Personality Traits and Owner-Dog Attachment in a Canadian Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much of the literature on owner-dog attachment and the influence of personality on the owner-dog relationship has originated in Europe, with few studies in North America. To address this imbalance, 29 owner-dog dyads from a Canadian population were tested in the Strange Situation Test (SST) and owners completed assessments of their own personalities (NEO-FFI-3), the personalities of their dogs (MCPQ-R), and their level of attachment to their dogs (DAQ). Attachment scores were comparable to those in previous research, and all owner-dog dyads were deemed to be securely attached. However, no predicted “matching” of seemingly analogous personality traits (e.g., human and dog Neuroticism) was found, and there was no relationship between dog personality and attachment behaviours during the SST. In contrast, owners with higher Extraversion scores initiated more contact with their dogs in the first reunion episode of the SST (following separation). Owners scoring low on Openness and/or Neuroticism had dogs with higher scores for Training Focus, suggesting that these dogs could more easily attend to a calm, stable owner. Owners who scored high in Openness had dogs with lower Amicability scores, possibly indicating more tolerance of a less desirable dog trait by such owners. Differences between the findings of this study and those conducted in Europe suggest that more emphasis should be given to the possible impact of cultural variation on the behaviours of and perceived relationships between owners and their dogs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".