Adopter-dog interactions at the shelter
Behavioral and contextual predictors of adoption
Alexandra (Sasha) Protopopova, MS, PhD Candidate, CPDT-KA
University of Florida
What do consumers want?
 Not straight forward!
 What is choice?
 Entering your shelter, looking longer at dog, taking dog out
of kennel, adoption, keeping the current dog
 How do we measure choice?
 1. Surveys
 2. Observational methods
 3. Experimental designs
Choice while at the shelter
In-kennel selection
Out-of-kennel selection
Choice while at the shelter
In-kennel selection
Out-of-kennel selection
In-kennel selection
 Survey
 Don’t bark, be in the front, temperament is important (Wells &
Hepper, 1992)
 Observational study (Protopopova et al., submitted to PLOS One)
 N = 300
 Front of kennel
 Face forward
 No walking back and forth
 No leaning and rubbing on enclosure
How about out-of-kennel selection?
 Survey (Weiss et al., 2012)
 What did the dogs do right before adoption?
 ANSWER:
 Approached and greeted
 Licked
 Jumped on them
 Wagged their tails
 What about
observational research?
Out-of-Kennel Selection
 We observed 250 interactions between potential adopters
and shelter dogs
 Aims:
 1. Can we find behaviors that increase likelihood of adoption?
 2. Can we find behaviors that impede adoption?
 3. Are there other non-behavioral variables that are important?
 4. How do people interact with dogs
 (Who are these people and why did they think they adopted / not
adopted the dog?)
Methods
 Alachua County Animal Services
 250 interactions
 151 different dogs and 154 potential adoptive families
Data collection
 Followed potential adopter
 Filmed entire interaction until adoption/ non-adoption
decision reached
 Video coded on ethogram
 25% double coded
Behavior
Accepting Petting
Rejecting Petting
Human Toy Play
Operational Definition
Dog does not walk away when person touches or strokes dog
Dog walks or darts away when person reaches for dog
Dog engages with toy that is held by person or runs towards the toy when it is thrown and brings
back to person
Ignoring Play
Initiation
Independent Toy
Play
Human Play
Dog walks away or otherwise ignores initiation of play by person (through toy or body)
Dog engages with toy away from the person
Dog engages with playing person by play bowing, barking, light mouthing, jumping. No toy
involved
Attending To Person Dog is facing person, looking in direction of the person. Proximity is not necessary
Accepting Food
Rejecting Food
Obeying Command
Dog ingests food when given or thrown by person
Dog ignores food when given or thrown by person
Dog complies with a command (i.e. sit, down, shake, get off, stop it, give, come here, etc.)
Disobeying
Command
Lie In Proximity
Sit In Proximity
Mouthing Person
Jump On Person
Barking
Dog does not comply with command
Dog is lying down within an arm’s reach (~1 m)
Dog is sitting within an arm’s reach (~1 m)
Dog places teeth on person
Dog places both front feet on person simultaneously and somewhat forcefully
Dog emits a bark
Post-interaction survey
 Demographic information on adopter (head of household)
 Did you plan to bring a dog home today?
 What will be the purpose of the dog?
 Other pets? Household members? Children?
 Why did you adopt this dog?
 If behavior  which behaviors did you like?
 Why did you not adopt this dog?
 If behavior which behaviors did
you not like?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Some descriptive stats
 35% of interactions ended in adoption
 62% of dogs taken out only once
 People like different dogs/adopt dogs that they like right away
 1 dog taken out SEVEN times! (Pretty but badly behaved?)
 Average duration of interaction:
 7.9 minutes (no difference in adoption/ non-adoption)
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
What predicts adoption?
 Morphology? NO
 Presumably, people already made their decision based on
morphology during in-kennel selection
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Not adopted
Adopted
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
What predicts adoption?
 Location of interaction? YES
BEST
Percent dogs in the outcome
category
80
70
60
50
Not adopted
Adopted
40
30
20
10
0
Indoor room
Small outdoor
Large outdoor
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
What predicts adoption?
 Intention to adopt a dog in general? YES
100
Percent of dogs in the outcome
category
90
80
70
60
Not adopted
Adopted
50
40
30
20
10
0
No intention
Intention
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
What predicts adoption?
 Dog’s behavior? YES
5.0%
Ignoring Play Initiation
4.5%
Lying in Proximity
7.0%
4.0%
Percent time spent
8.0%
6.0%
3.5%
3.0%
5.0%
2.5%
4.0%
2.0%
3.0%
1.5%
2.0%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not adopted
Adopted
Not adopted
Adopted
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Who were the potential adopters?
 Female (58%)
 Young (37% under 25 yrs)
 Lived with more than 2 other people (54%)
 Did not have children (54%)
 Already had other pets (58%)
 No demographic category was more likely
to adopt
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
adopt this dog?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
adopt this dog?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
adopt this dog?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
NOT adopt this dog?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
NOT adopt this dog?
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014).
Survey results- Why did you choose to
NOT adopt this dog?
Summary: How do people chose dogs
at shelters?
 Preconceived notions on what they want ( untested hypothesis)
 In-kennel selection (20-70 sec)
 Morphology is important! Size, breed, coat length, and age matters
 Behavior: Front of kennel, facing front, no excessive locomotion, no
rubbing on kennel
 Out-of-kennel selection (8 min)
 Behavior: Lie down in proximity, don’t ignore play signals from adopter
 Location: smaller is better
 Mindset of adopter: needs to be willing to take the dog home today!
Experimental Assessment
 Correlation ≠ Causation!
 If we train dogs and arrange appropriate conditions, would
adoption increase?
Experimental Group
ADOPTION RATE
Control Group
Training Dogs for Out-of-Kennel Interactions
 Target behaviors
 Lie down next to potential adopter
EASY ENOUGH…
 Don’t ignore play initiation by the adopter
MY SOLUTION:
Ask the dog what kind of play it prefers
(individual preference assessment of play)
Encourage the potential adopter to engage with the dog in preferred play style
Measure likelihood of adoption
Experimental Assessment
 Experimental condition
 Small interaction area
 Step 1: allow the dog to potty
 Step 2: play with preferred toy
 Step 3: leash the dog and sit on bench
 Short leash next to adopter
 Reinforce laying down with treats
 Control condition
 Off-leash in a large area containing various
toys and agility equipment
Structured Out-of-Kennel Interactions
Increase Adoption Rates
 Observed 160 interactions
Percentage Adopted
 Χ2= 4.22, P = 0.03
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Control
*
Experimental
Structured Out-of-Kennel Interactions
Increase Adoption Rates
 Observed 160 interactions
Percentage Adopted
 Χ2= 4.22, P = 0.03
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Control
*
Experimental
Summary: How do people chose dogs at
shelters?
 Preconceived notions on what they want ( untested hypothesis)
 In-kennel selection (20-70 sec)
 Morphology is important!
 Behavior: Front of kennel, facing front, no excessive locomotion, no
rubbing on walls
 Out-of-kennel selection (8 min)
 Behavior: Lie down in proximity, don’t ignore play signals from adopter
 Location: smaller is better
 Mindset of adopter: needs to be willing to take the dog home today!
Summary: How do people chose dogs at
shelters?
 Preconceived notions on what they want ( untested hypothesis)
 In-kennel selection (20-70 sec)
 Morphology is important!
 Behavior: Front of kennel, facing front, no excessive locomotion, no
rubbing on walls
 Out-of-kennel selection (8 min)
 Behavior: Lie down in proximity, don’t ignore play signals from adopter
 Location: smaller is better
 Mindset of adopter: needs to be willing to take the dog home today!
Summary: How do people chose dogs at
shelters?
 Preconceived notions on what they want ( untested hypothesis)
 In-kennel selection (20-70 sec)
 Morphology is important!
 Behavior: Front of kennel, facing front, no excessive locomotion, no
rubbing on walls
 Out-of-kennel selection (8 min)
 Behavior: Lie down in proximity, don’t ignore play signals from adopter
 Location: smaller is better
 Mindset of adopter: needs to be willing to take the dog home today!
What should you do?
 Know your adopters!
 Demographics
 Mindset
 Encourage dogs to come forward
to greet adopters
 Simply give them a treat
 Structure interactions
 Bring treats and leash
 Know which toys individual dogs
like
 Encourage lying down
References
 Protopopova, A., Mehrkam, L. R., Boggess, M. M., Wynne, C. D.




L. (Submitted). In-kennel behavior predicts length of stay in
shelter dogs. PLOS One.
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (2014). Adopter-dog
interactions at the shelter: Behavioral and contextual predictors of
adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 157, 109-116.
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (Submitted). Improving inkennel presentation of shelter dogs: A case for a Pavlovian
treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
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, 1-17.
Wells, D., & Hepper, P. G. (1992). The behaviour of dogs in a
rescue shelter. AnimalWelfare, 1(3), 171-186.
Thank you!
Alachua County Animal Services
Maria Brandifino, Nathaniel Hall
Undergraduate research assistants at UF
 Rachel Bradley, Caroline Leibrecht, Courtney Alexander, Kissel Goldman, Devin
Caballero, Austin Folger, Jessica Vondran, Monica Perdomo, Nancy Ordax, Steph Junco,
Sarah Weinsztok, Keila Ames
Photo credit:
Beth Zavoyski, ACAS volunteers, Dory Rosati
aprotopo@ufl.edu
Supplemental Slides
Validated Brief Toy Assessment
 2 min acclimation period to the enclosure off-leash
 Present toys consecutively in a random order
 3 times each toy
 If dog engages in oral contact with toy, the experimenter offers a
treat to get the toy back
 The number of contacts for each toy is counted
 Retain only toys that are played with at least 2/3 times
Tennis ball
Fleece rope
Squeaky vinyl toy
Plush toy
Brief Toy Assessment
 Play in the Brief Toy Assessment predicts play with that toy
and in general in naturalistic observations
 Example of two subjects:
Derby
Spartan
1
0.9
Proportion of Play
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Ball
Squeaky
Brief Assessment
Rope
Plush
Average
Naturalistic observation
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Ball
Squeaky
Brief Assessment
Rope
Plush
Average
Naturalistic observation
Video coding
 103 interactions coded so far… (64%)
 Lengths of interactions: Control- 8.5 min, Experimental- 7.3 min
16%
*
14%
*
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
*
2%
0%
Ignoring Play
Initiation
Human Toy Play
Control
Human Play
Independent Toy Lie in proximity
Play
Experimental
Improving in-kennel behavior
Simply tossing treats is enough!
Relative Percent Difference in
Medians during Probe Trial of
Inappropriate Behavior
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Operant
Pavlovian
*
Control
Protopopova, A., Wynne, C. D. L. (Submitted).