“It’s Okay He’s Friendly”: Understanding the Experience of Owning and Walking a Reactive Dog Using a Qualitative Online Survey

ABSTRACT

A range of physical and emotional health benefits to people are reported to be associated with owning and walking a dog. However, the experiences of dog ownership are not always equivalent, and owners of reactive dogs may face additional challenges that could affect their experience of pet ownership. The aims of this qualitative study were to understand the lived experience of self-identified owners of reactive dogs, to identify key issues and themes that affect their daily lives, and to establish important future research questions. Thirty-seven UK residents completed an online survey containing 14 open-ended questions. Free-text responses were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Five main themes were constructed: lack of understanding, situational control, learning and progress, guardianship, and emotions felt. The biggest challenge that all respondents reported was that other people did not understand their needs, which caused them to act, or their dogs to act, inappropriately. Other people’s off-lead dogs were highlighted as being especially problematic, which sometimes brought owners into conflict with members of the public. On walks, many owners attempted to control the situation by avoiding places frequented by others or walking at antisocial times. The emotions most commonly expressed regarding walking a reactive dog were stress and anxiety. These results suggest that self-identified owners of reactive dogs experience a number of challenges, particularly related to walking their dog, which negatively impact their experience of dog ownership. Suggestions about how the needs of reactive-dog owners and their dogs can be better catered for in society are highlighted, as well as strategies to improve awareness about reactive dogs and how other people can help them and their owners.

KEYWORDS:

• Behavioral problem
• dog behavior
• dog owner
• human–animal interaction (HAI)
• reactive dog

Despite living alongside dogs for millennia, our scientific understanding of the physical and mental health benefits associated with human–dog interactions have only been developed in recent decades, often viewed through the lens of the biopsychosocial model (Gee et al., 2021). To date, research shows that dog owners receive a number of health benefits as a consequence of owning and caring for their dog, including experiencing fewer minor illnesses (Serpell, 1991) and visiting a physician less often (Headey, 1999; Headey & Grabka, 2007; Siegel, 1990). Dog ownership can also contribute toward improved cardiovascular health as owning or interacting with a dog can reduce a person’s blood pressure (Allen et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 1992; Friedmann et al., 1983), heart rate (Allen et al., 2002), triglycerides, cholesterol in men (Anderson et al., 1992), heart attack risk (Mubanga et al., 2017), and mortality risk following a heart attack (Mubanga et al., 2019), as well as improve the likelihood of surviving a heart attack (Friedmann & Thomas, 1995; Mubanga et al., 2019).

Many of the reported physical benefits from owning a dog are thought to be linked to dog walking as research shows that dog owners perform more physical activity (Christian et al., 2013; Cutt et al., 2007; Serpell, 1991; Thorpe et al., 2006; Westgarth et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2017). The reasons for this include increased motivation and social support (Brown & Rhodes, 2006; Ham & Epping, 2006), as well as purpose (Westgarth et al., 2021). Dog walking also increases the number of social interactions an individual has with people in their neighborhood (Potter & Sartore-Baldwin, 2019), which may be particularly important for older adults who are often more socially isolated (McNicholas & Collis, 2000; Rogers et al., 1993). Moreover, walking a dog reduces stress levels (Akiyama & Ohta, 2021), lowers blood pressure (Anderson et al., 1992), and make owners feel happy (Westgarth et al., 2017).

Psychological benefits have also been observed in dog owners more generally, which are linked to reduced feelings of loneliness (Krause-Parello, 2012; McConnell et al., 2011), decreased depression (Garrity et al., 1989), decreased anxiety (Grajfoner et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2015), and decreased stress (Siegel, 1990), as well as increased self-esteem (Barcelos et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2020) and life satisfaction (Bao & Schreer, 2016; McConnell et al., 2011). However, some research has failed to find a reduction in loneliness (Gilbey et al., 2007) or depression (Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010; Cline, 2010). Other research has found negative effects, revealing, for example, that pet owners perceive themselves as having more mental health problems than non-pet owners (Müllersdorf et al., 2010) and experience more depression (Parslow et al., 2005). This suggests that we do not fully understand the relationship between dog ownership and psychological health outcomes. As research shows that the relationship owners have with their dogs is influenced by dog and owner characteristics (Dotson & Hyatt, 2008; Meyer & Forkman, 2014), further research is needed to understand how different types of dog–owner relationships impact the benefits of dog ownership.

A known source of difficulty which can affect the human–dog relationship is caring for dogs with physical or behavioral problems (Jensen et al., 2020; Kwan & Bain, 2013). Christiansen et al. (2013) found evidence for caregiver burden in owners caring for chronically ill pets, which is a key predictor of negative consequences such as deterioration in carer health (Liu et al., 2020). Pet behavioral problems have also been shown to negatively impact owners’ lives; it has been suggested that they experience caregiver burden (Buller & Ballantyne, 2020). Specifically, Buller and Ballantyne revealed four major themes that affect pet-owners’ lives: “caretaking,” “emotions experienced,” “coping strategies,” and “lack of understanding and support.” However, despite the high estimated prevalence of behavioral problems, up to 86% (Dinwoodie et al., 2019; Yamada et al., 2019), very little research has investigated the impact a specific canine behavioral problem has on the lives of owners and their dogs. A dog behavioral problem which is anecdotally believed to disrupt owners’ lives, as well as cause emotional distress is “reactivity”; however, to date, this area of research has been almost entirely neglected.

Traditionally, the term “reactivity” or “hyper-reactivity” has been used to describe an individual who responds to normal stimuli with a higher-than-normal level of intensity. In the human literature, hyper-reactivity has been reported toward auditory stimuli in people with autism (Gomes et al., 2008), emotional stimuli in people with borderline personality disorder (Sansone & Sansone, 2010), and potentially threatening stimuli in people with anxiety disorders (Zullino et al., 2004). Alternatively, “reactivity” is being increasingly used to describe a dog that displays problematic behaviors, such as lunging or barking, toward a specific stimulus or “trigger.” However, a recent study by Stephens-Lewis et al. (2022) revealed the term’s complex and sometimes contradictory usage, incorporating both human and dog factors. One contributing factor for the term’s ongoing ambiguity could be the variation in stimuli which can “trigger” a reactive response, underlying motivations, as well as the types of behaviors performed in response and the intensity with which they are executed. To date, little research has investigated the cause of reactivity, but Overall et al. (2016) suggest a genetic contribution to sound reactivity in working dogs as some breeds (e.g., Border Collies) show increased reactivity to noise. However, Christley et al. (2020) reported a significant increase in all types of reactivity in dogs during the pandemic, except toward family members being excited or noisy, implying that exposure could play a role. To date, insufficient research has investigated how reactivity is developed and maintained or impacts dogs’ health and wellbeing.

There are several ways that reactivity might impact a dog’s physical and psychological health, both directly and indirectly. One direct impact is the clear distress that reactive dogs show in response to stimuli that trigger reactive behaviors. Behaviors such as tensing, vocalizing, lunging, and snapping are commonly reported, suggesting that the dogs are experiencing negative affectivity. It is also likely that these dogs will undergo physiological changes as previous research shows that dogs displaying aggressive behavior have significantly higher plasma concentrations of cortisol than non-aggressive dogs (Rosado et al., 2010). Cortisol also influences the regulation of other functions within the body such as the immune system, inflammation, metabolism, blood sugar, and blood pressure (Thau et al., 2023). For this reason, chronically high cortisol levels are damaging, resulting in increased frequency/severity of skin disorders and shortened lifespan (Dreschel, 2010), implying that reactive dogs may also experience poorer physical health. On the other hand, reactivity might also affect a dog’s wellbeing indirectly, by placing them at increased risk of relinquishment. For example, Kwan and Bain (2013) found that 65% of owners who relinquished their dog reported a behavioral reason, with 48% saying that it was a strong influence on their reason to relinquish. In particular, issues including bites or aggression toward people pose the greatest risk for pet relinquishment (Salman et al., 2000). Behavioral problems are also a common reason for euthanasia (Lambert et al., 2015; Pegram et al., 2021).

In addition to affecting dog welfare, dog reactivity is also likely to impact people’s experience of dog ownership; although, thus far, no research has directly investigated this issue. Building on the findings of Buller and Ballantyne (2020), it is expected that owners of reactive dogs will experience difficulties exercising them, and they will face limitations regarding where they can take them. Support for this comes from the Yellow Dog UK campaign, which aims to promote awareness, by using yellow accessories and signage (e.g., yellow ribbon, lead, or bandana), that some dogs, including reactive dogs, need extra space (Yellow Dog UK, 2023). Reactive-dog owners may also use strategies for coping with behavioral problems related to dog walking, including the avoidance of trigger contexts and the use of specific training methods/aids for treatment of the problem, as found by Westgarth et al. (2021). This has the potential to change the quality of walks for owners of reactive dogs, rendering them more functional and less pleasurable (Westgarth et al., 2021), which might contradict their reason for choosing a dog as a pet. Therefore, it is possible that the reported health benefits of dog walking, such as reduced blood pressure (Anderson et al., 1992) and stress levels (Akiyama & Ohta, 2021), are not applicable to owners of reactive dogs. However, to our knowledge no research has investigated how owning a reactive dog impacts the experience of dog ownership and dog walking. Therefore, the aims of the proposed study were to understand the lived experience of self-identified owners of reactive dogs, to identify key issues and themes that affect their daily lives, and to establish important future research questions.

Methods

Ethics Approval

The study was reviewed and approved for ethical compliance by a Mars Inc. ethical review panel.

Qualitative Survey

A convenience sample of 37 self-identified owners of reactive dogs were recruited to participate in a self-administered online survey. The survey included 14 open-ended questions about owners’ experiences of owning and walking a reactive dog (Table 1), followed by 13 close-ended questions that gathered demographic information about the owner and dog (Table 2). The survey questions were developed following a social-listening study on reactive dogs, which established several key themes (Hart et al., 2023). Participation criteria were that owners believed their dog was reactive and walked them at least once a week. They also needed to be aged over 18 years, reside in the UK, and speak English as a first language. Information about the study and a link to the survey, created in SurveyMonkey®, were uploaded to the Waltham Petcare Science Institute web page (www.waltham.com) and shared via social media posts on researchers’ Facebook and Twitter accounts. The survey went live on 28 October 2022 and was open for a period of two weeks. By clicking on the link, participants were first taken to an information sheet that explained the purpose of the study, what would happen, their right to withdraw, how their anonymous data would be stored, and how to make a complaint. If participants still wished to participate, they clicked “next” and agreed to the consent form. At the end, were provided with a debrief form.

Table 1. Open-ended survey questions about participants’ experience of owning and walking a reactive dog.

Q1. In your own words, can you explain what reactivity is?

Q2. What is your experience of reactivity?

Q3. How is owning a reactive dog different to other non-reactive dogs you have owned or know well?

Q4. What is the biggest challenge of owning a reactive dog?

Q5. What is the best part of owning a reactive dog?

Q6. What situations cause your dog to react?

Q7. What have you learned through owning a reactive dog?

Q8. Please describe how owning a reactive dog makes you feel?

Q9. Tell me about your relationship with your reactive dog.

Q10. How do you feel when walking your reactive dog?

Q11. Tell me about the last walk you did with your reactive dog, what happened?

Q12. Have you used, or are you currently using, any strategies to manage your dog’s reactivity?

Q13. What do you wish others knew about what it’s like to own a reactive dog?

Q14. Are there any products you wish were available to assist you?

Table 2. Close-ended questions gathering demographic information about the owner and dog.

Q15. What is your gender? Male/Female/Non-binary/Prefer not to answer

Q16. How old are you in years?

Q17. Which of these words best describes where you live? Rural/Urban

Q18. What sex is your dog? Male/Female

Q19. Is your dog spayed or neutered? Yes/No

Q20. How old is your dog in years?

Q21. What breed is your dog?

Q22. Where did you get your reactive dog from?

Q23. Did you know your dog was reactive before you got him/her?

Q24. If no, how long after getting your dog did you first notice signs of reactivity?

Q25. Do you think your dog’s reactivity is getting better or worse?

Q26. On a scale of 1-5, how reactive do you think your dog is (where 1 = Not at all reactive and 5 = Extremely reactive)?

Q27. On a scale of 1–5 how challenging do you find your dog’s reactivity (where 1 = Not at all challenging and 5 = Extremely challenging)?

Thematic Analysis

Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to analyze the open-ended free-text survey responses to construct and report common themes, using the six-step process originally developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). During step 1 of data analysis, the lead researcher familiarized themselves with the data by reading the responses to each question several times and noting down initial thoughts (see online supplemental file for reflexivity statements). During step 2, the researcher generated initial codes from the content of the entire dataset. Steps 3–5 involved searching for, reviewing, defining, and naming themes. In step 6, a report was created that represented the final opportunity for analysis and was linked back to the research question. A collaborative additional step (step 7) was also included to deepen the primary coder’s (CJH) reflexive engagement in order to develop a richer understanding/interpretation of the data. To do this, three naive researchers were presented with 10% of participant responses and were asked to generate themes as a group. After discussing these themes, CJH shared the data subset grouped in accordance with their interpretation (steps 1–6) and asked the focus group to name these themes, before sharing what CJH had called them, and explaining them in detail. When discrepancies were identified, the researchers worked collaboratively to develop a deeper understanding by discussing their interpretations, and where necessary, incorporating the insights gained from these discussions into the coding and theme development.

Results

Demographics

Thirty-seven completed survey responses were collected (labeled P1–P37), and 42 additional incomplete submissions (all fields missing) were excluded from data analysis. Of the respondents, 36 identified as female, and one participant selected “prefer not to say.” They had a mean age of 45.69 years, with ages ranging from 20 to 72 years. When defining their living situation, 21 participants said that “rural” best described the location, whilst 16 selected “urban.” When answering questions about their dog, 15 participants stated that their dog was “female” and 22 stated “male.” The mean age of the dogs was 6 years (SD = 3.14). Thirty-four dogs were reported as being neutered or spayed; three dogs were not. Nineteen of the dogs were adopted from rescue shelters, eight were acquired from breeders, eight were acquired from other sources, such as local farms, and failed guide dog and police schemes, and two were unknown due to lack of specificity. Only nine owners reported being aware that their dog was reactive before they acquired them; the remaining 28 were unaware, and it took on average of 7.4 months before their dog exhibited this type of behavior. When asked, “On a scale of 1–5, how reactive do you think your dog is (where 1 = Not at all reactive and 5 = Extremely reactive)?” the average score was 3.65, ranging from 2 to 5. When asked, “On a scale of 1–5 how challenging do you find your dog’s reactivity (where 1 = Not at all challenging and 5 = Extremely challenging)?” the average score was 3.46, ranging from 1 to 5. See Table 3 for full details.

Table 3. Demographic details of the respondents and responses to the other closed-ended questions.

ID	Gender	Age	Rural/urban	Sex of dog	Neutered	Age of dog	Breed of dog	Where dog is from	Prior knowledge of dog’s reactivity	First sign of reactivity after obtaining	Reactivity is getting better or worse	Dog reactivity level (scale of 1–5)^a	How challenging dog reactivity is (scale of 1–5)^b
P1	Female	52	Rural	Female	Yes	5	Mixed breed	Breeder	No	2 years	No change	2	3
P2	Female	52	Rural	Female	Yes	5	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Better	3	3
P3	Female	56	Rural	Female	Yes	8	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	No change	4	4
P4	Female	38	Rural	Female	Yes	9	Mixed breed		Yes	N/A	Better	3	2
P5	Female	45	Rural	Female	No	1	German Shepherd	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	No change	5	5
P6	Female	41	Rural	Female	Yes	4	Mixed breed	Breeder	No	6 months	Better	4	3
P7	Female	72	Rural	Female	Yes	7	Mixed breed		No		Worse	4	5
P8	Female	48	Rural	Female	Yes	3	French Bulldog	Breeder	No	6 months	Better	4	3
P9	Female	26	Rural	Female	Yes	10	Boxer	Breeder	No		Better	2	1
P10	Female	67	Rural	Female	Yes	11	Border Collie		No	2 years	Better	3	3
P11	Female	28	Rural	Female	No	4	Border Collie	Breeder	No	6 months	Better	3	4
P12	Female	36	Rural	Female	Yes	3	Labrador Retriever	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	4	3
P13	Female	28	Rural	Female	Yes	5	Tibetan Spaniel	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Better	4	4
P14	Female	41	Rural	Female	Yes	4	German Shepherd	Rescue/rehomed	No	2 years	No change	5	4
P15	Female	28	Rural	Female	Yes	7	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	3	3
P16	Female	38	Rural	Male	Yes	2	Border Collie	Breeder	No	1 year	Worse	5	5
P17	Female	31	Rural	Male	Yes	9	Whippet	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	No change	5	5
P18	Female	40	Rural	Male	Yes	9	German Shepherd	Rescue/rehomed	No	6 months	No change	3	3
P19	Female	60	Rural	Male	Yes	2	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Better	3	3
P20	Female	50	Rural	Male	Yes	6	German Shepherd	Breeder	No	1 year	Worse	5	5
P21	Female	66	Rural	Male	Yes	3	Pointer (type not specified)	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Better	3	2
P22	Female	79	Urban	Male	Yes	5	Mixed breed		No	6 months	Better	4	5
P23	Female	57	Urban	Male	Yes	3	Dalmatian	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Better	4	3
P24	Female	42	Urban	Male	Yes	12	Lurcher	Rescue/rehomed	No		Better	3	3
P25	Female	42	Urban	Male	Yes	12	German Spitz	Rescue/rehomed	No		No change	2	1
P26	Female	49	Urban	Male	Yes	7	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No	2 years	No change	2	2
P27	Female	68	Urban	Male	Yes	2	Labrador Retriever	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	No change	5	5
P28	Female	68	Urban	Male	Yes	11	Chihuahua	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	4	2
P29	Female	34	Urban	Male	Yes	3	Norfolk Terrier	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	3	3
P30	Female	28	Urban	Male	Yes	3	Beagle	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	No change	4	4
P31	Female	20	Urban	Male	Yes	6	Norfolk Terrier	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	4	4
P32	Female	60	Urban	Male	Yes	7	Terrier (type not specified)	Breeder	No	1 year	Better	3	2
P33	Female	31	Urban	Male	No	11	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	Yes	N/A	Better	4	4
P34	Female	70	Urban	Male	Yes	5	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No	Almost immediately	Worse	4	4
P35	Female	34	Urban	Male	Yes	6	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No		Better	3	3
P36	Female	20	Urban	Male	Yes	3	Mixed breed	Rescue/rehomed	No	1 month	Better	5	5
P37	Prefer not to answer	50s	Urban	Male	Yes	8	American Staffordshire Terrier	Rescue/rehomed	No	1 month	No change	4	5

Notes: ^a1 = Not at all reactive; 5 = Extremely reactive. ^b1 = Not at all challenging; 5 = Extremely challenging.

Owners’ Understanding of Reactivity

To better understand what reactivity means to dog owners, participants were asked to explain what the term meant to them and were encouraged to share their personal experiences of their reactive dogs. Many participants reported their dogs behaving aggressively. Behaviors such as barking, growling, and lunging were frequently reported as reactions toward an external stimulus or “trigger” (e.g., dogs, people, vehicles). Some respondents described a loss of behavioral control in these situations, both in terms of the owner and the dog; however, a few suggested that the behavior was goal orientated and intended to increase the distance between the dog and stimulus. Some respondents also emphasized their dog’s perceived negative mental state, saying that the cause of the behavior was their being fearful, stressed, or frustrated.

Participants were also asked about the situations that caused their dog to display reactivity, to see if there were any similarities or contexts that occurred repeatedly. The most commonly described situation was when their dog saw or heard another dog, particularly if the other dog approached off lead. Behaviors performed by the other dog that increased the likelihood of a reactive response included staring intently at their dog, barking at their dog, or running nearby. Other people were also mentioned; in particular, unfamiliar men with large statures and loud voices or men who were a different ethnicity from the dog’s owner. Some respondents also mentioned their dogs reacting to moving objects (e.g., cars, bikes). Noise in the environment was also highlighted (e.g., loud bangs, noise of the waves, car doors shutting, planes going over, fireworks, knocks on the door). There was a sense that some dogs reacted to unexpected occurrences or objects within their environment in different contexts (e.g., men carrying unusual large objects, high visibility jackets, bags, or bins).

Thematic Analysis

The experience of owning and walking a reactive dog can be described using five major themes: lack of understanding, situational control, learning and progress, guardianship, and emotions felt. During step 7 of data analysis, six major themes were generated by the focus group: lack of understanding, feelings, learning, management, dog–owner relationship, and restrictions. However, following in-depth discussions, it was agreed that five of the themes captured the same insights as those provided by CJH and that the sixth theme was redundant as it was already sufficiently covered by the other themes. As a result of these conversations, CJH renamed one of the themes from “compassion and responsibility” to “guardianship” as it more succinctly described the theme.

Lack of Understanding

This theme reflects the perceived lack of understanding or miscommunication between owners of reactive dogs and other people within their environment, particularly the owners of non-reactive dogs. This lack of understanding was highlighted as problematic by almost all respondents because it caused the other party to behave, or allow their dog to behave, in a manner that potentially exacerbated their dog’s reactive behavior. This was summarized by one respondent, who stated that “ … other dog owners often do not understand the challenges and allow their dogs to act inappropriately” (Q7, P35). One of the suggested causes for this miscommunication was that other owners frequently misinterpret their own, and other people’s, dogs’ behavior, and there was a sense amongst some respondents that this issue was worse for smaller dogs. One respondent stated, “I feel its [sic] very commonly minimized as ‘being yappy’ and not seen as dogs quite clearly trying to say ‘back the f off’” (Q13, P22).

The situation in which others’ lack of understanding was mentioned most frequently was on walks, especially if the other person was walking their dogs off lead. One respondent stated, “Walks are a nightmare with random dogs running up to shouts of ‘it’s ok he/she is friendly’ … ” (Q3, P31). However, other participants suggested that it was not only that other owners did not see their dog’s running over as a problem, but also that they were not effectively able to prevent them. This was demonstrated by another respondent, who said, “ … if other owners were better at recalling their dogs, it would make our life 10 x [sic] easier” (Q3, P36). Other participants went further, suggesting that other owners could help manage their dog’s reactive behavior by increasing the distance between themselves and the reactive dog. “Give space and don't let your off lead dog run at an on lead dog” (Q13, P8).

In order to more effectively convey the message that their dog is reactive and request additional space, some respondents reported using color-coded or written signage on dog equipment or clothing as having their dog on lead was often not viewed as sufficient. This was captured by one respondent, who stated that, “Other dog owners. They really don’t think about why other dogs might be on a lead” (Q4, P31). The most commonly reported signages were yellow/red collar, lead or harness, high visibility coat, bandanna, and lead slip/sash with words such as “nervous” clearly written: “They've got bright yellow sashes on their leads that say ‘nervous’ to try and get other people to keep their dogs away” (Q12, P22). However, there was still a sense that other owners did not understand the meaning of these aids or have awareness of the Yellow Dog UK (2023) campaign.

This sense of misunderstanding also resulted in owners believing that their actions, and the actions of their dogs, were unfairly judged. In particular, owners of reactive dogs said their dogs were often believed to be badly behaved, naughty, unfriendly or dangerous. One respondent stated, “Reactive dogs are not ‘naughty,’ ‘unfriendly’ and often the guardian of a reactive dog is struggling. Give them space and don’t judge” (Q13, P8). For this reason, several owners reported that they worry about other people’s perceptions of them and feel under pressure. One respondent wrote, “I worry about others’ perceptions of me and my dog and how they are treated/ trained (e.g., she’s a nasty dog)” (Q8, P28). Several participants also referenced attempts at explaining the cause of their dog’s behavior: “ … trying to explain to people this all stems from fear and she’s not vicious” (Q4, P11) or wishing that other people could see their behavior in different situations, “ … I wish they could see the other side to him when he’s at home and all cuddly!” (Q13, P19).

Moreover, several respondents reported that this miscommunication had caused a change in their attitude or behavior toward others. One respondent wrote, “I have in retrospect become as reactive as my dog, mainly to people who just I [sic] understand!” (Q3, P12). In particular, a feeling of anger in response to injustice came across: “It’s not hard to put your dog on a lead when you see another dog on lead or are asked to … or it shouldn’t be. I shouldn’t have to argue & justify that request!” (Q9, P15). And with this some derogatory names for other owners: “ … sadly there are so many thoughtless idiots, who just expect everyone to put up with their off lead dogs, regardless of whether they are friendly or otherwise” (Q2, P32). Another respondent referred to these owners as, “The ‘It’s [sic] Ok [sic], my dog is friendly Brigade!’” (Q4, P15). However, a smaller subset mentioned feeling fearful of others: “Afraid of other people (I have been yelled at by various strangers who accuse me of walking a dangerous dog)” (Q10, P9).

Situational Control

This theme encompasses the want and apparent need for owners of reactive dogs to control their environment and ultimately their dog’s behavior. For almost all respondents this took the form of planning, in particular planning walks where they are less likely to come into close proximity to stimuli that trigger a reactive response in their dog. Examples given included avoiding popular dog walking areas, paying to use a secure field, going out for walks early (5am), and avoiding alleys or narrow lanes that do not allow dogs to pass a stimulus with sufficient space. These adjustments to their walks were usually framed as being necessary to support their dog. For example, one respondent wrote about their dog: “we [sic] have to carefully plan and think about who/ what/ where we will encounter and if they will be able to cope with that” (Q3, P28). To maintain control over the environment, many respondents also mentioned the need to be vigilant at all times during the walk, in order to identify potential triggers early, such as other dogs. If an off-lead dog is identified, a number of respondents said that they would ask the owner of an approaching dog to recall their dog or to put them on a lead: “I will shout ahead to ask for off lead dogs to be recalled” (Q12, P15).

Other techniques owners reported using when they encountered triggers that their dogs reacted to, or had the potential to react to, included distraction (with food or toys), crossing the road away from triggers, turning around, or generally actions that served to increase the distance between them and the trigger. Training via positive reinforcement was often reported as an approach to increase control over their dog’s behavior, including employing trained behaviors such as strong recall, emergency turns, “engage-disengage,” incompatible behaviors, and “watch me” and “let’s go” cues. However, many respondents also reported using products aimed at increasing the amount of physical control they have over their dogs, such as a short lead, harness, head collar, or muzzle. Several owners gave examples of occasions when they had been pulled over, resulting in broken bones (wrist and ribs). Some respondents also used medications, supplements, or diffusers designed to reduce their dog’s anxiety, such as fluoxetine, gabapentin, YuCALM®, Zylkene, and Adaptil^TM. A range of other approaches including scent walks, lickimats, or snufflemats were also used with the same aim.

Learning and Progress

Many respondents reported being unaware of their dog’s reactivity prior to their acquisition, or stated that it developed later, and therefore were unequipped to manage it. Often owning and caring for a reactive dog required owners to improve their understanding of dog training, dog behavior, and dog behavioral problems and management – including the Yellow Dog UK (2023) campaign. This information was attained from a variety of sources, including vets, behaviorists, trainers, Facebook groups, and YouTube videos. Some respondents expressed the need for more instructional guides or videos making complex training concepts, such as counter-conditioning, more accessible to people with little prior experience of animal training and behavior. Overall, this learning experience was seen as valuable by most dog owners. However, several participants mentioned a need for better training materials: “Help with strategies to support your dog for people with low experience with complex training” (P27).

From improving their understanding of dog behavior, many respondents said that they had seen progress, either in terms of their dog’s reactivity or in their ability to manage it. This progress was often framed in terms of “wins,” although it was usually acknowledged not to be a linear process. Some respondents emphasized the importance of celebrating small improvements to keep motivated: “The little bits of progress. Celebrating their accomplishments and improvements, no matter how small or big” (Q5, P34). A one-size-fits-all approach was believed to be insufficient, as many of the learnings were individual to their dog and situation dependent. Further highlighting this individuality, several respondents emphasized the importance of working at the dog’s pace: “Work at the dogs [sic] pace and threshold-not what you deem to be right (read the dog and react to the situation)” (Q7, P20). In order to safeguard their dog’s progression, this was sometimes interpreted as needing to advocate for their dog as setting the dog up for success and gaining positive experiences were viewed as paramount. However, it was also accepted that behavioral change would not happen overnight; continual practice and learning were needed to see improvements in their dog’s behavior. This learning process was sometimes expressed in terms of a joint endeavor between the owner and their dog, and this opinion appeared to positively impact their bond – in particular, growth in trust was mentioned. In addition, a couple of respondents said that understanding their reactive dog had also allowed them to relate or better understand either themselves or other people. For example, one respondent wrote, “I can relate to my reactive dog as I say, because I have PTSD myself” (Q8, P32). Another said, “I've learnt more about my autistic son as their needs are parallel” (Q7, P1).

Guardianship

This theme encompasses the feeling of responsibility felt by owners to keep their dog safe from physical and emotional harm, as well as protecting others from their behavior. This sense of responsibility was often linked to the strong bond between dog and owner, but sometimes was in response to a known, or imagined, history of abuse the dog had been subjected to: “Given that she is a rescue dog, the best part has been seeing her confidence and trust in us grow. From a background of being treated very poorly and isolated (locked away) up to 16mnths old” (Q5, P4). The most frequent scenario in which respondents mentioned having a responsibility to protect their dog was when encountering other dogs. Actions taken to protect their dogs included picking their dog up or walking off in a different direction. In addition to their dog’s protection, a smaller subsect of respondents also felt a responsibility to protect others’ dogs from their dog’s behavior: “I am constantly scanning for other dogs as I feel I need to protect them and my own dog from her behaviour” (Q3, P35). Another group that participants reported needing to protect were people. Children were specifically mentioned as a vulnerable group: “I thought about getting rid of him as I have children” (Q3, P1). Dog walkers and delivery people were also mentioned: “ … having to move [sic] letter box outside to protect the postman” (Q3, P26).

Emotions Felt

A range of positive and negative emotions were reported for all respondents in reference to different aspects of owning and walking a reactive dog. Pride was one of the most frequently reported positive emotions, particularly pride regarding their dog’s accomplishments and progress: “I used to feel ashamed when he’s [sic] reacted, but I’m over that now. Now I feel SO proud when we make any progress (no matter how small)” (Q10, P13). Joy and happiness were also reported: “ … the joy of knowing he now is happy and living his best life” (Q5, P10). Strong feelings of love and affection were also mentioned: “best [sic] dog in the world, most affectionate little angel. bond [sic] is amazing. very [sic] obedient and loving” (Q9, P26). However, participants did acknowledge that the positives were limited by their dog’s reactivity more than facilitated: “The feeling of achievement when successfully getting her to meet another dog. Otherwise there is not much positive about owning a reactive dog” (Q5, P5).

More negative emotions were mentioned than positive, with the most common being feeling stressed, anxious, or nervous. One respondent reported, “stressed for almost 3 years & my mental health suffered” (Q8, P12). The main reason given for feeling this way was concern that something could go wrong, particularly whilst on a walk: “Walks are extremely stressful and unpredictable. I dread taking him out” (Q3, P36). It was believed by many respondents to be more stressful to walk a reactive dog than a non-reactive dog: “Owning a reactive dog is stressful, because you cannot relax and forget about everything around you, as you might with a non reactive [sic] dog” (Q8, P32). Several respondents went further still, saying that they felt fearful to walk their dog: “walking [sic] him locally is a no/no for me I just cannot get over my fear … ” (Q4, P12). At the end of the survey when participants were asked if there were any products they wished were available to assist them, some participants exhibited feelings of helplessness: “A magic wand” (P30).

Other people’s responses also created additional stress for owners: “It is extremely stressful walking as my dogs [sic] bark is ear piercing and people stop, stare and glare angrily” (Q2, P17). On the other hand, some respondents said that other people’s actions made them feel angry: “I feel angry that the progress he had made has been scuppered by the thoughtless individual involved as it has been … ” (Q8, P32). Others reported feeling trapped, isolated, and lonely: “Being a prisoner as we can't take him anywhere” (Q4, P1). Some respondents reported feeling sad and like they had failed their dog, whilst others struggled with frustration at their lack of progress. This frustration and other negative emotions sometimes had a detrimental effect on the relationship and bond between the owner and dog, sometimes leaving them feeling conflicted and less bonded than with others, and in one case completely disconnected: “I now barely tolerate him. I hate being left responsible for him. We have tried all the strategies and now I just ignore him” (Q9, P9).

Discussion

The results of the study reveal that self-identified owners of reactive dogs experience a number of challenges, particularly related to walking their dog, which have not been explicitly captured before. One of the biggest challenges identified by almost all participants was a lack of understanding from people who do not own a reactive dog. A lack of understanding from family, friends, and neighbors was also identified in a study of families with children with developmental disabilities and behavioral problems (Jones & Passey, 2004). In the current study, members of the public were highlighted as being most problematic, in particular other dog owners who walk their dog off lead because the dog’s actions (e.g., running close by) often triggered a reactive response. Previous research also found fear of encountering off-lead or uncontrolled dogs as a barrier to dog walking (Cutt et al., 2008). Some respondents believed that the owners of these dogs did not realize the impact of their dog’s behavior, as captured by claims that the dog is friendly, which implies that the other dog may want to interact. This belief is supported by previous studies which suggest that people, even experienced dog owners, are particularly poor at identifying aggressive behavior in dogs (Epperlein et al., 2022; Tami & Gallagher, 2009). On the other hand, other participants thought that the owners were unable to effectively recall their dog, but this belief is not supported by previous research as there are currently no data regarding the long-term maintenance of the basic training that many pet dogs receive (Hiby et al., 2004).

Some owners attempted to bridge the communication gap via the use of signage, such as a lead slip or by calling ahead to request the other owner recall their dog and put them on a lead. The latter approach was considered to be more effective than the former because signals like a yellow lead or bandana were not thought to be commonly understood, and the writing on such items is too small to be read from a distance. This suggests that further awareness of campaigns such as Yellow Dog UK (2023) is required, particularly amongst people whose dogs do not require additional space, and it also highlights a need for products which do not rely on writing to communicate their meaning. However, there was a sense that asking people to recall their dogs was socially uncomfortable, suggesting that owners felt some social norms had been transgressed, which is known to be associated with feelings of guilt and shame (Van Kleef et al., 2015).

Many respondents also reported feeling unfairly judged by others, who they believed thought that they were bad dog owners or that their dogs were dangerous. However, this is not supported by research that found that online mentions of reactive dogs were more likely to be positive in sentiment than negative (Hart et al., 2023). Several interpretations of these findings are possible, including that owners of reactive dogs are unable to objectively evaluate their dog’s behavior, although previous research found that the dog–owner relationship does not impact owners’ ability to interpret their dog’s emotional reactions (Somppi et al., 2022). Alternatively, participants may have underestimated the other person’s opinion of them – known as the liking gap (Mastroianni et al., 2021). Another explanation is that the online sentiment reported by Hart et al. (2023) captured dog-directed sentiment that may be different from owner-directed sentiment: a previous study found that when viewing dog-bite videos, overall, more blame was placed on the owners than the dogs (Owczarczak-Garstecka et al., 2018). Finally, the online sentiment of “reactive dogs” mentions may have been skewed by people who own them; therefore, they are not representative of the general population.

Support for a more negative view of reactive dogs also comes from the current study: several respondents reported having altercations with members of the public. This brings a new perspective to the view of dogs as social lubricants (Wells, 2004): implying that in certain situations dogs can introduce a degree of social friction. Other situations in which dogs have been found to bring people into conflict include dog fouling (Wells, 2006), barking (Flint et al., 2014), presence at playgrounds (Wilson, 2014), and wildlife disturbance (Lord et al., 2001).

This uncertainty regarding what owners might encounter on walks, and how their dogs could react, was given as the main reason that participants reported feeling stressed or anxious – which were the most frequently reported emotions throughout the survey. Again, this is contrary to the widely held view that dog walking is enjoyable and relaxing (Potter & Sartore-Baldwin, 2019), lowers cortisol (Krause-Parello et al., 2020), and increases oxytocin (Powell et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2020). Further research is needed to understand the health implications of owning a reactive dog, or other dogs which exhibit problematic behaviors, because chronic stress and anxiety increase the risk of mental and physical health problems, such as depression and hypertension (Shankar & Park, 2016): one respondent acknowledged that their mental health had been negatively impacted owing to stress. Several participants also mentioned more direct physical injuries they had sustained whilst walking their reactive dog, including a broken wrist and ribs. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, respondents reported using a range of strategies, such as maintaining vigilance on walks in order to identify potential triggers early and allow time for evasive action, distraction, or the performance of trained behaviors. This is likely to make walks more functional and less recreational and, therefore, enjoyable, as described by Westgarth et al. (2021).

Another strategy was walking in isolated places, at antisocial times, or hiring a private field, which conflicts with the idea that dogs reduce social isolation and loneliness (Kretzler et al., 2022). Social isolation and loneliness were also reported inside the house, with several respondents saying that they felt trapped because they were unable to have visitors over as people (especially men), knocks on the door, and cars were all identified as common triggers. This finding is supported by Buller and Ballantyne (2020), who also found evidence of social isolation in owners caring for dogs with behavioral problems as owners avoided having visitors to the house and leaving the house themselves. This is especially concerning as loneliness has been reported to be at “epidemic” levels, which worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic (Demarinis, 2020), and as harmful to a person’s health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Our finding that certain types of dog ownership can also increase social isolation is particularly important as it is becoming increasingly common for vulnerable populations, such as older adults, to be recommended a pet for companionship (Stanley et al., 2014). Further research is needed to fully understand the situations in which the opposite might be achieved. This issue was touched on by Westgarth et al. (2014), who raised ethical concerns that although dog walking provides owners with increased physical activity, this need should be matched with the needs of the dog.

Other strategies used to increase owners’ control over their dog’s behavior included specific types of harnesses as well as the services of behaviorists and trainers, revealing a previously unknown additional monetary cost of owning a reactive dog, as well as the significant time investment associated with ongoing training. This finding is also in line with Buller and Ballantyne (2020), who reported financial and time costs associated with caring for dogs with behavioral problems. In the current study, the only training method mentioned was positive reinforcement, although some respondents stated that they had used a variety of methods in the past.

Limitations

The training methods reported are unlikely to be representative of the dog-owning population, owing to a selection/response bias, with the same individuals motivated to complete the survey also being motivated to keep up to date on best practice for dog training. Hiby et al. (2004) found that 66% of owners reported using vocal punishment and 12% used physical punishment, compared with 60% who used vocal rewards, 51% who used food rewards, and 11% who used play rewards. However, a one-size-fits-all approach was thought to be inadequate, and respondents emphasized tailoring the approach to the dog and situation. Other limitations of the current study are that only self-identified owners of reactive dogs were recruited, meaning that the experiences of owners whose dogs display the same behaviors but do not identify as owning a reactive dog were not captured. Also, no information about owners’ previous experience with dogs or dog training were collected. This is important because the improved understanding of dog behavior and training was viewed as valuable by the majority of participants and was one of the few positives of owning a reactive dog.

Seeing improvement in their dog’s behavior resulting from their training and management was seen as an important motivational factor to dog owners. Several highlighted the importance of celebrating improvements, even small positive changes, and many owners reported feeling very proud of their dog’s accomplishments. This progress was frequently viewed as the product of a joint effort that strengthened the dog–owner relationship. This is supported by previous research that suggests that dogs trained using positive reinforcement are more strongly attached to their owner (de Castro et al., 2019). Alternatively, other research shows that fearful or aggressive reactions to social stimuli are predictive of a closer perceived emotional bond by owners (Meyer & Forkman, 2014). A suggested explanation for this is that fearful dogs initiate contact with their owners more often (Wedl et al., 2010). Moreover, a recent study showed that understanding a dog’s “dislikes” as well as their “likes” contributed toward the human–dog bond (Samet et al., 2022).

Conclusions

Overall, it is clear that owners of reactive dogs experience unique challenges, particularly related to walking their dogs, which can negatively impact their experience of dog ownership. For this reason, more research is needed to understand whether the same physical and psychological benefits of dog ownership are valid for owners of reactive dogs. Future research should also endeavor to evaluate the welfare of reactive dogs. For example, it is currently unknown if reactive dogs experience increased stress, particularly during walks. It also remains unclear whether they receive the same amount of exercise or visit a veterinarian as frequently as their non-reactive counterparts. It is our hope that by facilitating the direction of future research into reactive dogs, as well as disseminating the findings of the current study widely, some of the challenges associated with owning and walking a reactive dog can be alleviated – improving the lives of reactive dogs and their owners.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, CJH; methodology, CJH and TK; analysis, CJH and TK; original manuscript preparation, CJH; manuscript review and editing, CJH and TK. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Carri Westgarth for her considered feedback on the project proposal, Dr James Serpell for his review of the ethical considerations, Dr Zack Ellerby for his statistical advice, and Dr Hannah Flint and Steph McKay for their support with the analysis.

Disclosure Statement

The authors are both employed by Mars Petcare, manufacturer of pet food and provider of veterinary services.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Waltham Petcare Science Institute, Waltham on the Wolds, Leicestershire, UK.