Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reliability, repeatability, and age associations of the dogSIT (dog Smell Interaction Test) battery in untrained companion dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Range of detection and naturalistic search performance for spotted lanternfly (<i>Lycorma delicatula</i>) egg masses.

PeerJ·2026
Same author

Variation in food-maximizing behaviour as a function of context, breed, and individual characteristics: A study of Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherd Dogs.

Behavioural processes·2026
Same author

Support-seeking and rehoming pathways differ by surrender circumstances among pet owners.

PloS one·2026
Same author

The implications of weeklong fostering and co-housing on shelter dog welfare.

PeerJ·2026
Same author

Comparing and validating different methods for olfactory threshold measurement in dogs.

Behavioural processes·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 20, 2025

Assessment of Social Interaction Behaviors
06:41

Assessment of Social Interaction Behaviors

Published on: February 25, 2011

94.8K

Minor procedural variations affect canine behavior during sociability assessments.

Kelsea M Brown1, Erica N Feuerbacher2, Nathaniel J Hall1

  • 1Animal and Food Science Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.

Behavioural Processes
|May 24, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Experimenter posture and social contact significantly influence dog behavior in sociability tests. Individual differences in canine responses highlight the need for standardized testing procedures.

Keywords:
Behavior evaluationDogMethodologySociability

More Related Videos

The Other End of the Leash: An Experimental Test to Analyze How Owners Interact with Their Pet Dogs
08:59

The Other End of the Leash: An Experimental Test to Analyze How Owners Interact with Their Pet Dogs

Published on: October 13, 2017

18.1K
Experimental Assessment of Mouse Sociability Using an Automated Image Processing Approach
08:24

Experimental Assessment of Mouse Sociability Using an Automated Image Processing Approach

Published on: May 15, 2016

8.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 20, 2025

Assessment of Social Interaction Behaviors
06:41

Assessment of Social Interaction Behaviors

Published on: February 25, 2011

94.8K
The Other End of the Leash: An Experimental Test to Analyze How Owners Interact with Their Pet Dogs
08:59

The Other End of the Leash: An Experimental Test to Analyze How Owners Interact with Their Pet Dogs

Published on: October 13, 2017

18.1K
Experimental Assessment of Mouse Sociability Using an Automated Image Processing Approach
08:24

Experimental Assessment of Mouse Sociability Using an Automated Image Processing Approach

Published on: May 15, 2016

8.9K

Area of Science:

  • Animal Behavior
  • Canine Ethology
  • Veterinary Behavior

Background:

  • Sociability is crucial in applied and basic canine research.
  • Current lack of standardized methods for measuring dog sociability.
  • Variability in testing procedures may impact observed canine behaviors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of procedural variations on canine social behavior.
  • To assess how experimenter position and social contact affect dog interactions.
  • To examine the consistency of social behaviors between leashed and unleashed dogs.

Main Methods:

  • Experiment 1: Mixed-subjects design assessing experimenter posture (standing, sitting, kneeling) and affection (present/absent) on leashed dogs.
  • Experiment 2: Examination of social behaviors (proximity, following, gaze, etc.) in leashed vs. unleashed dogs.
  • Statistical analysis using mixed-effect logistic regression models.

Main Results:

  • Experimenter posture and social contact significantly affected dog social behavior, with kneeling and contact yielding more social responses.
  • Significant interactions between posture and social contact were observed.
  • Individual differences in canine responses to procedural changes were evident in both experiments.

Conclusions:

  • Procedural variations in sociability tests can influence canine behavior.
  • Standardization of testing protocols is essential for reliable and valid canine sociability assessments.
  • Acknowledging individual differences is critical for interpreting dog behavior in research settings.