog: Results from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of Australia,
19(2), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE08118
de Castro, A. C. V., Barrett, J., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2019). Carrots versus sticks: The relation-
ship between training methods and dog–owner attachment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
219, 104831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104831
Demarinis, S. (2020). Loneliness at epidemic levels in America. EXPLORE,16(5), 278–279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.06.008
Dinwoodie, I. R., Dwyer, B., Zottola, V., Gleason, D., & Dodman, N. H. (2019). Demographics and
comorbidity of behavior problems in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior,32,62–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.04.007
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2008). Understanding dog–human companionship. Journal of Business
Research,61(5), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019
Dreschel, N. A. (2010). The effects of fear and anxiety on health and lifespan in pet dogs. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science,125(3–4), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.04.003
Epperlein, T., Kovacs, G., Oña, L. S., Amici, F., & Bräuer, J. (2022). Context and prediction matter for the
interpretation of social interactions across species. PLoS ONE,17(12), e0277783. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0277783
Flint, E. L., Minot, E. O., Perry, P. E., & Stafford, K. J. (2014). A survey of public attitudes towards
barking dogs in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal,62(6), 321–327. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00480169.2014.921852
Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Thomas, S. A., Lynch, J. J., & Messent, P. R. (1983). Social interaction and
blood pressure. Influence of animal companions. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,171
(8), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198308000-00002
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival after
acute myocardial infarction in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). The American
Journal of Cardiology,76(17), 1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)80343-9
Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L. F., Marx, M. B., & Johnson, T. P. (1989). Pet ownership and attachment as
supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrozoös,3(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.2752/
089279390787057829
Gee, N. R., Rodriguez, K. E., Fine, A. H., & Trammell, J. P. (2021). Dogs supporting human health and
well-being: A biopsychosocial approach. Frontiers in Veterinary Science,8, 630465. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fvets.2021.630465
Gilbey, A., McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2007). A longitudinal test of the belief that companion
animal ownership can help reduce loneliness. Anthrozoös,20(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.
2752/089279307X245473
Gomes, E., Pedroso, F. S., & Wagner, M. B. (2008). Auditory hypersensitivity in the autistic spectrum
disorder. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica,20(4), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0104-56872008000400013
18 C. J. HART AND T. KING
Grajfoner, D., Harte, E., Potter, L. M., & McGuigan, N. (2017). The effect of dog-assisted intervention
on student well-being, mood, and anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health,14(5), 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050483
Ham, S. A., & Epping, J. (2006). Peer reviewed: Dog walking and physical activity in the United States.
Preventing Chronic Disease,3(2), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq5k0.9
Hart, C. J., Uras, D., Ellerby, Z., & King, T. (2023, July 15–18). Reactive dogs: Using social listening as a
research tool in under-investigated areas of HAI [Paper presentation]. ISAZ 2023, Edinburgh, UK.
Headey, B. (1999). Health benefits and health cost savings due to pets: Preliminary estimates from an
Australian national survey. Social Indicators Research,47(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1006892908532
Headey, B., & Grabka, M. M. (2007). Pets and human health in Germany and Australia: National longi-
tudinal results. Social Indicators Research,80(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-
5072-z
Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness
and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare,13(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0962728600026683
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-
analytic review. PLoS Medicine,7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
Jensen, J. B., Sandøe, P., & Nielsen, S. S. (2020). Owner-related reasons matter more than behavioural
problems—A study of why owners relinquished dogs and cats to a Danish animal shelter from
1996 to 2017. Animals,10(6), 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061064
Jones, J., & Passey, J. (2004). Family adaptation, coping and resources: Parents of children with devel-
opmental disabilities and behavior problems. Journal on Developmental Disabilities,11(1), 31–46.
Krause-Parello, C. A. (2012). Pet ownership and older women: The relationships among loneliness,
pet attachment support, human social support, and depressed mood. Geriatric Nursing,33(3),
194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2011.12.005
Krause-Parello, C. A., Friedmann, E., Blanchard, K., Payton, M., & Gee, N. R. (2020). Veterans and
shelter dogs: Examining the impact of a dog-walking intervention on physiological and post-trau-
matic stress symptoms. Anthrozoös,33(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.
1719763
Kretzler, B., König, H. H., & Hajek, A. (2022). Pet ownership, loneliness, and social isolation: A systema-
tic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,57(10), 1935–1957. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00127-022-02332-9
Kwan, J. Y., & Bain, M. J. (2013). Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment
and training techniques of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,16(2), 168–183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2013.768923
Lambert, K., Coe, J., Niel, L., Dewey, C., & Sargeant, J. M. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analy-
sis of the proportion of dogs surrendered for dog-related and owner-related reasons. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine,118(1), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.11.002
Liu, Z., Heffernan, C., & Tan, J. (2020). Caregiver burden: A concept analysis. International Journal of
Nursing Sciences,7(4), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.07.012
Lord, A., Waas, J. R., Innes, J., & Whittingham, M. J. (2001). Effects of human approaches to nests of
northern New Zealand dotterels. Biological Conservation,98(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0006-3207(00)00158-0
Mastroianni, A. M., Cooney, G., Boothby, E. J., & Reece, A. G. (2021). The liking gap in groups and
teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,162, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.013
McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits:
On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101
(6), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024506
McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: Robustness of the
effect. British Journal of Psychology,91(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161673
ANTHROZOÖS 19
Meyer, I., & Forkman, B. (2014). Dog and owner characteristics affecting the dog–owner relationship.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior,9(4), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.03.002
Mubanga, M., Byberg, L., Egenvall, A., Ingelsson, E., & Fall, T. (2019). Dog ownership and survival after
a major cardiovascular event: A register-based prospective study. Circulation: Cardiovascular
Quality and Outcomes,12(10), e005342. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005342
Mubanga, M., Byberg, L., Nowak, C., Egenvall, A., Magnusson, P. K., Ingelsson, E., & Fall, T. (2017). Dog
ownership and the risk of cardiovascular disease and death –A nationwide cohort study. Scientific
Reports,7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16118-6
Müllersdorf, M., Granström, F., Sahlqvist, L., & Tillgren, P. (2010). Aspects of health, physical/leisure
activities, work and socio-demographics associated with pet ownership in Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health,38(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809344358
Overall, K. L., Dunham, A. E., & Juarbe-Diaz, S. V. (2016). Phenotypic determination of noise reactivity
in 3 breeds of working dogs: A cautionary tale of age, breed, behavioral assessment, and genetics.
Journal of Veterinary Behavior,16, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.09.007
Owczarczak-Garstecka, S. C., Watkins, F., Christley, R., Yang, H., & Westgarth, C. (2018). Exploration of
perceptions of dog bites among YouTube™viewers and attributions of blame. Anthrozoös,31(5),
537–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1505260
Parslow, R. A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Jacomb, P. (2005). Pet ownership and health
in older adults: Findings from a survey of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60–64.
Gerontology,51(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000081433
Pegram, C., Gray, C., Packer, R. M., Richards, Y., Church, D. B., Brodbelt, D. C., & O’Neill, D. G. (2021).
Proportion and risk factors for death by euthanasia in dogs in the UK. Scientific Reports,11(1),
9145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88342-0
Potter, K., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. (2019). Dogs as support and motivation for physical activity. Current
Sports Medicine Reports,18(7), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0000000000000611
Powell, L., Edwards, K. M., Bauman, A., Guastella, A. J., Drayton, B., Stamatakis, E., & McGreevy, P.
(2019). Canine endogenous oxytocin responses to dog-walking and affiliative human–dog inter-
actions. Animals,9(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9020051
Powell, L., Edwards, K. M., Michael, S., McGreevy, P., Bauman, A., Guastella, A. J., Drayton, B., &
Stamatakis, E. (2020). Effects of human–dog interactions on salivary oxytocin concentrations
and heart rate variability: A four-condition cross-over trial. Anthrozoös,33(1), 37–52. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1694310
Rogers, J., Hart, L. A., & Boltz, R. P. (1993). The role of pet dogs in casual conversations of elderly
adults. The Journal of Social Psychology,133(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.
1993.9712145
Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., Chacón, G., Villegas, A., & Palacio, J. (2010). Blood concen-
trations of serotonin, cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in aggressive dogs. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science,123(3–4), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.009
Salman, M. D., Hutchison, J., Ruch-Gallie, R., Kogan, L., New Jr, J. C., Kass, P. H., & Scarlett, J. M. (2000).
Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science,3(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0302_2
Samet, L. E., Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H., Harvey, N. D., Upjohn, M. M., & Casey, R. A. (2022). Exploring and
developing the questions used to measure the human–dog bond: New and existing themes.
Animals,12(7), 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070805
Sansone, R. A., & Sansone, L. A. (2010). Emotional hyper-reactivity in borderline personality disorder.
Psychiatry (Edgmont),7(9), 16. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.09l05494gre
Schulz, C., König, H. H., & Hajek, A. (2020). Differences in self-esteem between cat owners, dog
owners, and individuals without pets. Frontiers in Veterinary Science,7, 552. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fvets.2020.00552
Serpell, J. (1991). Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behav-
iour. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,84(12), 717–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014107689108401208
20 C. J. HART AND T. KING
Shankar, N. L., & Park, C. L. (2016). Effects of stress on students’physical and mental health and aca-
demic success. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology,4(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21683603.2016.1130532
Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The mod-
erating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(6), 1081–1086.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1081
Somppi, S., Törnqvist, H., Koskela, A., Vehkaoja, A., Tiira, K., Väätäjä, H., Surakka, V., Vainio, O., & Kujala,
M. V. (2022). Dog–owner relationship, owner interpretations and dog personality are connected
with the emotional reactivity of dogs. Animals,12(11), 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111338
Stanley, I. H., Conwell, Y., Bowen, C., & Van Orden, K. A. (2014). Pet ownership may attenuate lone-
liness among older adult primary care patients who live alone. Aging & Mental Health,18(3), 394–
399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.837147
Stephens-Lewis, D., Johnson, A., Turley, N., Naydorf-Hannis, R., Scurlock-Evans, L., & Schenke, K. C.
(2022). Understanding canine ‘reactivity’: Species-specific behaviour or human inconvenience?
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2022.2147007
Tami, G., & Gallagher, A. (2009). Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris)by
experienced and inexperienced people. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,120(3-4), 159–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.009
Thau, L., Gandhi, J., & Sharma, S. 2023. Physiology, cortisol. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls
Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538239/
Thorpe,R.J.,Simonsick,E.M.,Brach,J.S.,Ayonayon,H.,Satterfield, S., Harris, T. B., Garcia, M., & Kritchevsky,
S. B. (2006). Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society,54(9), 1419–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00856.x
Van Kleef, G. A., Wanders, F., Stamkou, E., & Homan, A. C. (2015). The social dynamics of breaking the
rules: Antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology,
6,25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.013
Wedl, M., Schöberl, I., Bauer, B., Day, J., & Kotrschal, K. (2010). Relational factors affecting dog social
attraction to human partners. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in
Biological and Artificial Systems,11(3), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.3.09wed
Wells, D. L. (2004). The facilitation of social interactions by domestic dogs. Anthrozoös,17(4), 340–
352. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304785643203
Wells, D. L. (2006). Factors influencing owners’reactions to their dogs’fouling. Environment and
Behavior,38(5), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505284794
Westgarth, C., Christley, R. M., & Christian, H. E. (2014). How might we increase physical activity
through dog walking?: A comprehensive review of dog walking correlates. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-11-83
Westgarth, C., Christley, R. M., Jewell, C., German, A. J., Boddy, L. M., & Christian, H. E. (2019). Dog
owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: An inves-
tigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK commu-
nity. Scientific Reports,9(1), 5704. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41254-6
Westgarth,C.,Christley,R.M.,Marvin,G.,&Perkins,E.(2017). I walk my dog because it makes me happy: A
qualitativestudytounderstandwhydogsmotivatewalkingandimprovedhealth.International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health,14(8), 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080936
Westgarth, C., Christley, R. M., Marvin, G., & Perkins, E. (2021). Functional and recreational dog
walking practices in the UK. Health Promotion International,36(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.
1093/heapro/daaa051
Wilson, N. (2014). Levels of dog control and dog fouling in a large public park: Methods issues and
survey results. The New Zealand Medical Journal,127(1406), 95.
Wright, H., Hall, S., Hames, A., Hardiman, J., Mills, R., Project Team, P. A. W. S., & Mills, D. (2015). Pet
dogs improve family functioning and reduce anxiety in children with autism spectrum disorder.
Anthrozoös,28(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1070003
ANTHROZOÖS 21
Wu,Y.T.,Luben,R.,&Jones,A.(2017). Dog ownership supports the m aintenance of physical activity during
poor weather in older English adults: Cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health,71(9), 905–911. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-208987
Yamada, R., Kuze-Arata, S., Kiyokawa, Y., & Takeuchi, Y. (2019). Prevalence of 25 canine behavioral
problems and relevant factors of each behavior in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science,
81(8), 1090–1096. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.18-0705
Yellow Dog UK. (2023). Some dogs need space. www.yellowdoguk.co.uk.
Zullino, D., Khazaal, Y., Hättenschwiler, J., & Borgeat, F. (2004). How hypervigilance and hyperreac-
tivity clinically described in anxiety expressed physiologically? Sante Mentale au Quebec,29(1),
23–32. https://doi.org/10.7202/008817ar
22 C. J. HART AND T. KING
