著者

立石 佳奈子

出版者

麻布大学

巻号頁・発行日

2014

---

There are many studies on the benefits of dog ownership for human physical and mental health. Some studies have shown that interactions with dogs reduce human stress. However, many owners are being negatively affected by the behavioral problems of their own dogs. It has been suggested that risk factors contributing to the development of a dog’s behavior problems are the owner’s gender, attitude and personality.Personality is known to be fairly stable across adulthood. Therefore, even if the owner’s personality is one of the risk factors in the development of a dog’s behavioral problem, it may be difficult to change their personality. Although the appropriate interactions between owners and their dogs is important, there is no research that focuses on such interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between dog behavioral problems and their home environment, including the owner’s personality, and to investigate effective communication between owners and their dogs. Chapter 1: The reasons for adopting a dog, and the relationship between the home environment and dog behaviors.The first aim of this chapter was to investigate the reasons for adopting a dog. The second aim of this chapter was to investigate the factors that affect the frequencies of problematic barking, walking issues and elimination problems. The scores for each of these problems were calculated using answers from the questionnaire: “Questionnaire about the housing state of dogs”. Owner personalities were tested via the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) was used for evaluating the owner’s attachment to their dog, and the Comfort from Companion Animals Scale (CCAS) was used for evaluating the comfort received by the owner from the dog. In total, 37% of owners were negatively affected by their dogs behavioral problems. However, some owners answered that their dogs had no behavioral problems, even though the dog had high scores for problematic barking, walking issues and/or elimination problem. These results suggested that there was a gap between the owners’ cognition and the dogs’ behaviors. This gap may be the factor causing friction between the owners and others.The most common reason for breed selection by the dog owner was “like the specific breed” (15.9%). The next common reasons were “appearance” and “size” (14.3% and 14.3%, respectively). The most common reasons for individual dog selection were “appearance” and “love at first sight” (23.9% and 23.8%, respectively). These results suggested that the owners did not understand the breed characteristics or the various difficulties that might occur in the future. Additionally, it would appear that such selections may be connected to the dogs’ behavioral problems and, as a result, the dogs being abandoned. The results showed that the frequency of barking score could be affected by various factors, such as dog breed, owners’ personality and the home environment. In addition, “dog breed”, “alone at home”, “the length of time alone at home”, “elimination during walking”, “frequency of walking”, “the number of dog”, and “owners’ neuroticism” were selected as the factors that may affect the dogs walking problem score. Finally, “dog breed”, “dog sex”, “presence or absence of a dog bed”, “elimination during walking”, “frequency of walking”, “owners’ neuroticism”, “owners’ openness”, “owners’ conscientiousness”, “CCAS score”, and “LAPS score” were selected as the factors that may affect the elimination problem score. Except for the owner’s personality, the home environmental factors that could be controlled by the owners were included. The “frequency of walking” was included as a factor that affects the “total” problem scores. Therefore, these results suggest that when the owner was faced with behavioral problems, the “frequency of walking” was the first affected factor.The owner’s personality, especially neuroticism, was included as a factor that affects the “total” problem scores. Additionally, the owners’ neuroticism scores showed a positive correlation with the “total” problem scores. These results indicate two possibilities. The first is that the owner’s neuroticism influences the dog, and therefore, the dog presents behavioral problems. The other is that the highly neurotic owners have overestimated their dogs’ behavior. In either case, it was obvious that an owner’s neuroticism had a negative impact on the relationship between an owner and their dog. The conclusion of Chapter 1 indicated that the owners' neuroticism was an important factor in the relationships between owners and their dogs.Chapter 2: Physiological effects of owner neuroticism on interactions between owners and their dogsThe first aim of this chapter was to investigate the physiological effects of the owners’ neuroticism on the interactions between the owners and their dogs. The second aim of this chapter was to investigate the effective interactions of the neurotic owner and their own dogs. The 24 participating owners and their dogs were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. The behavioral tests included two resting times, R1 and R2, and experimental times. The first resting time (R1) was 20 min in length, and the last resting time (R2) was 35 min. The experimental time was 25 min. After R1 and R2, the dogs’ and owners’ urine samples were collected and the urinary cortisol concentrations were measured. Each owner’s heart rate (HR) was monitoring during the experiment, and HR variabilities in R1 and R2 were analyzed. The experimental time included the first command communication time (5 min), a separation time (2 min), a free time (13 min) and a second command communication time (5 min). In the control group, the command communication times were changed to non-communication times. The results showed that the owners’ neuroticism score was connected to the owners’ autonomic nervous activity after an interaction with their own dog. In the experimental group, the neuroticism scores showed a positive significant correlation with a change in the high-frequency (HF) power of heart rate variability and a negative correlation with the ratio of the change in the low- frequency (LF)/HF ratio. No correlations were found in the control group. The dogs’ urinary cortisol concentrations were significantly higher after the behavioral tests in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Additionally, there was no significant difference between the change in the dogs’ urinary cortisol concentrations in the experimental group and that of the control group; however, in the experimental group, there was a greater degree of variation than in the control group. For the owners’ urinary cortisol concentrations, there were no significant differences. In experimental group, the behavioral test was associated with a significant increase in the dogs’ urinary cortisol levels. In addition, there was a greater degree of variation in the experimental group than in the control group. It would appear that the dogs in the experimental group were more active than the dogs in the control group due to the command communication periods. These results indicate that the procedures, except for the command communication period, may not be stressful for the dogs because there were no significant differences in the urinary cortisol concentrations in the control group.To explore the more detailed correlations between the neuroticism scores and the other measurements, the data from the participants and their dogs were categorized according to the HR responses in R2. One group contained participants whose HF readings at R2 were increased compared to R1 (HFI), and the other group contained participants whose HF readings at R2 were decreased compared to R1 (HFD). The owners’ neuroticism scores were significantly higher in the HFI group than in the HFD group (P < 0.05). In other words, owners who scored high in neuroticism had higher parasympathetic activity levels after the command communication periods with their own dogs. These results suggest that active communication times with their dogs, such as the command communications, could reduce the owners’ stress levels.Based on the results of Chapter 2, we devised the “Communication program”. The four participants, who scored high in neuroticism and their dogs participated in this program for one month. After which, the urinary cortisol concentrations of the owners and their dogs were reduced. Additionally, the owners’ parasympathetic activity levels were increased.This study determined the factors that affect problematic barking, walking issues and elimination problems. In addition, it showed that the owner’s personality was an important factor in the relationship between the owner and their dog. It is known that a high neuroticism score has many negative effects on physical and mental health. For instance, people who score high in neuroticism may be sensitive to daily stresses, and the neuroticism sometimes causes serious health problems. However, the results of this study showed that command communication periods with their dogs were beneficial for such highly neurotic people.