IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i11p2528-2542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing the Risk of Aggressive Dog Behavior: Investigating the Influence of Owner Threat and Efficacy Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Emma J. Williams
  • Emily Blackwell

Abstract

Aggressive behavior in pet dogs is a serious problem for dog owners across the globe, with bite injuries representing a serious risk to both people and other dogs. The effective management of aggressive behavior in dogs represents a challenging and controversial issue. Although positive reinforcement training methods are now considered to be the most effective and humane technique to manage the risk of aggression, punishment‐based methods continue to be used. Unfortunately, there has been little scientific study into the various factors influencing whether dog owners choose to use positive reinforcement techniques to manage aggression in their dogs. As such, current understanding of how best to encourage and support dog owners to use these methods remains extremely limited. This article uses a survey methodology based on protection motivation theory (PMT) to investigate the factors that influence owner use of positive reinforcement methods to manage aggressive behavior, in an attempt to understand potential barriers and drivers of use. In addition, the article provides an initial exploration of the potential role of wider psychological factors, including owner emotional state, social influence, and cognitive bias. Findings show that the perceived efficacy of positive reinforcement methods and the perceived ability of owners to effectively implement the technique are both key factors predicting future intentions and current reported use. Future interventions should focus on enhancing owner confidence in the effective use of positive reinforcement techniques across multiple scenarios, as well as helping owners manage their own emotional responses when they encounter challenging situations and setbacks.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma J. Williams & Emily Blackwell, 2019. "Managing the Risk of Aggressive Dog Behavior: Investigating the Influence of Owner Threat and Efficacy Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2528-2542, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2528-2542
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Kurt Neuwirth & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin, 2000. "Protection Motivation and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 721-734, October.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1952. "The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 463-463.
    5. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    2. Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & Tiejun Ma & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2019. "Let's Call it Quits: Break‐Even Effects in the Decision to Stop Taking Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1560-1581, July.
    3. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    4. Balogh, Gábor & Sipos, Norbert, 2019. "Pályakezdő közgazdászok bére a szakdiverzifikáció függvényében [Programme diversification effects on the salaries of freshly graduated economists]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 551-577.
    5. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Knight Fever towards an Economics of Awards," IEW - Working Papers 239, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2023. "The Homer economicus narrative: from cognitive psychology to individual public policies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 176-187, April.
    8. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2022. "The Homer economicus narrative: from cognitive psychology to individual public policies," Working Papers hal-03791951, HAL.
    9. Matia Torbarina & Lara Jelenc & Ivana Brkljačić, 2020. "Increasing Consumer Engagement on Social Networks: Social Media Influencer’s Followers ‘Like’ to See a Face in a Post," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 32(SI), pages 67-81.
    10. Sharma, Anshuman & Zheng, Zuduo & Bhaskar, Ashish & Haque, Md. Mazharul, 2019. "Modelling car-following behaviour of connected vehicles with a focus on driver compliance," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 256-279.
    11. Friedman, Daniel & Isaac, R. Mark & James, Duncan & Sunder, Shyam, 2014. "Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt87v8k86z, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    12. Aldo Montesano, 2019. "On some aspects of decision theory under uncertainty: rationality, price-probabilities and the Dutch book argument," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 57-85, July.
    13. Steven J. Humphrey & Nadia-Yasmine Kruse, 2024. "Who accepts Savage’s axiom now?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Carolyn A. Lin, 2023. "Flood Risk Management via Risk Communication, Cognitive Appraisal, Collective Efficacy, and Community Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-18, September.
    15. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    16. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2019. "Determinants of Probability Neglect and Risk Attitudes for Disaster Risk: An Online Experimental Study of Flood Insurance Demand among Homeowners," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2514-2527, November.
    17. Teun Terpstra & Michael K. Lindell & Jan M. Gutteling, 2009. "Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi‐Experimental Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1141-1155, August.
    18. Pitthan, Francisco & De Witte, Kristof, 2021. "Puzzles of insurance demand and its biases: A survey on the role of behavioural biases and financial literacy on insurance demand," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    19. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probable Winner," IEW - Working Papers 230, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2004. "Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probably Winner," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp226, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2528-2542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.