prefer dogs which are housed in what they perceive to be complex and stimulating environments. Thus, dogs which are housed in cages which have their beds visible to the
Ž .
public are much preferred to those dogs which are held in empty cages Wells, 1996 . The mere presence of a toy in the dog’s pen may also promote more positive perceptions
Ž of dog desirability, even if the animal is not actually viewed playing with the toy Wells
. and Hepper, 1992 .
By designing cages which encourage dogs to behave in publicly ‘‘acceptable’’ manners and which help to make dogs look more attractive to prospective owners, it
may be possible to improve potential buyers’ perceptions of dog desirability and increase the number of animals which are purchased from rescue shelters. The following
Ž . study examined the behaviour of sheltered dogs in response to: 1 increased human
Ž . Ž .
Ž contact social stimulation study ; 2 the addition of a bed to the front of the pen bed
. Ž .
Ž .
study or; 3 the addition of a toy to the front of the animal’s cage toy study , to determine whether any of these environmental changes influenced dog behaviour in
ways that could be perceived as desirable to potential dog buyers, andror improved a dog’s chances of becoming purchased.
2. Method
2.1. Study site The main branch of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Ž .
USPCA , in Carryduff, Down, was used as the study site. Dogs housed in this shelter are generally held singly in two rows of cages, 29 cages per row. The centre is thus
Ž capable of housing a total of 58 dogs singly at any one time. Each cage 1 m wide = 4 m
. long = 2 m high consists of a wire mesh front, a door at the back of the pen, and
concrete floor and walls. The dog’s view from the front of the cage is of a concrete walled alley along which members of the public may walk. The enclosures are cleaned
every morning and the dogs are fed once a day in the afternoon.
2.2. Experiment 1: the effects of enÕironmental change on the behaÕiour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter
This study examined the influence of environmental change on the behaviour of sheltered dogs to determine whether the cage manipulations encouraged dogs to behave
in more publicly ‘‘acceptable’’ manners. 2.2.1. Subjects
Table 1 presents information regarding the number of dogs employed as subjects in each of the three studies. The majority of the dogs were cross-breeds, thus preventing
any valid analysis of breed differences. All of the dogs were healthy, and between 1 and 5 years of age. The sample employed was representative of dogs admitted to the USPCA
in terms of breed, age, and sex. All of the dogs studied were admitted to the shelter as strays, i.e. animals found loose on the streets; background information on the animals
Table 1 The number of male and female dogs employed as subjects in each of the three study conditions and overall
Study condition Number of dogs
Male Female
Total Social stimulation study
24 16
40 Bed study
17 23
40 Toy study
13 27
40 Total
54 66
120
was therefore unavailable. Only those dogs on their 3rd, 4th, or 5th days of captivity were employed as subjects, since dogs on their first day in the shelter tend to behave
Ž differently to those which have been in captivity for longer than 24 h Wells and
. Hepper, 1992 .
2.2.2. Procedure The procedure for recording the dogs’ behaviour was exactly the same in all three
studies. The behaviour of each dog was recorded over a 4-h period using a scan Ž
. sampling technique e.g. Martin and Bateson 1986 . At 10-min intervals the experi-
Ž .
menter DLW approached the front of each subject’s cage and recorded the dog’s behaviour as soon as she saw the animal.
Ž Three separate aspects of behaviour all known to influence public perceptions of dog
. Ž .
desirability; Wells, 1996 were recorded at each observation, namely: 1 Position in the Ž
. cage front, middle, back . Wire meshing on top of the concrete walls, and running the
length of the dog’s cage, in both shelters, allowed the experimenter to immediately determine which section of the cage the dog happened to be in at each observation. The
front of the cage was defined as the section closest to the experimenter, whilst the back
Ž . of the cage was defined as the section furthest away from the experimenter; 2 ActiÕity
Ž w
. Ž
standing dog is supported upright with all four legs , sitting dog is supported by the .
Ž two extended front legs, and two flexed back legs , resting dog is reclining in a ventral
. Ž
or lateral position, eyes open , sleeping dog is reclining in a ventral or lateral position, .
Ž .
Ž . eyes closed , moving
dog is walking, running, or trotting about the cage ; 3
Ž w
x w
x w
Vocalisation barking self descriptive , quiet no vocalisation , other includes whining, x.
growling, whimpering . Each dog was studied for a period of 4 h, every 10 min, providing 24 observations of the dog’s position in the cage, activity, and vocalisation.
Each behaviour was treated separately. For each behaviour, the number of times the Ž
dog was observed in each category i.e. for Position in the cage: front, middle, back; for Activity: standing, sitting, resting, sleeping, moving, and; for Vocalisation: barking,
. quiet, other was summed across the 4-h observation period.
2.2.3. Study conditions 2.2.3.1. Social stimulation study. Over the course of a week the number of visitors to the
study site varied from day to day. To examine the influence of increased social Ž
. stimulation on dog behaviour, the behaviour of the dogs see Table 1 was studied on a
Ž .
Sunday social condition , the day of the week that sees the greatest number of visitors Ž
. Ž
. to the shelter mean number of visitors s 47 and on a weekday control condition ,
Ž .
when visitors to the shelter are much fewer in number mean number of visitors s 12 . Each dog was studied in both the social and control conditions. The order of testing was
counterbalanced.
2.2.3.2. Bed study. To examine the influence of moving the dogs’ bed to the front of the Ž
. pen on dog behaviour, the subjects see Table 1 were studied on a day whenever the
Ž .
bed was placed at the front of the cage bed condition and on a day whenever the bed Ž
. remained in its usual position at the back of the cage control condition . Each dog was
studied in both the bed and control conditions. The order of testing was counterbalanced. Ž
. 2.2.3.3. Toy study. A gumabone chew Nylabone Products, Waterville, PO7 6BQ, UK
was employed as the stimulus toy, since there is evidence that captive dogs enjoy toys Ž
. they can chew DeLuca and Kranda, 1992; Hubrecht, 1993, 1995b . The toy was
suspended from the front of the cage by a chain in order to prevent its contact with faeces, disinfectant, etc.
To examine the influence of adding the toy to the front of the dogs’ cage on their Ž
. behaviour, the subjects see Table 1 were studied on a day whenever the toy was
Ž .
suspended at the front of the cage toy condition and on a day whenever the toy was not Ž
. present in the cage control condition . Each dog was studied in both the toy and control
conditions. The order of testing was counterbalanced. 2.2.4. Data analysis
Ž The analysis was performed separately on each of the three behaviours examined i.e.
. position in cage, activity, vocalisation and was identical for each of the three studies
Ž .
conducted i.e. social stimulation, bed, and toy studies . Three mixed-design ANOVAs Ž
. Ž
e.g. Howell, 1992 were conducted for between subjects factor of dog sex male, .
Ž female , and within subjects factor of dog behaviour, e.g. position in the cage front,
. middle, back , for each of the three studies.
2.3. Experiment 2: the effects of enÕironmental change on the incidence of dogs purchased from a rescue shelter
This study examined the influence of manipulating the cage environment of sheltered dogs on the incidence of dogs purchased from the study site.
2.3.1. Procedure Information regarding the incidence of dogs purchased prior to and throughout three
Ž environmental manipulations i.e. the addition of a toy or bed to the front of the cage,
. and increased human social contact was collected from USPCA reports.
Comparisons between the incidence of dogs sold during the control and experimental conditions for each of the three environmental manipulations were made during the
same months but 1 year apart, since dog sales generally fluctuate across the year according to season, holidays, etc.
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
