Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:27:35.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a Free Choice Profiling methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Walker ,
A Dale ,
N Waran ,
N Clarke ,
M Farnworth  and
F Wemelsfelder
J Walker*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
A Dale
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
N Waran
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
N Clarke
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand The Animal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
M Farnworth
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
F Wemelsfelder
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0QE, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study explores the use of Free Choice Profiling (FCP) methodology for the qualitative behaviour assessment of emotional expression in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Qualitative behaviour assessment is based upon the integration of many pieces of information that in conventional quantitative approaches are recorded separately or not at all. Observers are asked to focus on an animal's interaction with its surrounding environment, and to describe the animal's expressive demeanor, or ‘body language’. A specific characteristic of FCP methodology is that it allows observers the freedom to devise their own descriptive terms, and then to use these personal terms to quantitatively score observed subjects. Application of FCP to qualitative behaviour assessment in animals was originally tested for pigs, and more recently for dairy cows, horses, and ponies. The goal of this study was to apply FCP to the domestic dog, and to investigate the inter-observer reliability of assessments of emotional expression in 10 individual Beagles by a group of 18 untrained observers. The data was analysed using Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The observers achieved highly-significant agreement in their assessments of the dogs’ expressions, thereby establishing the applicability of this methodology for the first time in the domestic dog.

Keywords

animal welfaredog welfareemotional expressionFree Choice ProfilingGeneralised Procrustes Analysisqualitative behaviour assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 75 - 84
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arnold, GM and Williams, AA 1985 The use of generalized Procrustes Techniques in sensory analysis. In: Piggott, JR (ed) Statistical Procedures in Food Research pp 233–253. Elsevier: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Beerda, B, Schilder, BH, Bernadina, W, Van Hoof, JARAM, De Vries, HW and Mol, JA 1999 Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction 1. Behavioural responses. Physiology and Behavior 66: 233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, SA and Boinski, S 1995 Temperament in non human primates. American Journal of Primatology 37: 103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, B and Morton, LL 2006 An investigation of human-animal interactions and empathy as related to pet preference, ownership, attachment and attitudes in children Anthrozoology 19(2): 113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagen, R, Conitz, J and Kunib, E 1997 Observing behavioral qualities. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 10: 167–179Google Scholar
Feaver, J, Mendl, M and Bateson, P 1986 A method for rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic cats. Animal Behaviour 34: 1016–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, AM and Haldane, SL 1999 Development of a scale to evaluate postoperative pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 214(5): 651–659Google ScholarPubMed
Gains, N and Thomson, DMH 1990 Contextual evaluation of canned lagers using repertory grid method. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 25: 699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, ME and Beilharz, RG 1984 A factor analysis of fearfulness in potential guide dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12(3): 253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodloe, LP and Borchelt, PL 1998 Companion dog temperament traits. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1(4): 303–338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, D, Bradshaw, JWS and Wickens, SM 1997 Paedomorphosis affects agonistic visual signals of domestic dogs. Animal Behaviour 53(2): 297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, SD 2001 From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin 127: 45–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gower, JC 1975 Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrica 40: 35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, L, Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 2005 The influence of olfactory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91: 143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B 1997 Through a glass darkly: Using behavior to assess pain. Seminars in Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (small animal) 12(2): 67–74Google ScholarPubMed
Hardie, EM 2000 Recognition of pain behaviour in animals. In: Hellebrekers, LJ (ed) Animal Pain pp 51–69. W van der Waas Uitgevery: Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Hebb, DO 1946 Emotion in man and animal: an analysis of the intuitive processes of recognition. Psychological Review 53: 88–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennessy, MB, Voith, VL, Mazzei, SJ, Buttram, J, Miller, DD and Linden, F 2001 Behaviour and cortisol levels of dogs in a public animal shelter, and an exploration of the ability of these measures to predict problem behaviour after adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73(3): 217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, HA Gender difference in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoology 20(10): 7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, L, Scott, EM, Nolan, AM, Reid, J, Welsh, E and Flaherty, D 1998 Comparison of three methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 212: 61–67Google ScholarPubMed
Holton, L, Reid, J, Scott, EM, Pawson, P and Nolan, A 2001 Development of a behaviour based scale to measure acute pain in dogs. The Veterinary Record 148: 525–531CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubrecht, R 1995 The welfare of dogs in human care. In: Serpell, J (ed) The Domestic Dog. Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Kent, JE, Jackson, RE, Molony, V and Hosie, BD 2000 Effects of acute pain reduction on chronic inflammatory lesions and behaviour of lambs castrated and tail docked with rubber rings at less than two days of age. The Veterinary Journal 160: 33–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Light, GS, Hardie, EM, Young, MS, Hellyer, PW, Brownie, C and Hansen, BD 1993 Pain and anxiety behaviors of dogs during intravenous catheterization after premedication with placebo, Acepromazine or Oxymorphone. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Tosi, MV, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2009 Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V, Kent, JE and McKendrick, IJ 2002 Validation of a method for assessment of an acute pain in lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 215–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, JA 1998 Describing categories of temperament in potential Guide Dogs for the Blind. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Braghieri, A, Grasso, F, Bordi, A and Wemelsfelder, F 2008 The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109(2-4): 342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, AC and Ebeler, SE 2002 Use of multivariate statistics in understanding wine flavor. Food Review International 18: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskovich, DC, Klein, BP and Sutherland, JW 1991 Procrustes Analysis and its applications to Free-Choice and other Sensory Profiling. In: Lawless, HT and Klein, BP (eds) Sensory Science: Theory and Applications in Foods pp 353–393. Marcel Dekker: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES and Podberscek, AL 2000 Veterinary education and students attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146: 269–272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative Assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101(1-2): 40–53Google Scholar
Saba, A and Rosati, S 2002 Understanding consumer perception of fermented yoghurt products using Conjoint and Generalised Procrustes Analysis. Italian Journal of Food Science 14: 339–350Google Scholar
Sales, G, Hubrecht, R, Peyvandi, A, Milligan, S and Sheild, B 1997 Noise in dog kennelling: Is barking a welfare problem for dogs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52: 321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, J and Hsu, Y 2001 Development and validation of a novel method for evaluating behaviour and temperament in Guide Dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 347–364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson-Hinde, J 1983 Individual characteristics: a statement of the problem. In: Hinde, RA (ed) Primate Social Relationships: an Integrated Approach pp 28–34. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J, Stillwell-Barnes, R and Zunz, M 1980 Subjective assessment of rhesus monkeys over four successive years. In Primates 21: 66–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartberg, K and Forkman, B 2002 Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeuchi, Y, Ogata, N, Houpt, KA and Scarlett, JM 2001 Differences in background and outcome of three behaviour problems of dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 297–308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vas J, Topal J, Gacsi M, Miklosi A and Csanyi 2005 A friend or an enemy? Dogs’ reaction to an unfamiliar person showing behavioural cues of threat and friendliness at different times. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, A, King, JE and Perkins, L 2006 Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(3): 501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL 2004 A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1997 The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2007 How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of animal behaviour. Animal Welfare 16(S): 25–31Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous Qualitative Assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: First explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative Assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science 51(30): 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a Free Choice Profiling approach. Animal Behavior 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Scott, EM 2004 Development of a questionnaire to measure the effects of chronic pain on health-related quality of life in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65(8): 1077–1084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Scott, EM, Reid, J and Nolan, AM 2006 Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life. American Journal of Veterinary Research 67(11): 1826–1836CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed