The influence of body region, handler familiarity and order of region handled on the domestic cat's response to being stroked
Introduction
The domestic cat's (Felis silvestris catus) role in western society has changed over time from that of rodent catcher to predominantly one of social companion (Bradshaw et al., 2012), thus causing greater human desire for feline physical interaction (Bernstein, 2007). Such interaction has been reported to have several human-related health, psychological and social benefits, including reduced minor health problems such as headaches, colds and flu (Serpell, 1991), improved mood (Turner and Riger, 2001, Turner et al., 2003) and increased facilitation of social interactions (Bernstein et al., 2000). While we have come to expect cats to not only tolerate, but also enjoy being touched (Bernstein, 2007), there is little empirical research investigating whether this is actually the case. Stroking, a common form of human–animal interaction, has been shown to have stress-reducing effects for a range of social species, including farm animals (e.g. cows, Waiblinger et al., 2004), companion animals (e.g. shelter dogs, Hennessy et al., 1998) and laboratory animals (e.g. rats, Maruyama et al., 2012). Such results are consistent with reported benefits associated with intra-specific physical interactions, such as allo-grooming in highly social animals (e.g. ring-tailed macaques, Boccia et al., 1989; meerkats, Kutsukake and Clutton-Brock, 2006; horses, VanDirendonck and Spruijt, 2012; cattle, Sato and Tarumizu, 1993).
The domestic cat has only relatively recently in evolutionary terms been considered to have the ability to demonstrate social behaviour, with social grouping in free-ranging individuals generally depending on food distribution and relatedness (Crowell-Davies, 2003, Crowell-Davis et al., 2004). Within such groups positive, physical interactions generally only occur between close affiliates and take two predominant forms: allo-grooming, where one cat licks another; and allo-rubbing, where two cats rub parts of their body against one another (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont, 2000, Crowell-Davis et al., 2004). Both physical interactions commonly take place at body areas rich in scent glands, primarily the peri-oral and temporal areas, although allo-rubbing is also sometimes witnessed in the form of tail wrapping, involving the caudal (base of tail) area (Crowell-Davies, 2003; Verberne and de Boer, 1976).
Results from studies in other species indicate that human instigated tactile interactions are most positive when they occur at regions normally involved in positive intra-specific contact (e.g. horses, Feh and de Mazieres, 1993, McBride et al., 2004; and dairy cattle, Schemied et al., 2008). Initial work by Soennichsen and Chamove (2002) has investigated whether this is the case for the domestic cat. They examined the behavioural response of cats to human stroking in four different body areas, three of which were gland sites (peri-oral, temporal and caudal), concluding that cats showed a clear preference for stroking in the temporal region, with the caudal region being rated as the most negative, although the latter was a non-significant tendency. However, there were a number of methodological limitations in their study, including a very small sample size (n = 9), pseudo-replication and several variables inadequately controlled, for example, a lack of consistency of familiarity of handler, handling of different non-gland areas for different cats and recording of data for some cats by untrained individuals. This may have confounded the results.
The aim of this study was therefore to address the methodological issues of Soennichsen and Chamove (2002) by re-investigating whether the body area of the cat handled has an influence on the behavioural responses it exhibits, extending the previous work to eight body regions (identified as commonly handled by owners in pilot data). In addition, this study also aimed to examine the influence of handler familiarity on behavioural responses, since studies on other species have demonstrated that animals are more likely to find handling by a familiar handler positive when compared with handling by someone unfamiliar (e.g. cattle, Boivin et al., 1998; rats, Davis et al., 1997). Furthermore, while Soennichsen and Chamove (2002) randomised the order of body areas touched, examination of feline rubbing has revealed that cats rub against objects and other individuals in a set order starting at the head and facial region and, in the case of allo-rubbing, often finishing at the tail (Crowell-Davies, 2003, Feldman, 1994). It is unknown whether such an order is important in human–cat interactions. Thus, a second experiment was carried out which examined the influence of sequence of body areas handled, by a familiar individual (their owner) on the behavioural responses exhibited by the cats.
Section snippets
Method
The School of Life Sciences Ethics Committee at the University of Lincoln approved all experimental procedures used in Experiments 1 and 2 of this study.
Discussion
This study sought to determine the influence of handler familiarity, body region and sequence of body region handled on behaviour exhibited in response to handling in the domestic cat. Handler familiarity and body region stroked were both found to influence the behavioural responses exhibited by cats during handling. Conversely, sequence of areas touched had no influence over such behavioural responses.
Conclusions
Overall, the results from this study suggest that while sequence of handling different body areas had no apparent effect on behavioural responses exhibited by domestic cats, handling of the caudal region, regardless of handler, produced the greatest number of negative behavioural responses. In addition, when handling by a familiar person and an unfamiliar person were compared, the greatest number of negative behavioural responses was elicited during handling by the familiar person. Learnt
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the owners of the cats for allowing their cats to take part in the study. H. Thompson was awarded funding from the University of Lincoln's UROS (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Scheme) to carry out Experiment 2 under the supervision of S Ellis and H Zulch.
References (43)
Fractious cats and feline aggression
J. Feline. Med. Surg.
(2004)- et al.
On the physiology of grooming in a pigtail macaque
Physiol. Behav.
(1989) - et al.
Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1998) - et al.
The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(2003) - et al.
Social organisation in the cat: A modern understanding
J. Feline Med. Surg.
(2004) Theoretical review – The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior
Physiol. Behav.
(1971)- et al.
Grooming at a preferred site reduces HR in horses
Anim. Behav.
(1993) - et al.
Friend or foe: Context dependent sensitivity to human behaviour in dogs
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(2010) - et al.
Influence of male and female petters on plasma cortisol and behaviour: Can human interaction reduce the stress of dogs in a public animal shelter?
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1998) - et al.
Effects of human-dog familiarity on behavioural responses to petting
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(2012)