Quantitative Behavioral Analysis and Qualitative Classification of Attachment Styles in Domestic Dogs: Are Dogs with a Secure and an Insecure-Avoidant Attachment Different?

Abstract

Since several modified Strange Situation Procedures (SSP) have been used to investigate dog-to-owner attachment, in this study two different samples of dog-owner dyads underwent two modified versions of the SSP. Dogs’ attachment style to the owner was assessed based on a novel adaptation of the attachment pattern classification used for infant-caregivers. Dogs’ behavioral data were collected using continuous sampling and, in the second protocol, also with a scoring system for greeting and social play. In both studies, secure and avoidant dogs’ behavior was compared using the Mann Whitney test, while differences within each group across episodes were analyzed using the Wilcoxon paired sample test. The classification seemed to be effective at identifying both avoidant and secure attachment patterns in dogs. As expected, differences in key attachment behaviors, such as proximity/contact seeking toward the caregiver, between secure and avoidant dogs were more evident in the final episodes of the test. Differently from secure dogs, avoidant dogs did not show an increase in proximity/contact seeking behavior with the caregiver in any of the procedures. Further studies with larger samples are needed to support the effectiveness of this classification and investigate on the remaining attachment styles.

The Impact of Chronic Inflammatory Enteropathy on Dogs’ Quality of Life and Dog-Owner Relationship

“…Dogs have shared their life and story with human beings for several thousands of years [ 1 ] and today are considered, by most of their owners, family members. The process of domestication facilitated the development of a strong interspecific attachment bond, for many aspects mirroring the child–caregiver relationship [ 2 , 3 ]. Consequently, much more attention is paid to dog welfare, both from a physical and from a psychological point of view, by owners as well as by service providers (veterinary surgeons, nutritionists, etc.).…”

Development of the Dog Attachment Insecurity Screening Inventory (D-AISI): A Pilot Study on a Sample of Female Owners

“…Similarly, in the dog attachment classification used by Schöberl et al [ 3 ] and Solomon et al [ 4 ], avoidant dogs are described as individuals who show little tendency to approach, seek contact, and interact with the caregiver during the SSP. Furthermore, the presence of an avoidant-like attachment pattern in dogs has been demonstrated by Riggio et al [ 5 ], who found that, contrary to securely attached dogs, subjects classified as avoidant do not increase their proximity or their contact seeking behaviour towards the owner across SSP episodes. Therefore, considering that the “physical contact” dimension is particularly relevant for the identification of the avoidant attachment pattern in both children and dogs, it is not surprising that all the items of this subscale fall into the avoidant subscale of the three-dimensional AISI for dogs.…”

“…This may be particularly true when the behaviour of a different species has to be interpreted. In fact, dog ambivalent patterns seem to be the most problematic to identify even for anthrozoology researchers [ 4 , 5 ]. The percentage of ambivalent dogs reported in previous studies was extremely variable, ranging from 4% [ 5 ] to almost 44% [ 37 ].…”

“…To date, the scientific focus has shifted from investigating the presence of a bond to assessing its quality or, in other words, whether dogs show different attachment patterns towards their owners, as children do towards their caregivers. The few anthrozoological studies performed so far seem to suggest that the four-style classification scheme used in human infants—categorizing them into either secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-ambivalent, or disorganized—may be applied to dogs, as well [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Schöberl et al [ 3 ] and Solomon et al [ 4 ] were the first to adapt this qualitative classification to dogs and observe each of the four attachment patterns in a laboratory setting.…”

“…Schöberl et al [ 3 ] and Solomon et al [ 4 ] were the first to adapt this qualitative classification to dogs and observe each of the four attachment patterns in a laboratory setting. A more recent study by Riggio et al [ 5 ] provided evidence of a secure and an avoidant-like attachment pattern in dogs by assessing quantitative measures of behaviour during the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) in subjects that had been classified through a qualitative approach.…”