CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Importance of the Secure Base Effect for Domestic Dogs – Evidence from a Manipulative Problem-Solving Task

Horn, Lisa, Huber, Ludwig, Range, Friederike·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065296PMC PMC3667003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0065296

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Apparatuses used in the experiment. a) Folded cotton towel used in the pre-test, b) Nina Ottosson© Dog Pyramid (aDP), c) Hunter© Snack Cactus (aSC), d) Hunter© Snack Bottle (aSB), e) the smaller version of the Hunter© Rolling Snack (aRS).
Figure 1 Apparatuses used in the experiment. a) Folded cotton towel used in the pre-test, b) Nina Ottosson© Dog Pyramid (aDP), c) Hunter© Snack Cactus (aSC), d) Hunter© Snack Bottle (aSB), e) the smaller version of the Hunter© Rolling Snack (aRS).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Schematic representation of the experimental set-up. The experimental room was equipped with two doors, one connecting it to the hallway (Door 1) and one connecting it to an adjacent room with monitoring and recording equipment (Door 2). At the beginning of each trial, the dog was released by the experimenter from the release point, which was 2.5 m away from the apparatus. During each trial the experimenter stood on the right side of door 1 – timing the trial with a clock on the opposite wall. The owner either sat on the designated chair on the left side of door 1 or was in the adjacent room – depending on the pre-test trial or the condition of the test trial. The dashed lines indicate the floor markings around the owner's chair and the experimenter's position, which were used for later video coding.
Figure 2 Schematic representation of the experimental set-up. The experimental room was equipped with two doors, one connecting it to the hallway (Door 1) and one connecting it to an adjacent room with monitoring and recording equipment (Door 2). At the beginning of each trial, the dog was released by the experimenter from the release point, which was 2.5 m away from the apparatus. During each trial the experimenter stood on the right side of door 1 – timing the trial with a clock on the opposite wall. The owner either sat on the designated chair on the left side of door 1 or was in the adjacent room – depending on the pre-test trial or the condition of the test trial. The dashed lines indicate the floor markings around the owner's chair and the experimenter's position, which were used for later video coding.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Duration of manipulating the apparatus – Experiment 1 . Mean duration of manipulating the apparatus in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). Shown are mean ± s.e.m. *** represents P≤0.001.
Figure 3 Duration of manipulating the apparatus – Experiment 1 . Mean duration of manipulating the apparatus in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). Shown are mean ± s.e.m. *** represents P≤0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Duration spent in the proximity of the experimenter – Experiment 1 . Mean duration spent in the proximity of the experimenter in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). White bars represent the 1st trials, striped bars represent the 2nd trials, grey bars represent the 3rd trials. Shown are mean ± s.e.m. * represents P≤0.05.
Figure 4 Duration spent in the proximity of the experimenter – Experiment 1 . Mean duration spent in the proximity of the experimenter in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). White bars represent the 1st trials, striped bars represent the 2nd trials, grey bars represent the 3rd trials. Shown are mean ± s.e.m. * represents P≤0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Duration of manipulating the apparatus – Experiment 2 . Mean duration of manipulating the apparatus in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Replaced owner” (cRO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). Shown are mean ± s.e.m. *** represents P≤0.001, ** represents P≤0.01.
Figure 5 Duration of manipulating the apparatus – Experiment 2 . Mean duration of manipulating the apparatus in the conditions “Absent owner” (cAO), “Replaced owner” (cRO), “Silent owner” (cSO), and “Encouraging owner” (cEO). Shown are mean ± s.e.m. *** represents P≤0.001, ** represents P≤0.01.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Duration spent in the proximity of the owner and the unfamiliar human – Experiment 2 . Graph depicts box plots of duration spent in the proximity of the unfamiliar human (cRO) and of the owner (cSO), respectively. For each box plot, median values are indicated by the line within the box. The box represents 50% of the values (25th and 75th percentiles), with the upper bar representing the 90th percentile and the lower bar representing the 10th percentile. Circles indicate outliers. ** represents P≤0.01.
Figure 6 Duration spent in the proximity of the owner and the unfamiliar human – Experiment 2 . Graph depicts box plots of duration spent in the proximity of the unfamiliar human (cRO) and of the owner (cSO), respectively. For each box plot, median values are indicated by the line within the box. The box represents 50% of the values (25th and 75th percentiles), with the upper bar representing the 90th percentile and the lower bar representing the 10th percentile. Circles indicate outliers. ** represents P≤0.01.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. J Bowlby, 1958, The nature of the child's tie to his mother, Int J Psycho-Anal, 39, 350
  2. Bowlby J (1969) Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
  3. Cassidy J (1999) The nature of the child's ties. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 3–20.
  4. DW Rajecki, 1978, Toward a general theory of infantile attachment: A Comparative review of aspects of the social bond, Behav Brain Sci, 3, 417, 10.1017/S0140525X00075816 · DOI · Paper page
  5. P Savolainen, 2002, Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs, Science, 298, 1610, 10.1126/science.1073906 · DOI · Paper page
  6. J Archer, 1997, Why do people love their pets, Evol Hum Behav, 18, 237, 10.1016/S0162-3095(99)80001-4 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Askew HR (1996) Treatments of behaviour problems in dog and cat. A guide for the small animal veterinarian. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 9 pp.
  8. Ainsworth MDS, Wittig BA (1969) Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year olds in a strange situation. In: Foss BM, editor. Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4). London: Methuen. pp. 111–136.
  9. J Topál, 1998, Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test, J Comp Psychol, 112, 219, 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219 · DOI · Paper page
  10. E Prato-Previde, 2003, Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth's Strange Situation, Behaviour, 140, 225, 10.1163/156853903321671514 · DOI · Paper page
  11. R Palmer, 2008, A counterbalanced version of Ainsworth's Strange Situation Procedure reveals secure-base effects in dog-human relationships, Appl Anim Behav Sci, 109, 306, 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.002 · DOI
  12. L Matas, 1978, Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence, Child Dev, 49, 547, 10.2307/1128221 · DOI
  13. J Mesman, 2009, The many faces of the Still-Face Paradigm: A review and meta-analysis, Dev Rev, 29, 120, 10.1016/j.dr.2009.02.001 · DOI
  14. M Gácsi, 2001, Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: Forming new bonds, J Comp Psychol, 115, 423, 10.1037/0735-7036.115.4.423 · DOI
  15. SS Feldman, 1975, Attachment behavior: A validation study in two age groups, Child Dev, 46, 319, 10.2307/1128124 · DOI
  16. M Gácsi, 2009, Does the owner provide a secure base? Behavioral and heart rate response to a threatening stranger and to separation in dogs, J Vet Behav, 4, 90, 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.09.042 · DOI
  17. K Kotrschal, 2009, Dyadic relationships and operational performance of male and female owners and their male dogs, Behav Process, 81, 383, 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.001 · DOI
  18. TF Pettijohn, 1977, Alleviation of separation distress in 3 breeds of young dogs, Dev Psychobiol, 10, 373, 10.1002/dev.420100413 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Metadata

Authors
Horn, L., Huber, L., & Range, F.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-05-29
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
e65296
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0065296
PMC
PMC3667003
Cited by
129
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review