Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 1498–1509 | Cite as

Stated and revealed preferences in companion animal choice

  • Samantha E. CohenEmail author
  • Peter M. Todd
Article

Abstract

Humans often say they prefer certain attributes and trait levels and yet choose options inconsistent with those preferences, a phenomenon known as the stated–revealed preference gap. In this article, we compare preferences and choices in the decision to adopt a dog, a social-choice problem that is largely one-sided. We used existing and newly gathered field data about the dog adoption process to study how people make their choices of companion animals and how those choices can be improved. We found that in the real-world choice of dogs within an animal shelter, individuals generally showed a large amount of overlap between their stated preferences and their ratings of the traits of their chosen dog. However, there was little relationship between an adopter’s perceptions of their chosen dog’s behavioral traits and third-party in-shelter behavior evaluations of the same dogs, suggesting that it is difficult to predict which dogs will satisfy an adopter’s preferences. We also tested which commonly collected factors impact how quickly dogs are adopted from animal shelters. Overall, this work provides insight into the process of combining experimentally collected data and big data to elucidate choice behavior.

Keywords

Animal shelters Decision making Social preferences Dogs Human–animal interaction 

Notes

Supplementary material

13428_2019_1253_MOESM1_ESM.docx (303 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 302 kb)

References

  1. American Humane Association. (2013). Keeping pets (dogs and cats) in homes: A three-phase retention study. Phase II: Descriptive study of post-adoption retention in six shelters in three U.S. cities. Washington, DC: American Humane Association. Retrieved from https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/petsmart-keeping-pets-phase-ii.pdf
  2. American Veterinary Medical Association. (2012). US pet ownership and demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association.Google Scholar
  3. Animal Rescue League of Boston© (2016). Match‐Up II® Shelter Dog Rehoming Program. Boston, MA: Animal Rescue League of Boston©. https://www.arlboston.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ReconstuctionManual_2016.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2016
  4. Barker, S. B., & Barker, R. T. (1988). The human–canine bond: Closer than family ties? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 10, 46–56.Google Scholar
  5. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2008). How are preferences revealed? Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1787–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Vital Health Statistics, 23, 1–32.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavanaugh, L. A., Leonard, H. A., & Scammon, D. L. (2008). A tail of two personalities: How canine companions shape relationships and well-being. Journal of Business Research, 61, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLeeuw, J. L. (2010). Animal shelter dogs: Factors predicting adoption versus euthanasia (Doctoral dissertation). Wichita State University, Wichita, KS.Google Scholar
  10. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W. & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furman, W. (2002). The emerging field of adolescent romantic relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jagoe, A., & Serpell, J. (1996). Owner characteristics and interactions and the prevalence of canine behaviour problems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, A. C. (2008). Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  15. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lepper, M., Kass, P. H., & Hart, L. A. (2002). Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a California animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levine, D. W. (2005). Do dogs resemble their owners? A reanalysis of Roy and Christenfeld (2004). Psychological Science, 16, 83–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00785.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., … Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 56–68.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marston, L. C., Bennett, P. C., & Coleman, G. J. (2005). Adopting shelter dogs: Owner experiences of the first month post-adoption. Anthrozoös, 18, 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mirko, E., Doka, A., & Miklosi, A. (2013). Association between subjective rating and behavior coding and the role of experience in making video assessments on the personality of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 149, 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohan-Gibbons, H., Dolan, E. D., Reid, P., Slater, M. R., Mulligan, H., & Weiss, E. (2018). The impact of excluding food guarding from a standardized behavioral canine assessment in animal shelters. Animals, 8(2).  https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020027
  24. Nakajima, S., Yamamoto, M., & Yoshimoto, N. (2009). Dogs look like their owners: Replications with racially homogeneous owner portraits. Anthrozoös, 22, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patronek, G. J., & Bradley, J. (2016). No better than flipping a coin: Reconsidering canine behavior evaluations in animal shelters. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 15, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penke, L., Todd, P. M., Lenton, A. P., & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37–75). New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Posage, J. M., Bartlett, P. C., & Thomas, D. K. (1998). Determining factors for successful adoption of dogs from an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 213, 478–482.Google Scholar
  29. Riefer, P. S., Prior, R., Blair, N., Pavey, G., & Love, B. C. (2017). Coherency-maximizing exploration in the supermarket. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 17.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2004). Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychological Science, 15, 361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2005). Dogs still do resemble their owners. Psychological Science, 16, 743–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seabold, S., & Perktold, J. (2010). Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python. In S. van der Walt & J. Millman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (pp. 57–61). Retrieved from http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/scipy2010/seabold.html
  33. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelter Animals Count. (2016). 2016 animal sheltering statistics. Montclair, NJ: Author. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://shelteranimalscount.org/docs/default-source/DataResources/2016animalshelteringstatistics.pdf?sfvrsn=12
  35. Siettou, C., Fraser, I. M., & Fraser, R. W. (2014). Investigating some of the factors that influence “consumer” choice when adopting a shelter dog in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tami, G., & Gallagher, A. (2009). Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced and inexperienced people. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thiessen, D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011–15016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turcsán, B., Range, F., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á., & Kubinyi, E. (2012). Birds of a feather flock together? Perceived personality matching in owner–dog dyads. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140, 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss, E., Miller, K., Mohan-Gibbons, H., & Vela, C. (2012). Why did you choose this pet? Adopters and pet selection preferences in five animal shelters in the United States. Animals, 2, 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wells, D., & Hepper, P. G. (1992). The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare, 1, 171–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Science Program and Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations