This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 10 August 2015, At: 17:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5
Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of

the interactions of people and animals
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters?

People's Perception of Shelter Cats and How
It Influences Adoption Time
a a
Kathryn Dybdall & Rosemary Strasser
a
University of Nebraska Omaha, Department of Psychology, Nebraska, USA
Published online: 28 Apr 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Kathryn Dybdall & Rosemary Strasser (2014) Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats
in Shelters? People's Perception of Shelter Cats and How It Influences Adoption Time, Anthrozoös: A
multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals, 27:4, 603-614

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279314X14072268688087

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 603
ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 27, ISSUE 4
PP. 603–614
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015
Address for correspondence:
Kathryn Dybdall,
Department of Psychology,
Neuroscience & Behavior
Program,
University of Nebraska
at Omaha,
6001 Dodge Street,
Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
E-mail: kdybdall@unmc.edu
REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2014
DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Is There a Bias Against Stray
Cats in Shelters? People’s
Perception of Shelter Cats
and How It Influences
Adoption Time
Kathryn Dybdall and Rosemary Strasser
University of Nebraska Omaha, Department of Psychology, Nebraska,
USA
ABSTRACT The determination of adoptability is a fundamental issue facing
shelters wishing to rehome cats. Many shelters in the United States cannot
keep a cat indefinitely and increased time in the shelter environment may lead
to reduced animal welfare due to chronic stress or euthanasia. In a series of
studies, we examined whether entry type (whether a cat came to the shelter
as an owner-surrendered or stray) as well as a cat’s perceived social behav-
ior influenced adoption times and people’s ratings of adoptability. In study 1,
we used archival data from 1,089 cats in a Midwest shelter and found that
Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/089279314X14072268688087
owner-surrendered cats were adopted significantly sooner than stray cats. In
study 2, we further explored the difference between owner-surrendered and
stray cats by measuring the social behavior of 56 shelter cats and their time
before adoption. Similarly, we found in this sample that owner-surrendered
cats were adopted on average nine days sooner than stray cats. Hierarchical
regression analysis indicated that entry type was a significant predictor of days
to adopt, and that latency to approach a human significantly improved the
prediction model. Further, how quickly stray cats, but not owner-surrendered
cats, approached a human experimenter correlated significantly with a short-
ened adoption time in the actual adoption scenario. Finally, in study 3, we
used an on-line survey to present 12 dual-image pictures of cats and manip-
ulated whether the information about the cat listed each as owner-surren-
dered or stray cat. We asked 120 college students to rate their likelihood of
adopting each pictured cat. When participants were asked about reasons
they would adopt a particular cat, 81% reported friendly behavior toward
them; yet when viewing the mirror images in the survey (no behavioral infor-
mation available), cats received higher adoptability ratings when presented as
owner-surrendered compared with the flipped image of that cat presented as
603
a stray. Taken together, these studies suggest that adopters’ perception of
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 604

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…

stray cats, as well as cats’ interactions with humans, influence the amount of time a cat remains in
the shelter prior to adoption.

Keywords: adoption time, animal welfare, domestic cat, shelters, social behavior

❖
In many areas of the United States, the number of animals entering an animal shel-
ter is greater than those leaving. In such cases, workers in these shelters need to
determine which animals to make available for adoption should they not be reclaimed
by an owner. Behavioral assessment of animals is one way in which shelter workers determine
an animals’ suitability for adoption, as well as using assessments based on the health of the
animal (Lepper, Kass and Hart 2002; Marston, Bennett and Coleman 2004; Notaro 2004).
The protocol for assessment can vary greatly among shelters, and much of the research to
date has examined behavioral assessment in shelter dogs (Mornement et al. 2010), with less
attention given to determinants of adoption in shelter cats (Siegford et al. 2003).
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

In an animal shelter environment, a cat’s behavior and adoption time have significant im-
plications for its welfare and may have dire consequences for the cat’s outcome. For many
shelters, determination of the cat’s outcome (e.g., adoption, euthanasia, foster care) may occur
during the initial holding period when the animal first arrives at the shelter. Once in the adop-
tion area, increased waiting time prior to adoption may result in reduced animal welfare (e.g.,
stress, illness, behavioral problems, depression etc.) and, in some shelters, an increased delay
prior to adoption can be fatal. For example, behavioral stress in cats in the shelter environment
increases the chance of illness and euthanasia, while reducing the likelihood of adoption
(Dybdall, Strasser and Katz 2007).
In many animal shelters behavior testing and/or assessments of health are performed to de-
termine suitability for adoption (Marston, Bennett and Coleman 2004). Once companion animals
are determined suitable for adoption, the next hurdle they face is the time spent waiting for their
adoptive home. According to Miller and Zawistowski (2004, p. 392), for shelter animals the time
limits and decision of adoptability verses euthanasia varies among shelters, and many have no
formal guidelines other than what is set by the contracting agency for animal control (city, county,
state, or government) or a decision is made within the organization. A number of shelters have
an adoption time limit after which if the cat is not adopted it is euthanized; while others have no
time limit as long as the cat remains healthy without behavioral problems. However, the longer
a cat remains in the shelter the greater chance of developing an illness or behavioral issue
(Edinboro et al. 1999; Miller and Zawistowski 2004). An important issue then is to enhance our
understanding of factors that influence adoption time for cats in animal shelters.
There is a fair amount of research into adoption, retention, relinquishment, and euthanasia
of companion animals (Lepper, Kass and Hart 2002; Neihardt and Boyd 2002; Notaro 2004;
Bartlett 2005; Shore 2005; Casey et al. 2009); however, there is relatively little research about
what information people use to make their decision to choose one companion animal over an-
other. Some studies suggest that companionship and social support are prevailing principles for
keeping companion animals (Serpell 1996; Brown 2004; Toray 2004; Carlisle-Frank and Frank
Anthrozoös

2006; Staats, Wallace and Anderson 2008). Indeed, Staats, Wallace and Anderson (2008) found
the top reason people had pets was emotional in nature; specifically the primary reasons for
keeping cats were to avoid loneliness and coping. Stammbach and Turner (1999) reported that
for some individuals their cat might be their primary source of social and emotional support.
Therefore, if the fundamental relationship between humans and cats is socio-emotional, then do
604

social behaviors in certain cats improve their chances of selection as a companion?

AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 605

Dybdall and Strasser

In previous research that examined stress in shelter cats, Dybdall, Strasser and Katz
(2007) found that cats surrendered by their owner displayed higher behavioral stress ratings
than cats brought in as strays. One interpretation of the data might be that cats separated
from their owner initially experience greater distress due to separation from their caregiver
than those cats entering as stray. In support of this interpretation, Edwards et al. (2007)
found evidence that human–cat relationships were consistent with patterns of attachment,
using a modified version of Ainsworth’s Adapted Strange Situation Test. Although individ-
ual personality most certainly plays a role in expression of social behaviors toward humans
(Mertens and Turner 1988), a large number of cats surrendered to shelters are the result of
unintended pregnancy of unspayed housecats and so the opportunity for handling these
owned cats exists from very early on. McCune (1995) found that early handling of kittens
by humans increases the likelihood that they will approach people, and in particular
unfamiliar people, and be less likely to display fear or anxiety as an adult cat. It is likely that
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

owner-surrendered cats may have been handled reliably and at an early age and this
preliminary exposure may predispose them to seek human social interaction (Lowe and
Bradshaw 2002).
In the present series of studies, we examined factors that might influence adoption time in
shelter cats. Previous studies by Dybdall, Strasser and Katz (2007) found behavioral stress lev-
els were higher in owner-surrendered cats after initially arriving in a shelter environment. Could
other differences exist between owner-surrendered and stray cats that might influence their
adoption time? Specifically, would one group be more likely to seek out social contact and
proximity to humans, which could subsequently influence adoption time? In the following study,
we used three approaches to determine if there were differences between owner-surrendered
and stray cats in how quickly they were adopted from a Midwest shelter. We predicted that the
social behavior of the cats, as well as peoples’ perceptions of cats labeled as owner-surrendered
or stray, would influence adoption time as well as ratings of adoptability.

Study 1
Methods
Data Collection: The subjects for this archival study were cats (n = 1,089) that entered the
Nebraska Humane Society in Omaha, Nebraska during the calendar year of 2005. We
collected data from the shelter’s database on all cats that the shelter staff determined were
suitable for adoption and were listed as either owner-surrendered (n = 422) or stray (n = 667)
on the entry form. Further, we used a lower age limit of at least 12 months or older at the time
of entry. There was no upper age limit. The mean estimated age of the cats was 30.26 months
(SD = 21.36) and there were slightly more females (n = 564) than males (n = 525). While up
for adoption, information about each cats’ entry type was listed on kennel cards that would
have been visible to the public.
Analysis: Data were obtained from the shelter’s database system, Chameleon© software (HLP,
Anthrozoös

Inc., Chameleon Software Products), and exported into a comma delimited file format (csv).
The data were then imported into a Microsoft Excel document and filtered for only those cats
whose outcome type was listed as adoptable and whose age fit the subject criteria. We
recorded the following information: sex, age, entry type (owner-surrendered or stray), intake
date, available for adoption date, and adoption date. Data analysis was completed using SPSS
605

22.0 statistical analysis software (Chicago, Il, USA).

AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 606

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

Figure 1. The mean adoption time for owner-surrendered and stray cats in
study 1 (archive data) and study 2 (videotaped cats). *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Results
The mean adoption time for all cats irrespective of group was 30 days (SD = 27.46), however
there were differences between the entry type groups related to adoption time. Owner-surren-
dered cats had a mean adoption time of 26 days (SD = 26.14) and stray cats had a mean
adoption time of 32 days (SD = 27.96). An ANOVA revealed the owner-surrendered cats were
adopted in significantly less time than the stray cats (F(1, 1087) = 16.44, p < 0.001) (see Figure 1).

Study 2
Methods
Subjects: During November 2007, 56 cats (n = 37 female, n = 19 male) available in the adop-
tion area at the Nebraska Humane Society in Omaha, Nebraska were randomly selected for
observation from owner-surrendered (n = 25) or stray (n = 31) groups. The mean age was 46
months (SD = 29.97). We excluded cats dropped off over-night that had unclear entry types,
as well as any cat that was identified as having an active medical condition. Cats used in this
study were housed in individual kennels in the adoption area prior to testing. The University of
Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) granted
approval for the protocol utilized in this research.
Procedure: Videotaping of cats occurred in the shelter’s adoption acquaintance rooms. Ad-
Anthrozoös

ditionally, it should be noted that on days filming occurred, it was conducted at approximately
11:00 am (well after cats had been fed) and that the mock adopters had no prior contact with
the shelter cats. The room set up was as follows (see Figure 2): colored tape was placed on
the floor to delineate a 61 cm  61 cm square as the boundaries of close proximity (prox-
606

imity box). Additionally, the tape was placed up over the bench and up 61 cm on the wall to
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 607

Dybdall and Strasser

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

Figure 2. Diagram of the shelter adoption room used for videotaping of

observations. The observation time began when the cat was placed on
the “X” on the floor of the room. The boundaries of the proximity area
were outlined with colored tape. The mock adopter was instructed to sit
on the bench in the corner farthest from the door entry.

ensure the proximity could be easily measured if the cat jumped up on the bench. An “X” was
placed on the floor with colored tape, to mark the designated spot where the cat was placed
upon entry in to the room. Finally, an “X” was placed on the bench with colored tape to des-
ignate the area the mock adopter would sit. We stationed a Sony DVD Handycam®
Camcorder outside the adoption acquaintance room on a tripod to record the 2-minute
observation period.
After the cat was brought into the room, the experimenter said aloud “cat down” as the
cat was placed on the “X”; this verbal signal was used later for the individuals reviewing the
videotapes to begin measuring the latency to approach the mock adopter. The latency to ap-
proach was measured by the time (in seconds) it took the cat to reach the proximity box and
place two paws inside the border of it. While the cat was in the room, the mock adopter could
make periodic reciprocal contact (after the cat had made initial contact) with the cat, but no
initiation of contact (no calling, reaching for, restraining, or holding of the cat). Proximity was
noted when at least two paws were inside the proximity box and was recorded as a running
tally as the cat may have gone in and out of the proximity box multiple times. The bouts of
Anthrozoös

proximity were summed and calculated as a percent of the total 2-minute video observation
period. All video files were viewed and scored by two individuals who were naïve to the status
(owner-surrendered or stray) of the cats. We examined the inter-rater reliability for scoring the
video behaviors using a Pearson correlation and found a very strong correlation (r(56) = 0.99,
p < 0.001), so the data from the two raters was averaged, and these averaged times were
607

used for statistical analysis.

AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 608

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…

For the adoption time, we recorded the number of days beginning from the date the cat
became available in the adoption area to the date the cat was adopted. If a cat became ill dur-
ing their stay and was housed in the medical ward while undergoing treatment, the days in the
medical ward were subtracted from the total time. Therefore, the adoption time was calculated
using the actual time (number of days) the cat was in the shelter adoption area and available
for adoption.
Data Analysis: A one-way ANOVA was used to examine group differences for the continuous
variables (days to adopt, latency to approach, and proximity time). Although latency to
approach and proximity time were different measures, they were connected in that the longer
a cat took to approach, the less time it was possible for the cat to remain in proximity during
the limited time of observation. Conversely, if a cat approached right from the start, there was
the opportunity for much greater variation in the percent of time spent in proximity of the mock
adopter. For these reasons, there was potential for an issue with multicollinearity. A Pearson
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

correlation indicated that the two variables were highly negatively correlated (r(56) = –0.80,
p < 0.001), and a hierarchical regression analysis revealed that adding proximity time to the
model did not statistically improve to a significant degree the prediction of the number of days
to adopt. Therefore, proximity maintenance was examined for group differences, but removed
from the prediction model for days to adopt.
Results
Social Behaviors and Adoption Time: The mean number of days to adoption, irrespective of
group, was 24 days (SD = 14.74). A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant group differ-
ence with respect to age or gender on adoption time, so these data were combined in the
analysis. Results from an ANOVA revealed that there were significant group differences
related to number of days to adoption (F(1, 54) = 5.93, p = 0.02): the mean number of days
for adoption of owner-surrendered cats was 19 (SD = 12.79) and for stray cats it was 28
(SD = 15.10) (see Figure 1).
Cats approached the mock adopter in just under 1 minute on average (58.95 seconds,
SD = 6.33) and remained in proximity a bit less than one-third (29%) of the total 2-minute
test. However, a one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences between groups in
latency to approach or proximity maintenance (F(1, 54) = 0.012, p = 0.913 and F(1, 54) =
0.103, p = 0.749, respectively). Next we used a hierarchical regression to examine how
both entry type and latency to approach influenced days to adoption. Results indicated
that entry type was a significant predictor of days to adopt (F(1, 54) = 5.93, p = 0.018).
Moreover, latency to approach improved the prediction model (ΔR2 = 0.110, p = 0.009)
and accounted significantly for a unique portion of the variance associated with the adop-
tion time differences (F(2, 53) = 7.34, p = 0.009), meaning that approach behavior provided
improved fit of the data and explained the prediction model better than entry type alone.
Moreover, linear regression fit lines applied to the sub-groups on a scatter plot graph (see
Figure 3) revealed that approach behavior significantly influenced adoption time in the
Anthrozoös

stray cat group (R2 = 0.21, F(1,30) = 7.82, p = 0.009), but did not significantly influence
adoption time for the owner-surrendered cat group (R2 = 0.05, F(1,24) = 1.18, p = 0.29).
These data reveal that both entry type and approach time influenced the number of days
to adoption for shelter cats; however, for stray cats approach behavior had a significant
influence on adoption time.
608
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 609

Dybdall and Strasser

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

Figure 3. A scatterplot showing the correlation between latency to

approach and days to adoption in owner-surrendered and stray cats.

Study 3
Methods
Participants: University of Nebraska Omaha students, 19 years of age or older, taking a
psychology class in 2010 participated in a short web survey about pets in general and cat
adoption specifically. Of the students who completed the survey (n = 150), data from 120
participants were used for analysis of the likeliness to adopt using images of cats. There were
30 participants whose data were eliminated from the analysis because they chose the same
adoptability rating response for all cats (all very likely, no opinion, very unlikely, etc.) and could
not be regarded as discriminating between cats. Participants were primarily female, Caucasian,
not Hispanic or Latino, and 19–25 years of age. The University of Nebraska Medical Center
Institutional Review Board granted approval for the protocol utilized in this research.
Procedure: Web-based survey data were created and managed using SONA Systems. Basic
background and demographic information were obtained (gender, race/ethnicity, and age
group). Additionally, pet history, experiences, and attachment questions were presented.
Intermixed with the questions were a total of 30 images of cats. Twelve of the cats were
presented twice (n = 24); once as owner-surrendered and once as stray. We flipped images
horizontally (i.e., created a mirror image) for the second viewing to reduce the chance that the
participant would recognize that the cat had been presented earlier. Whether the cat was first
shown as a stray or owner-surrendered was randomly determined before the survey. An
owner-surrendered cat was presented with the cat’s name, sex, age, reason for surrender,
Anthrozoös

and some social history. Stray cats were presented with the cat’s sex, approximate age, and
where the cat was found; however, no social history was presented. If the cat had been de-
scribed as declawed, this information was presented in both the owner-surrendered and stray
image descriptions. Finally, all shelter cats available for adoption would have been spayed or
neutered, so this information was included in the information on each cat. In addition, there
609

were sham cat images (n = 6) included in the survey. These extra cat images were presented
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 610

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

Figure 4. The traits/reasons participants (n = 120) selected that they

thought would positively influence their decision to adopt a particular
cat. The total percent exceeds 100% because participants could
choose more than one trait or reason. Ten participants (8.3%) indicated
that they would never adopt a cat.

only once and the data were not used in the analysis. The sham images were presented to
reduce the chance of participants recognizing repetition of the pictures used to test the
hypothesis. Additionally, the survey software included an option to prevent backtracking; so
once a participant began the survey, they were unable to return to earlier images or
responses. For all images the participants were asked to rate the likelihood of adopting each
cat, using a Likert scale: (1) very unlikely, (2) somewhat unlikely, (3) no opinion, (4) somewhat
likely, and (5) very likely.
Results
Descriptive Findings: General questions regarding pet experience revealed that most partici-
pants were currently living with dogs as pets (50%), while cats were the second most preva-
lent pet (33%). Similarly, participants in the past had lived most often with dogs (83%), followed
by pets in the “other” category (fish, snake, turtle, etc. 66%); while cats came in third (60%).
For questions specifically about adopting cats, results indicated that most would have an in-
door-only cat (58%), while slightly fewer (32%) would have an indoor/outdoor cat. Finally, when
asked what the traits or reasons were that participants thought would positively influence them
Anthrozoös

to adopt a particular cat, responses indicated that “It behaves friendly toward me” had the
highest percentage of respondents, 81% (see Figure 4).
Likelihood of Adoptability: All data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 (Chicago, Il, USA) statistical
analysis software. To examine the likelihood of the adoption rating being based on whether the
cat was presented as owner-surrendered or stray, we ran an ANOVA. The results indicated a
610

main effect of group (F(1, 2878) = 16.06, p < 0.001): when presented as owner-surrendered, on
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 611

Dybdall and Strasser

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

Figure 5. The likelihood participants (n = 120) would adopt a cat, based

on photographs of 12 cats presented once as owner-surrendered and
once as stray. Responses were on a Likert scale: 1 (very unlikely) to 5
(very likely). **p < 0.001, 95% CI.

average cats scored higher on the likelihood of being adopted rating than when presented as
stray (see Figure 5). The mean ratings, with 95% confidence intervals for owner-surrendered and
stray, respectively, were 3.35 [3.28, 3.42] and 3.15 [3.08, 3.22]. We used a 2 (cat ownership)
 2 (entry type) ANOVA to examine whether cat ownership influenced the adoptability rating of
owner-surrendered or stray cats. Results indicated that individuals who were current or previ-
ous cat owners rated all cats higher than non-cat owners (F(1, 1) = 13.77, p = 0.003). However,
there was no significant main effect for entry type (F(1, 1) = 2.36, p = 0.13), nor was there a
significant interaction between cat ownership and entry type (F(1, 236) = 0.002, p = 0.98),
suggesting that cat owners did not rate owner-surrendered cats higher than strays.

Discussion
In all three studies, the data indicated that owner-surrendered cats had an advantage over
stray cats. Data from studies 1 and 2 indicated that cats admitted to the shelter as owner-
surrendered were adopted significantly sooner than those cats admitted as strays. In an at-
tempt to examine why owner-surrendered cats were adopted sooner, we examined whether
owner-surrendered cats behaved differently toward humans, which might have explained the
observed differences in adoption time. The findings from study 2 suggest that cats with a
shorter approach time were adopted significantly sooner in the actual adoption situation;
however, latency to approach and time spent in proximity with the human experimenter were
Anthrozoös

not significantly different between the owner-surrendered and stray cats. Our findings sug-
gest that a cat’s social behavior toward humans, as measured by approach time, is an im-
portant factor especially for stray cats. It is also consistent with findings from Weiss et al.
(2012), who found that adopters said the top reason for selecting the cat they adopted was
how it “behaves with me.” Likewise, participants in our study indicated that the response, “It
611

behaves friendly toward me,” was the trait that would most positively influence their decision
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 612

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…

to adopt a particular cat. Although social behavior was predictive of adoption time, behavior
alone did not explain adoption time differences in this study, unless we also considered entry
type. This suggests that potential adopters might have had negative associations with “stray”
cats that influenced their decisions.
Our study and previous research (Weiss et al. 2012) suggest that the social behavior of cats
should be the primary factor used by individuals to make determinations of adoptability. In our
third study, however, participants did not use actual behavioral interactions with the cats but
used information from photographs, which included intake type. Given that the dual-image pho-
tos were of the same cat, listed as either stray or owner-surrendered, we predicted no group dif-
ferences on adoptability ratings. However, the data indicated that participants rated a cat more
favorably when it was presented as an owner-surrendered cat than when it was presented as a
stray cat. Although it is still unclear why this bias toward strays exists, there are several possibil-
ities. Research by Wells and Hepper (1992) found that photographs of dogs presented as strays
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

were also rated less adoptable than dogs that were presented as unwanted (their term for owner-
surrendered dogs). But when people viewed photographs of dogs pictured with toys or near the
front of the kennel, they were judged to be more adoptable than the same dog without a toy or
pictured at the back of the kennel, even though the dog never interacted with the toy. It was sug-
gested by the authors that participants made a presumption about future behavior of the dogs
pictured with toys or near the front of the kennel. Similarly, a study by Fantuzzi, Miller and Weiss
(2010) examined factors influencing cat adoptions and found that those cats with a toy in their
kennel were more likely to be viewed, and viewed longer, even though they did not interact with
the toy. Subsequently, those cats that were viewed longer were more likely to be adopted. It is
possible that participants in our study were making assumptions about the potential social be-
havior of cats based on entry type and social history. The lack of social history (i.e., litterbox
habits, friendly with children, indoor compatibility) or misconceptions about what the label of
“stray cat” means may cause potential adopters to view stray cats unfavorably.
Shelters could minimize the effect of bias by working with cats to increase desired social
behaviors, or add toys in the kennels of stray cats to improve adopter perception, as per the
Fantuzzi, Miller and Weiss (2010) study. Decreased adoption times have the potential for
positively affecting a cat’s outcome by reducing the risk of contracting illness, developing
negative behavioral changes, and experiencing overall reduced welfare, and may benefit
shelters by freeing up space. Going forward, shelters can apply strategies that improve the
chances for a successful outcome for cats. Shelters that highlight connections between
visitors and cats that encourage social interactions (such as playrooms, interactive toys, or
human-cat activities) as well as consideration of the information they provide about the
available cats and how they word this information, can improve the chances for a successful
outcome and reduced time in the shelter.
In conclusion, these studies provide a greater understanding of factors that influence the
adoption of cats in shelters, as well as aspects of the human–cat relationship. Although the
social behavior of cats did influence how quickly they were adopted, this study also revealed
Anthrozoös

that disparities existed based on entry type. It appears that potential adopters may hold pre-
conceptions about the adoptability of cats in shelters, and subsequently these biases influence
their adoption time; so the term “stray” may hold unintended negative consequences. Future
studies could examine peoples’ attitudes about why cats end up in an animal shelter, which
may shed light on covert beliefs. Additionally, it would interesting to re-label cats as “lost”
612

instead of stray to see what influence this change in labeling has on their adoption time.
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 613

Dybdall and Strasser

Acknowledgements
We thank our research team (Pam Chadwick, Brandy Whitcomb, Brenda Recker, Krystal
Kidder, and Irene Patton) who assisted in the cat videotape sessions for study 2, and Drs.
Jeffrey French and Michael O’Hara for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier
versions of the manuscript. Additionally, we express our appreciation to Judy Varner and the
staff of the Nebraska Humane Society for their cooperation and support in allowing us to film
and observe shelter cats in the humane society. Finally, this research was funded in part by
a grant from University Committee on Research and Creativity Student Grant at the University
of Nebraska Omaha.

References
Bartlett, P. 2005. Rates of euthanasia and adoption for dogs and cats in Michigan animal shelters. Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science 8: 97–104.
Brown, B. 2004. The human–animal bond and self-psychology: Toward a new understanding. Society & Animals
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015

12: 67–86.
Carlisle-Frank, P. and Frank, J. 2006. Owners, guardians, and owner-guardians: Differing relationships with pets.
Anthrozoös 19: 225–242.
Casey, R., Venbussche, S., Bradshaw, J. and Roberts, M. 2009. Reasons for relinquishment and return of
domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) to rescue shelters in the UK. Anthrozoös 22: 347–358. doi:
10.2752/089279309X12538695316185.
Dybdall, K., Strasser, R. and Katz, T. 2007. Behavioral differences between owner surrender and stray domestic
cats after entering an animal shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 85–94. doi: 10.1016/
j.applanim.2006.05.002.
Edinboro, C. H., Janowitz, L. K., Guptill-Yoran, L. and Glickman, L. T. 1999. A clinical trial of intranasal and
subcutaneous vaccines to prevent upper respiratory infection in cats at an animal shelter. Feline Practice 27:
7–11.
Edwards, C., Heiblum, M., Tejeda, A. and Galindo, F. 2007. Experimental evaluation of attachment behaviors
in owned cats. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2: 119–125.
Fantuzzi, J., Miller, K. and Weiss, E. 2010. Factors relevant to adoption of cats in an animal shelter. Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science 13: 174–179. doi: 10.1080/10888700903583467.
Lepper, M., Kass, P. and Hart, L. 2002. Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a
California animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5: 29–42.
Lowe, S. and Bradshaw, J. 2002. Responses of pet cats to being held by an unfamiliar person, from weaning
to three years of age. Anthrozoös 15: 69–79. doi: 10.2752/089279302786992702.
Marston, L., Bennett, P. and Coleman, G. 2004. What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis of data for 1 year
from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7: 27–47.
McCune, S. 1995. The impact of paternity and early socialization on the development of cats’ behaviour to
people and novel objects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 109–124.
Mertens, C. and Turner, D. C. 1988. Experimental analysis of human–cat interactions during first encounters.
Anthrozoös 2: 83–97.
Miller, L. and Zawistowski, S. 2004. Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff. Ames, IA: Blackwell.
Mornement, K. M., Coleman, G. J., Toukhsati, S. and Bennett, P. C. 2010. A review of behavioral assessment
protocols used by Australian animal shelters to determine the adoption suitability of dogs. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 13: 314–329.
Neidhart, L. and Boyd, R. 2002. Companion animal adoption study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
5(3): 175–192.
Anthrozoös

Notaro, S. 2004. Disposition of shelter companion animals from nonhuman animal control officers, citizen finders,
and relinquished by caregivers. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7: 181–188.
Serpell, J. 1996. In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human–Animal Relationships. 2nd edn. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shore, E. 2005. Returning a recently adopted companion animal: Adopters’ reasons for reactions to the failed
adoption experience. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8: 187–198.
613
AZ 27-4.Text_Layout 1 10/13/14 12:54 PM Page 614

Is There a Bias Against Stray Cats in Shelters? People’s Perception of Shelter Cats and How…

Siegford, J., Walshaw, S., Brunner, P. and Zanella, A. 2003. Validation of a temperament test for domesitic cats.
Anthrozoös 16: 332–351. doi: 10.2752/089279303786991982.
Staats, S., Wallace, H. and Anderson, T. 2008. Reasons for companion animal guardianship (pet ownership) from
two populations. Society & Animals 16: 279–291. doi: 10.1163/156853008X323411.
Stammbach, K. and Turner, D. 1999. Understanding the human–cat relationship: Human social support or
attachment. Anthrozoös 12: 162–168.
Toray, T. 2004. The human–animal bond and loss: Providing support for grieving clients. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling 24: 244–259.
Weiss, E., Miller, K., Mohan-Gibbons, H. and Vela, C. 2012. Why did you choose this pet? Adopters and pet
selection preferences in five animal shelters in the United States. Animals 2: 144–159. doi: 10.3390/
ani2020144.
Wells, D. and Hepper, P. 1992. The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 1: 171–186.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 17:27 10 August 2015
Anthrozoös
614