CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Law and Welfare

Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and Perceptions

Open access
Mills, Katelyn E., Robbins, Jesse, von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G.·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0158131PMC PMC4922641
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Tail docking and ear cropping are two surgical procedures commonly performed on many dog breeds. These procedures are classified as medically unnecessary surgeries whose purpose is primarily cosmetic. Available attitude research surrounding these controversial practices has been limited to surveys of veterinarians and dog breeders familiar with both practices. The aim of this project was to: 1) assess public awareness of tail docking and ear cropping, 2) determine whether physical alteration of a dog affects how the dog, and 3) owner are perceived. In Experiment 1 awareness was measured using a combination of both explicit and implicit measures. We found that 42% of participants (n = 810) were unable to correctly explain the reason why tail docked and ear cropped dogs had short ears and tails. Similarly, an implicit measure of awareness ('nature vs nurture task'), found that the majority of participants believed short tails and erect ears were a consequence of genetics rather than something the owner or breeder had done. The results obtained in Experiment 2 (n = 392) provide evidence that ear cropped and tail docked dogs are perceived differently than an identical dog in its 'natural' state. Modified dogs were perceived as being more aggressive, more dominant, less playful and less attractive than natural dogs. Experiment 3 (n = 410) is the first evidence that owners of modified dogs are perceived as being more aggressive, more narcissistic, less playful, less talkative and less warm compared to owners of natural dogs. Taken together, these results suggest that although a significant proportion of subjects appear unaware of the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in dogs, these procedures have significant impacts on how modified dogs and their owners are perceived by others.

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.0158131

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • During the 20th century, interventions to alter the appearance of animals were so widespread that many people were unaware of their supposed benefits or reasons for being carried out.

    “During the 20th century, interventions to alter the appearance of animals were so widespread that many people were unaware of their supposed benefits or reasons for being carried out.”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [256]

    The Introduction says tail docking and ear cropping became defining features of many dog breeds, and the Experiment 1 discussion reports that many participants did not know the dogs’ appearance resulted from surgery. But the paper does not place that finding in the 20th century or extend it to animals generally. It measures awareness that the procedures occurred, not awareness of their supposed benefits or motivations. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cosmetic modifications give dogs a fiercer and more aggressive appearance, and their owners are also perceived to have the same characteristics.

    “Not only does it give dogs a fiercer and more aggressive appearance, but their owners are also perceived to have the same characteristics [256], so it could be considered that owners seek a reflection of these facets in their pets.”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [256]

  • Some people even believed that the altered appearance was natural and genetic, rather than the result of surgery.

    “Some even believed that the altered appearance was natural and genetic, rather than the result of surgery [256].”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [256]

  • Studies indicate that only 10% of veterinarians use anaesthetics or painkillers during tail docking.

    “Studies indicate that only 10% of veterinarians use anaesthetics or painkillers during tail docking [256].”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [256]

    The Introduction discusses tail docking and mentions surveys of veterinarians, but gives no figures for anaesthetic or painkiller use. Searches for the claimed 10% figure and for anaesthesia, analgesia, and pain relief found no passage in our copy that addresses it. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1]Wayne RK, von Holdt BM. Evolutionary genomics of dog domestication. Mamm Genome. 2012; 23: 3– 18. 10.1007/s00335-011-9386-7 22270221 · DOI
  2. [2]Pedersen N, Liu H, Theilen G, Sacks B. The effects of dog breed development on genetic diversity and the relative influences of performance and conformation breeding. J Anim Breed Genet. 2013; 130: 236– 248. 10.1111/jbg.12017 23679949 · DOI
  3. [3]Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, et al Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science. 2004; 204: 1160– 1164. 15155949
  4. [4]American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Pet Statistics. 2015; 8: 13 Available: https://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.
  5. [5]Ley J, Bennett P. Measuring personality in dogs. J Vet Behav. 2008; 3: 182.
  6. [8]Asher L, Diesel G, Summers JF, McGreevy PD, Collins LM. Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Vet J. 2009; 182: 402– 411. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033 19836981 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [9]Swabe J. Veterinary Dilemmas: ambiguity and ambivalence in human-animal interaction In: Podersbeck A, Paul E, Serpell J, editors. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007 pp. 292– 312.
  8. [10]Mills K, von Keyserlingk MAG, Niel L. A review of medically unnecessary surgeries in companion animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016; 248: 162– 171. 10.2460/javma.248.2.162 26720081 · DOI
  9. [11]Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, Brodbelt D. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec. 2010; 166: 812– 817. 10.1136/vr.b4880 20581358 · DOI
  10. [12]Council of Docked Breeds. 2010; 3: 6 Available: http://www.cdb.org/.
  11. [13]Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues. Aust Vet J. 2003; 81: 208– 218. 15080444
  12. [16]Henderson R, Horne R. The pinna In: Slatter D, editor. Textbook of small animal surgery Volume 1. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier Science; 2003 pp. 1737– 1746.
  13. [17]Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, Priest J. Tail docking in dogs:a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J. 1996; 73: 86– 88. 8660219
  14. [19]Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6: 3– 5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [21]American Kennel Club. Most popular dog breeds in America. 2013; 1: 22 Available: https://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm.
  16. [22]Terwogt MM, Hoeksma JB, Koops W. Common beliefs about heredity of human characteristics. Brit J Psychol. 1993; 84: 499– 503.
  17. [23]Zebrowitz LA, Collins MA. Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gobsonian approach. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1997; 3: 204– 223. 15659350
  18. [24]Naumann LP, Vazire S, Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD. Personality judgement based on physical appearance. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2009; 35: 1661– 1671. 19762717
  19. [25]Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009; 45: 867– 872.
  20. [26]Jones AC. Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire PhD Dissertation, University of Austin, Texas. 2009. Available: http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Amanda-Claire-Jones-Diss-2008.pdf.
  21. [27]Ashton-James CE, Richardson DC, Williams AC, Bianchi-Berthouze N, Dekker PH. The Impact of Pain Behaviors on Evaluations of Warmth and Competence. Pain. 2014; 155: 2656– 61. 10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.031 25307197 · DOI
  22. [28]Fiske S, Cuddy A, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82: 878– 902. 12051578
  23. [29]Cuddy A J, Fiske ST, Glick P. When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues. 2004; 60: 701– 718.
  24. [30]González Ramírez MT, Quezada Berúmen L, Landero Hernández R. Psychometric Properties of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M). Anthrozoos. 2014; 27: 351– 359.
  25. [31]Konrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale (SINS). PLOS one. 2014 8 5 10.1371/journal.pone.0103469 PMC4122388 25093508 · DOI
  26. [33]Herzog H, Rowan AN, Kossow D. Social attitudes and animals In: Rowan AN, Salem DJ, editors. The state of animals 2001 Washington, DC: Humane Society Press; 2001 pp. 55– 69.
  27. [34]Herzog HA. Gender difference in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoos. 2007; 20: 7– 21.
  28. [35]Fratkin JL, Baker SC. The role of coat color and ear shape on the perception of personality in dogs. Anthrozoos. 2013; 26: 125– 133.
  29. [36]Bollen KS, Horowitz J. Behavioral evaluation and demographic information in the assessment of aggressiveness in shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 112: 120– 135.
  30. [37]Mornement KM, Coleman GJ, Toukhsati S, Bennett PC. A review of behavioral assessment protocols used by Australian animal shelter to determine the adoption suitability of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2010; 13: 1661– 1671. 20865615
  31. [38]Fox M. Taking dogs seriously? Law, Culture and the Humanities 2010; 6: 37– 55.
  32. [41]Roy M, Christenfeld N. Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychol Sci. 2004; 15: 361– 363. 15102149
  33. [43]Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn Sci 2007; 11: 77– 83. 17188552
  34. [44]Belk R, Mayer R, Bahn K. The eye of the beholder: individual differences in perceptions of consumption symbolism. Adv Consum Res 1982; 9: 523– 530.
  35. [45]Wells M, Perrine R. Pets go to college: The influence of pets on students’ perceptions of faculty and their offices. Anthrozoos. 2001; 14: 161– 168.
  36. [46]Park S, Colvin C. Narcissism and discrepancy between self and friends' perception of personality. J Pers 2014: 279– 286. PMC3869869 23799917
  37. [47]Eamonns R. Narcissism: theory and measurement. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987; 52: 11– 17. 3820065
  38. [49]Wright JC, Smith A, Daniel K, Adkins K. Dog breed stereotype and exposure to negative behavior: effects on perceptions of adoptability. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2007; 10: 255– 265. 17645409

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mills, K. E., Robbins, J., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Mills, Katelyn E.
  • Robbins, Jesse
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-06-27
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
e0158131
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0158131
PMC
PMC4922641
OpenAlex
W2467550708
Cited by
19
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
tail docking, ear cropping, public awareness, owner perceptions, nature versus nurture, aggression perception, narcissism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Animals, Awareness, Dogs, Ear, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Public Opinion, Surgery, Plastic, Tail, Visual Perception, Pets

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