Is There an Association between Paw Preference and Emotionality in Pet Dogs?

Abstract

Research with humans and other animals has suggested that preferential limb use is linked to emotionality. A better understanding of this still under-explored area has the potential to establish limb preference as a marker of emotional vulnerability and risk for affective disorders. This study explored the potential relationship between paw preference and emotionality in pet dogs. We examined which paw the dogs preferentially used to hold a Kong™ and to perform two different locomotion tests. Dogs' emotionality was assessed using a validated psychometric test (the Positive and Negative Activation Scale-PANAS). Significant positive correlations were found for dogs' paw use between the different locomotion tasks, suggesting that dogs may show a more general paw preference that is stable across different types of locomotion. In comparison, the correlations between the Kong™ Test and locomotion tests were only partially significant, likely due to potential limitations of the Kong™ Test and/or test-specific biomechanical requirements. No significant correlations were identified between paw preference tests and PANAS scores. These results are in contrast to previous reports of an association between dog paw preference and emotionality; animal limb preference might be task-specific and have variable task-consistency, which raises methodological questions about the use of paw preference as a marker for emotional functioning.

Keywords: dog; emotional predisposition; emotionality; laterality; locomotion; motor bias; paw preference.

Figure A1

Frequency distribution of the dogs’ LI data for all tests and conditions.

Figure A2

Frequency distribution of the dogs’ ABS–LI data for all tests and conditions.

Figure A3

Frequency distribution of the dogs’ LI data for all the pooled First Step and the pooled Hurdle Test.

Figure A4

Frequency distribution of the dogs’ ABS–LI data for all the pooled First Step and the pooled Hurdle Test.

Figure 1

(a) A Kong™. (b) Start position for the Kong™ Test: The dog lies down with the dog’s body evenly and symmetrically aligned; the Kong™ is put between the dog’s front paws.

Figure 2

(a) Kong™ is stabilized with the left paw. (b) Kong™ is stabilized with the right paw. (c) Both paws stabilize the Kong™.

Figure 3

(a) Condition 1: Stand position. (b) Condition 2: Sit position. (c) Condition 3: Lying position.

Figure 4

(a) Hurdle built from a slat and two piles of books. (b) The height of the hurdle measures half the length of the dog’s front leg.

Figure 5

Boxplots showing dogs’ LI scores in the different tests and conditions. Asterisks indicate significant deviations from 0 (* p < 0.05).

Figure 6

Boxplots showing dogs’ ABS–LI scores in the different tests and conditions. Asterisks indicate significant deviations from 0 (*** p <0.001).

Figure 7

Boxplots showing dogs’ LI scores for the Kong™, the pooled First Step and the pooled Hurdle Test. Asterisks indicate significant deviations from 0 (* p < 0.05).

Figure 8

Boxplots showing dogs’ ABS–LI scores for the Kong™, the pooled First Step and the pooled Hurdle Test. Asterisks indicate significant deviations from 0 (*** p < 0.001).