The Power Is in the Word—Do Laypeople Interpret Descriptors of Dog Emotional States Correctly?

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Dogs are part of our everyday lives. It is therefore important that descriptors and definitions used to label their emotional states are understood correctly. Are laypersons able to interpret basic dog behaviour and emotions correctly in order to prevent dangerous situations? This study compared whether descriptors, such as “fearful”, could be matched to their correct definitions, e.g., “dog may try to flee, hide or freeze; ears back”, by laypersons. To this end, two sets of descriptors—one for veterinary situations and one for shelter situations—were used. Matching was substantially above chance; nonetheless, the mean proportion of correct responses was only 50% (SD ± 16.6%) for the veterinary QBA set and 33% (SD ± 14.3%) for the shelter QBA set. Emotional terms describing dog behaviour need to be clearly defined to avoid misinterpretations. ABSTRACT: A basic understanding of dog behaviour and emotion is relevant not only for professionals, such as veterinary personnel or dog trainers, but also for dog owners and for people with little contact with dogs. Information about dog behaviour and emotions is mostly conveyed verbally. This study explores whether definitions of dog behaviour and emotion are understood in such a way that they can be allocated to a descriptor (i.e., a label such as “fearful”), even by people with low background knowledge. If people can match descriptors to definitions, this suggests that the definitions are distinct enough and elicit mental representations of behaviour that can fit the label. Good agreement on the definitions is a prerequisite for the validity of the descriptors used; however, no study to date has tested this. A sample of 236 adults was asked to match descriptors of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) for veterinary and shelter situations to their correct definitions, e.g., the descriptor “fearful” to its definition “dog may try to flee, hide or freeze; ears back”. Matching was substantially above chance; nonetheless, the mean proportion of correct responses was only 50% (SD ± 16.6%) for the veterinary QBA set and 33% (SD ± 14.3%) for the shelter QBA set. Performance in the matching task was positively correlated with measures of experience with dogs. Taken together, the results suggest that descriptor–definition pairs used to describe dog behaviour need to be clearly defined to avoid misinterpretations when teaching laypeople how to interpret canine behaviour.