Thus, for the toy study, the incidence of dogs purchased whilst there was a gumabone Ž
. chew present at the front of the cage throughout a 1-month period toy condition was
compared to the incidence of dogs purchased from cages devoid of toys exactly 1 year Ž
. previously control condition .
Similarly, for the bed study, the number of dogs bought during a 1-month period Ž
. whilst there was a bed at the front of the animals’ cages bed condition was compared
to the incidence of dogs sold exactly 1 year earlier whenever the dogs’ beds were at the rear of the pen.
Since sheltered dogs are generally only exposed to visitors on an irregular basis, particularly on weekdays, the social stimulation study examined whether more regular
contact with humans would have an impact on the number of dogs bought from the study site. To investigate this, the incidence of dogs purchased during a 1 month period
Ž .
whenever one of the experimenters DLW was present in the shelter on a daily basis throughout opening hours, and made herself Õisible to each of the dogs every 10 min by
Ž .
walking in front of the animals’ cages social condition , was compared to the incidence of dogs sold 1 year previously when dogs were not exposed to a similar level of
Ž .
consistent social stimulation control condition . To allow for a comparison in the incidence of dogs purchased during the three study
Ž conditions, all of the manipulations were conducted between September to November 1
. month for each study , when the incidence of dogs sales from the USPCA tend to be
very similar. 2.3.2. Data analysis
Ž .
A two-tailed paired t-test e.g. Robson, 1973 was conducted to determine whether the environmental manipulations exerted an effect on the incidence of dogs purchased
from the study site. Simple descriptive statistics were also conducted to determine whether the incidence of dogs purchased differed according to the type of environmental
manipulation.
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1: the effects of enÕironmental change on the behaÕiour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter
The results of the analysis on the effects of the three study conditions on the dogs’ position in cage, activity, and vocalisation are presented separately below. Only signifi-
cant findings are reported. 3.1.1. Position in the cage
Dogs spent significantly more of their time at the front of the cage during the social stimulation and bed conditions compared to the control conditions. The dog’s position in
the cage was not significantly influenced by the presence of a toy at the front of the pen Ž
. see Table 2 .
Table 2 Ž
. The mean number of times s.e. that dogs were observed in each position of the cage during the three study
conditions Study condition
Dog’s position in cage Front
Middle Back
Social stimulation study Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Social condition
10.32 1.35 0.65 0.19
13.02 1.38 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
5.03 1.11 0.40 0.14
18.58 1.16 Ž w
x .
F 2,76 s 31.74, P - 0.001 Bed study
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Bed condition 10.10 1.46
0.50 0.13 13.35 1.46
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Control condition 5.60 1.13
0.47 0.13 18.12 1.18
Ž w x
. F 2,76 s 7.48, P s 0.001
Toy study Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Toy condition
7.97 1.33 0.47 0.13
15.55 1.35 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
6.32 1.19 0.30 0.08
17.38 1.21 Ž w
x .
F 2,76 s 3.10, n.s.
3.1.2. ActiÕity Dog activity was significantly influenced by social stimulation. Dogs spent more of
their time standing during the social condition than resting, sitting, moving, or sleeping Ž
. see Table 3 .
Moving the bed to the front of the cage did not significantly alter the dog’s activity Ž
. see Table 3 . The dogs spent slightly more of their time using the bed whenever it was
Table 3 Ž
. The mean number of times s.e. that dogs were observed in each activity during the three study conditions
Study condition Dog activity
Standing Resting
Sitting Moving
Sleeping Social stimulation study
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Social condition 14.23 1.34
5.57 1.24 3.58 0.83
0.62 0.22 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
8.82 1.23 10.95 1.41
3.58 0.83 0.30 0.13
0.35 0.17 Ž w
x .
F 4,152 s11.64, P - 0.001 Bed study
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Bed condition 11.75 1.30
7.50 1.29 4.57 0.9
0.12 0.05 0.05 0.03
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Control condition 10.77 1.49
9.07 1.5 3.85 0.84
0.10 0.05 0.20 0.14
Ž w x
. F 4,152 s 0.57, n.s.
Toy study Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Toy condition
10.90 1.35 8.75 1.28
3.90 0.83 0.25 0.09
0.22 0.23 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
12.12 1.4 7.88 1.34
3.78 0.81 0.05 0.03
0.17 0.18 Ž w
x .
F 4,152 s 0.35, n.s.
Ž .
placed at the back of the cage mean number of observations s 6.1, s.e.s 0.96
Ž .
compared to the front of the cage mean number of observations s 5.0, s.e.s 1.26 , but Ž w
x .
this difference was not significant F 1,38 s 0.44, n.s. . Dog activity was not significantly influenced by the addition of a toy to the front of
the animal’s pen. Most of the dogs spent several seconds sniffing the toy when it was Ž
. Ž
introduced into the cage; however, only 7 of the 40 dogs 17.5 actually used it i.e. .
very briefly chewed, pawed at, tugged the toy . Dogs were recorded using the toy for a Ž
. mean of 1.25 s.e.s 0.65 observations.
3.1.3. Vocalisation Social stimulation significantly influenced dog vocalisation. Dogs spent more of their
time barking during the social condition than the control condition. Neither the presence Ž
of a bed nor a toy at the front of the pen significantly influenced dog vocalisation see .
Table 4 . 3.2. Experiment 2: the effects of enÕironmental change on the incidence of dogs
purchased from a rescue shelter Ž
. Significantly paired t-test s 5.42, P - 0.05 more dogs were purchased during the
Ž period of the environmental manipulations mean number of dogs purchased s 97.7,
. Ž
s.e.s 5.0 compared to the period prior to the manipulations mean number of dogs . w
x purchased s 75.0, s.e.s 6.0
see Table 5 . The number of dogs admitted to the study Ž
. site during the experimental mean number of dogs admitted s 130.0, s.e.s 5.7 and
Ž .
control mean number of dogs purchased s 132.2, s.e.s 11.6 conditions could not account for the difference in the number of dogs sold during these study periods.
Table 4 Ž
. The mean number of times s.e. that dogs were observed in each type of vocalisation during the three study
conditions Study condition
Dog vocalisation Quiet
Barking Other
Social stimulation study Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Social condition
21.82 0.5 1.55 0.45
0.43 0.28 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
23.40 0.29 0.38 0.28
0.22 0.1 Ž w
x .
F 2,76 s 7.42, P s 0.001 Bed study
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Bed condition 23.80 0.1
0.22 0.1 0 0
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Control condition 23.90 0.05
0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03
Ž w x
. F 2,76 s1.77, n.s.
Toy study Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Toy condition
23.33 0.45 0.45 0.43
0.22 0.18 Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. Control condition
23.20 0.54 0.57 0.52
0.22 0.16 Ž w
x .
F 2,76 s 2.09, n.s.
Table 5 The incidence of dogs purchased from the study site during the three study conditions
Study condition Number of dogs purchased
Social stimulation study Social condition
105 Control condition
87 Bed study
Bed condition 88
Control condition 69
Toy study Toy condition
100 Control condition
69
Ž .
Ž .
Specifically, more dogs were purchased during the social n s 105 and toy n s 100 Ž
. w x
conditions than during the bed condition n s 88
see Table 5 . USPCA reports indicated that dog sales were similar to those during the control conditions 1 month prior
Ž .
Ž to mean number of dogs purchased s 74.0, s.e.s 5.2 and 1 month following mean
. number of dogs purchased s 77.0, s.e.s 6.7
the 3 months of the environmental manipulations.
4. Discussion
