R

EoCF

a

Mb

N

IAsola

U

1d

Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2007) 2, 119-125

ESEARCH

xperimental evaluation of attachment behaviors inwned catslaudia Edwards, DVM, MSc,a,b Moisés Heiblum, DVM,a,b Alberto Tejeda, DVM, MSc,a

rancisco Galindo, DVM, PhDa

Department of Ethology and Wildlife, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,éxico D.F., México; and the

Department of Medicine, Surgery and Husbandry for Small Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad

acional Autónoma de México, México D.F., México.

Abstract Attachment, a normal behavior among social animals, is quite significant since owners worryabout their pets and take care of them because of this affective connection. There are not enoughresearch studies that focus on attachment between owners and their cats. The general objective of thisstudy was to identify attachment behaviors, directed toward their owners, in cats of different bodytypes, age groups, and sexes in an experimental situation.

Twenty-eight cats, ranging from 1 to 7 years of age and having different body types, were used inthe study without taking into account sex or reproductive status. These cats underwent an Ainsworth’sAdapted Strange Situation Test. Event frequencies and behavioral state durations in individual typebehaviors such as exploration/locomotion, alertness, and inactivity were registered using direct focalsampling. For data analysis, cats were divided by body type, sex, and reproductive status. Analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) of locomotion/exploration revealed a statistically significant difference (N � 28, F� 13.55, P � 0.001) between the episodes with the owner, alone, and with a stranger with cats spendingmore time engaged in locomotion/exploration while accompanied by their owner. On the alert behaviorevent frequency, difference (ANOVA, F � 7.44, P � 0.05) was found, which showed a higherfrequency while in the company of a stranger. Last, in the inactivity time ratio, a significant differencewas found (ANOVA, F � 18.55, P � 0.001), where the time spent on this behavior was considerablyhigher when the animal was alone.

These results are consistent with the ones obtained by Ainsworth in children attached to theirmothers; therefore, it can be said that cats can manifest attachment behaviors toward their owners.Further studies are indicated to see whether cats can develop separation anxiety.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:attachment behavior;owned cats;Ainsworth StrangeSituation Test

fadoc1

ts

ntroductionttachment is a normal behavior that is necessary for the

urvival of all species of mammals; in this behavior, theffspring stay close to the mother during the first stages ofife. The activities that characterize attachment behaviorccording to Bowlby (1958) are associated with 2 main

Address reprint requests and correspondence: Claudia Edwards, DVM,niversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. 04510.

cE-mail: moisesheiblum@yahoo.com

558-7878/$ -see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.jveb.2007.06.004

unctions. The first is to maintain proximity to anothernimal and to restore said proximity when it has beenisrupted, to obtain protection and body warmth. The sec-nd function is related to the mother, who seeks to staylose to her young so as to ensure its survival (Bowlby,958).

A young animal may also seek proximity to an animalhat is not its mother or to an inanimate object, but in mostocial species, offspring and mother stay together. Such

loseness is facilitated by vocalizations from the offspring

wh

siacd1r1(

bitss(satascm(atrtusbbi

M

L

avioaoflaAw

iGa

sao(

ooiydA

daowtBvam

E

1a

120 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 4, July/August 2007

hich attract the mother so that she finds and approacheser young (Bowlby, 1958; Harlow and Harlow, 1965).

A condition related to attachment behaviors, known aseparation anxiety, has been described in human beings andn dogs. Dogs affected by separation anxiety suffer fromnxiety episodes, and even short absences of their ownersan result in urination, defecation, vocalizations, and objectestruction (Manteca, 1996; Overall, 1997; Pageat et al.,999). This is one of the most common behavior problemseported in pet dogs (Voith and Ganster, 1993; King et al.,999). This also seems to be true for dogs in MexicoEdwards et al., 2002; Heiblum et al., 2005).

Given the fact that, until recently, little attention hadeen paid to the extent to which domestic cats are social, thessues of attachment and separation anxiety remain rela-ively unexplored in this species. It is known that cats areocial animals and the extent to which this characteristic iseen depends on the resources available in the environmentFogle, 1995; Crowell-Davis et al., 1997). There is nowome evidence that cats may also suffer from separationnxiety (Schwartz, 2001, 2002). It has become more impor-ant to understand feline social behavior problems associ-ted with separation anxiety since pet cat populations ineveral countries are increasing. For instance, the estimatedat population in the United States ranges from 23 to 61illion, with a population of 1 cat per 3.2 family units

Beaver, 2003). Since there is little information regardingttachment behaviors in cats, it is very likely that, similarlyo what happens in dogs, there are large numbers of sepa-ation anxiety cases that are not properly diagnosed. Givenhe importance of generating more information that could beseful to better understand separation anxiety in cats, thistudy was carried out to experimentally identify attachmentehaviors. These attachment behaviors could be used as aasis for future studies of the incidence of separation anx-ety in domestic cats.

aterials and methods

ocation and subjects

This study was carried out in the Department of Ethologynd Wildlife of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Uni-ersidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) in Mex-co City. A 3 meter by 2 meter room containing 2 chairs,ne for the owner and another for the stranger, was used asn observation room. There were 2 cat toys in this room:ne was a commercial toy (a jumping ladybug) fixed to theoor opposite the door, and the other consisted of a stringttached to a ball meant for the subjects to play with the cat.

one-way mirror located on the upper left side of the roomas used for observations.The cat owners were recruited by placing advertisements

n veterinary clinics, in the Cat Show of the Asociaciónatófila Mexicana (Mexican Cat Fanciers’ Association),

nd the Asociación Mexicana de Gatos (Mexican Cat As- m

ociation). The cats included in the study were between 1nd 7 years of age; this age range was chosen to mirror thatf the only other study reporting on aspects of attachmentSchwartz, 2002).

Three pilot situations were used with different cats tobtain the list of behaviors to be measured (Table 1). A totalf 28 owner-cat pairs were recruited for the study, whichncluded cats of different body types ranging from 1 to 7ears of age, without taking into account their sex or repro-uctive status. These owner-cat pairs were subjected to theinsworth’s Adapted Strange Situation Test.For data analysis, cats were divided by sex and repro-

uctive status, and into 3 recognized body types (Paragonnd Vaissaire, 2000): muscular, cobby or Persian-type, andriental or Siamese-type (Table 2). In this study, all cobbiesere Persians, all Orientals were Siamese, and the muscular

ype included Domestic Europeans and one Maine Coon.ehavioral event frequencies and duration of states of indi-idual behaviors (i.e., exploration/locomotion, alertness,nd inactivity) (Table 3) were recorded and measured byeans of focal sampling.

xperimental design

The Ainsworth Strange Situation Test (Ainsworth et al.,978) was adapted for use in cats. The procedure began with30-second introductory event, and consisted of 7 experi-

Table 1 List of behaviors measured

Individual Behaviors● Locomotion/Exploration: Searching and active

investigation of new situations in absence of an urgentnecessity, including movement from one place to another(Immelmann and Beer, 1989). Activity can be directed toobjects or people present. Olfactory or oral inspection wasconsidered exploration as well.

● Vigilance: State of alertness, of being prepared toperceive events that could pose a danger to the animalitself or its companion (Immelmann and Beer, 1989). Thisstate was referred to if the cat was standing, sitting orlying down and making ear movements. Body posture andlooking in a specific direction were considered as a part ofthis state.

● Inactivity: Standing, sitting or lying down without makingany movements.

● Approaching a door: This behavior included approximatingthe door, touching it, lying down or staying still in thevicinity of the door.

Interactive behaviors● Physical contact with owner.● Physical contact with stranger.● Marking: rubbing face or body against an object or

person.● Vocalizations.● Play: Hunt-like postures which could be directed to people

or toys.

ental events of 3 minutes each, for a total duration of 21

mret

sw

wnett

A

sr

ias

sstlPc

sttttma

rfdc2

a

121Edwards et al Attachment in cats

inutes. Instructions were given to both owner and strangeregarding the sequence and duration of the aforementionedvents, as in Topál’s (1998) and Parthasarathy’s (2000)ests. The stranger was always the same individual.

The owners were not informed of the real purpose of thetudy; they were told instead that the purpose of the studyas to determine the cat’s behavior in a strange situation.The observation room, toys, and chairs were cleaned

ith water and soap and then with an enzymatic odoreutralizer (Four Paws, Hauppauge, NY) before and afterach experimental situation. The observation of cats alwaysook place on different days. Never were 2 cats observed onhe same day.

dapted ainsworth test

Introductory Event (30 seconds approximately): the ob-erver introduces the owner and the cat to the experimentaloom and leaves them there.

Event 1 (3 minutes): Owner and Cat. The owner does notnteract with the cat while the cat explores. At 1.5 minutes,

signal (a knock on the door) is given to the owner totimulate play.

Table 2 Number of animals belonging to the three different b

Body Type Number of In

Cobby 21.4(all were Persians)Oriental 21.4(all were Siamese)Muscular 57.1(Domestic European and one Maine Coon)

N � 28; M � Male; F � Female.

Table 3 List of behaviors observed during the different phasestranger; means and standard deviation

Behavior Owner

Locomotion/exploration (%) 19 � 11Alertness (events/min) 1.67 � 1.Inactivity (%) 9 � 18Proportion of time in physical contact (%) 32 � 19Vocalizations (events/min) 0.66 � 1.Remaining near the door (%) 3 � 4a

Approximating the door (events/min) 0.30 � 0.Physical contact frequency (events/min) 1.83 � 1.Physical contact latency (seg) 22.48 � 18Following the owner (events/min) 0.40 � 0.Marking (events/min) 0.41 � 0.Play (events/min) 0.07 � 0.

*No data obtainedaDifferent letters on the same line indicate a difference in the meanbDifferent letters on the same line indicate a difference in the meanc

Different letters on the same line indicate a difference in the means (P�0

Event 2 (3 minutes): Stranger, Owner, and Cat. Atranger comes in, takes a seat, and after 30 seconds shetarts a conversation with the owner. At the 2-minute mark,he stranger attempts to play with the cat, and the ownereaves without interrupting, distracting, or saying goodbye.lay can occur by touching the cat or using a toy, only if theat allows it.

Event 3 (3 minutes): Stranger and Cat. This is the firsteparation episode. The stranger’s behavior is focused onhe cat. During the first minute, the stranger tries to attracthe cat’s attention and to get it to move away from the doorhrough playing. If the cat is not ready to play, the strangerries to attract its attention by means of petting. At the 2inute mark, the stranger stops playing, but contact is

llowed as long as the cat seeks it.Event 4 (3 minutes): Owner and Cat. This is the first

eunion episode. The owner approaches the closed doorrom the outside and calls the cat. Then the owner opens theoor and waits for the cat to respond. The owner rewards theat by petting it. In the meantime, the stranger leaves. Afterminutes, the owner leaves as well.Event 5 (3 minutes): Cat alone. This is the second sep-

ration episode.

pes, sex and reproductive condition

als (%) Sex Intact (%) Neutered (%)

M 33.3 50F 16.7 0M 33.3 16.7F 16.7 33.3M 0 62.5F 6.3 31.3

e experiment: cat with owner, cat alone and cat with

Alone Stranger (P)

07 � 8b 13 � 14c 0.0013.75 � 3.99b 1.80 � 1.04c 0.05

27 � 30b 23 � 28c 0.05* 04 � 45b 0.0015.38 � 7.03b 1.00 � 2.36a 0.001

10 � 17b 22 � 59b 0.051.62 � 3.76b 0.83 � 1.50c 0.001* 0.54 � 0.09b 0.001* 52.84 � 1.19b 0.001* * 0.0010.02 � 0.09b 0.14 � 0.44c 0.001* * 0.001

.05) Friedman (ANOVA) and Wilcoxon.

.05) Friedman (ANOVA) and Wilcoxon.

ody ty

dividu

s of th

a

42a

a

a

53a

41a

31a

.71a

4988a

17

s (P�0s (P�0

.05) Friedman (ANOVA) and Wilcoxon.

otgs2a

rcbsc

P

teiui

mot(o3

cu

S

dcwcbs3ll

R

Be

ba

twrwIew�teste2

pTe�wtvpmwcs

aswo

t4

Bd(

plgTw0Wttm23

122 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 4, July/August 2007

Event 6 (3 minutes): Cat and stranger. This is a follow-upf the second separation episode. During the first minute,he stranger tries to attract the cat’s attention through play toet it away from the door. If the cat is not ready to play, thetranger tries to get its attention through petting. At the-minute mark, the stranger stops playing, but contact isllowed if the cat seeks it.

Event 7 (3 minutes): Owner and Cat. This is the secondeunion episode. The stranger’s behavior is focused on theat. The owner opens the door and pauses for a momentefore rewarding the cat, giving it an opportunity to respondpontaneously. The owner does not initiate contact with theat, but allows contact if the cat seeks it.

rocedure for obtaining data

Focal sampling was employed to obtain information onhe sequence of behaviors, on the frequency of behavioralvents, and on the proportion of time spent on each behav-oral state (Martin and Bateson, 1986). Data was recordedsing “Registro Conductual Computarizado” (Computer-zed Behavioral Registry) software (Torres et al., 1992).

Episodes/events were used to assess attachment. Attach-ent to owners was assessed using events 4 and 7. To

btain the corresponding information about the behavior ofhe cat with the owner (episodes 4 and 7), with the stranger6), and when alone (5), the study evaluated 6 minutes ofbservation with the owner, 3 minutes with the stranger, andminutes alone, for a total analysis of 12 minutes per cat.Each session was evaluated using several behavioral

ategories, which were divided into interactive and individ-al behaviors (Table 1).

tatistical analysis

Nonparametric statistical tests were used to analyze theata obtained in this study. Friedman’s test was used toompare behavioral categories between episodes when catsere with their owner, alone, and with a stranger. Wil-

oxon’s test was used to compare behavioral categoriesetween 2 episodes (owner-stranger, owner-alone, andtranger-alone). Different behavioral categories between thebody-type groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wal-

is test. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare unre-ated groups such as gender.

esults

ehavior comparisons for individuals during thexperimental episodes

Significant differences were found when comparing cats’ehavioral states when they were with their owners, when

lone, and when they were with a stranger. When looking at r

he proportion of time spent in different behavioral states, itas revealed that cats spent more time in locomotion/explo-

ation while in the company of their owner than while alone orith the stranger (Friedman, F � 13.55, P � 0.001; Table 3).

n addition, the proportion of inactivity time differed betweenpisodes. Cats were inactive longer when left alone than whenith the stranger or with their owners (Friedman, F � 6.14, P 0.05; Table 3). Furthermore, when comparing the propor-

ion of time spent interacting with a person between the 2pisodes in which a person was in the room with the cat, it waseen that cats spent a significantly longer time in contact withheir owners than with the stranger (Table 3, 0.32 � 0.19vents/minute and 0.04 � 0.45 events/minute, Wilcoxon, z �.02, P � 0.001).

Some statistical differences were also found when com-aring the frequency of behavioral events between episodes.he frequency of vigilant events was different betweenpisodes, as cats showed 5.00 � 4.26 events/minute, 11.25

11.95 events/minute, and 5.40 � 3.10 events/minutehen with their owner, alone, and with the stranger, respec-

ively (Friedman, F � 7.44, P � 0.05). In addition, catsocalized more when left alone than when they were with aerson in the room, either their owner or the stranger (Fried-an, F � 23.4, p � 0.001; Table 3). Facial marking eventsere also different between episodes, being greater when

ats were with their owners than when alone or with atranger (Friedman, F � 23.14, P � 0.001; Table 3).

When doing paired comparisons between episodes, andditional difference was found in the proportion of timepent near the door, which was much greater when the catsere with a stranger (0.22�0.59) than when with theirwners (0.03 � 0.04) (Wilcoxon, z � 2.06, P � 0.05).

Cats showed play behaviors only when they were withheir owners (0.21 � 0.52 events/minute, Wilcoxon, z �.5, P � 0.001).

ehavior comparisons between groups ofifferent body type, sex, and reproductive statusintact or neutered animals)

Some differences were found when doing behavior com-arison between body types. The proportion of time spent inocomotion/exploration was higher in the “cobby” typeroup of cats than in the “oriental” and “muscular” types.he time spent in locomotion for the 3 groups when the catas alone were: cobby 0.14 � 0.10 seconds; oriental 0.08 �.12 seconds, and muscular 0.06 � 0.05 seconds (Kruskal-allis, H � 6.34, N � 3, P � 0.04). It was also seen that

he frequency of vocalization was greater in the orientalype than in the other 2 groups (cobby, 3.28 � 0.10 events/inute; oriental 11.55 � 0.12 events/minute, and muscle

.55 � 0.05 events/minute; Kruskall-Wallis, H � 6.01, N �, p � 0.04). No significant differences were found in

eproductive condition or sex comparisons.

D

Otsetamts

awscfae(1aPscTiiw

waiatm

pftbis(ssa(wOt(ib1dl

Ksbofittkmspr

asrsiAwrcttw

aitiwmssawdaoeijwotr

bmcesmpa

123Edwards et al Attachment in cats

iscussion

utstanding differences were obtained in the proportion ofime spent in locomotion/exploration in the owner-alone-tranger episodes. Cats spent more time in locomotion/xploration when with the owner than when alone or withhe stranger. Locomotion in the presence of the owner is anttachment indicator. Locomotive behavior is used by hu-an infants to approach their favorite figure in following

his figure when it leaves, greeting it on its return, or simplyeeking to be near it (Bowlby, 1969).

Exploration and play also indicate that the cat has formedn attachment, because it uses its owner as a safe base fromhich to explore, just as it happens in human beings (Ain-

worth, 1978) and primates, where the mother or primaryaretaker provides a “safe base” (Harlow and Harlow, 1965)rom which the infant learns to explore his world andcquires security and stability in his relationships with oth-rs; similar ideas have been expressed regarding dogsScott, 1962; Borchelt and Voith, 1982; Voith and Borchelt,985; McGrave, 1991). The results obtained in this studyre compatible with the ones found by Topál (1998) andarthasarathy (2000), where dogs tended to play more andpend more time exploring in the presence of the owner,ompared to when they were in the presence of a stranger.his pattern could explain the difference in behaviors when

n the presence of the owner in comparison to when the cats alone or with a stranger, as cats tend to become immobilehen stressed (Carlstead et al., 1992).The amount of inactive time was lower when the cat was

ith the owner and higher when the cat was alone or withstranger. With regard to locomotion/exploration, this find-

ng reinforces that inactivity is compatible with states ofnxiety. Hemsworth and Barnett’s study (2000) associatedhis behavior with high levels of cortisol. Such behaviorsay be considered a state of “freezing.”Freezing is one way in which fear and anxiety are ex-

ressed in cats and dogs (Overall, 1997). Topál et al. (1998)ound no differences with dogs in passive behavior whenhe presence of owner and stranger were compared. It haseen said that there is a decrease in exploration and anncrease in hiding which correlates with physiological mea-urements of stress in studies on large felines in captivityKonrad and Bagshaw, 1970; Carlstead et al., 1992; Carl-tead et al., 1993a; Carlstead et al., 1993b). Behavioraltudies in domestic cats have revealed a reduction in generalctivity (such as walking or running), exploration behaviorsmelling or rubbing), and grooming, which are correlatedith high levels of serum cortisol (Rochiltz et al., 1995).ther studies on domestic and nondomestic felines indicate

hat hiding and low levels of activity are indicators of stressMcCune, 1992; Kessler and Turner, 1997). In human be-ngs and other animals, an increase in the need to sleep cane a sign of biological or physiological stress (Rampin et al.,991; Rushen, 2000). Other studies in domestic and non-omestic cats mention that behavioral apathy, hiding, and

ow levels of activity are stress indicators (McCune, 1992; s

essler and Turner, 1997; Kessler and Turner, 1999). Ob-ervation of zoo animals has also revealed a relationshipetween sleeping and hiding (inactivity) with a higher levelf cortisol in feces (Wielebnowski et al., 2002). Thesendings suggest that when compared to dogs, it is less likely

hat cats suffering from separation anxiety will be destruc-ive or exhibit inappropriate elimination behavior. It is wellnown that cats are easily stressed; changing an object oroving furniture in the house can trigger an anxiety re-

ponse in cats. The cats’ response to this situation wasreviously interpreted as territorial, rather than as a socialesponse (Konrad and Bagshaw, 1970).

In this adaptation of the Strange Situation Test, it wasnticipated that cats would be in a state of stress given theimple fact that they were taken to a strange place. Thiseaction is true even for dogs, which showed increasedympathetic activity in the hypothalamic–adrenal axis whenntroduced to a new environment (Beerda et al., 1997).ccordingly, it was hypothesized that if the cats’ responsesere a result of a change in territory and not attachment

elated, they would not move at all, except to hide in aorner; but if they used their owners as a safe base, thenheir behaviors would support the attachment theory, and ifhey sought any person to find security, then their behaviorsould be associated with seeking refuge.In the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test (Ainsworth, et

l., 1978) vocalization (crying) is considered an attachmentndicator. In this study, vocalizations (meows) were regis-ered which could be equivalent to human youngsters cry-ng. There is evidence within psychobiological literaturehich indicates that stress responses associated to attach-ent are mediated in the brain by the opioid system (Pank-

epp et al., 1997). Pharmacological research with primateshows that an opioid antagonist such as naloxone producesn increase in the rate of separation-related vocalizations,hereas an opioid agonist such as morphine produces aecrease in such vocalizations (Wiener et al., 1997). Therere other studies conducted in guinea pigs which show thatffspring vocalize during separation from the mother (Archt al., 2000). These studies indicate that cat vocalizationsncrease during isolation owing to the stress of being alone,ust as human youngsters cry when in the same situation. Itas also observed that cats vocalized more while with thewner compared to when with the stranger. These vocaliza-ions could be related to a certain type of calling behaviorather than related to stress.

Clark (1992) and Case (2003) mention that facial andody marking are friendly behaviors that make the cat feelore comfortable with the owner. However, the opposite

ould also be true: that the cat is already comfortable andxhibits these behaviors as a consequence of that emotionaltate. Either way, marking can be considered a specialeans of communication, in which the cat deposits facial

heromones that help him differentiate between familiarnd unfamiliar objects or persons and serves as a mood

tabilizer as well, and where the main goal is to mark the

psscbtiww

ctTPt

fcfwstpo

Bc

emctac1omaicfib(rsb

tebmm

ca

cssfaigm

etWE12

A

●

●

●

●

R

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

124 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 4, July/August 2007

erson as part of the group (Pageat and Gaultier, 2003). Thistudy found that owners were marked more often thantrangers because they were recognized by their cats. In thisase, the marking of strangers by cats could have occurredecause in this adaptation of the Ainsworth Strange Situa-ion Test, cats got to spend a few minutes with the strangern the company of their owners before they were left aloneith her, and the cats might have begun getting acquaintedith the stranger during that time.Regarding the proportion of time spent near the door,

ats spent more time near the door while in the presence ofhe stranger compared to when they were with the owner.his finding is consistent with studies by Topa l (1998) andarthasarathy (2000), in which dogs spent more time near

he door when the owner was away.In the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test (1978), the in-

ant response when the mother comes in and goes out isonsidered an attachment indicator. Such responses includeollowing the mother when she leaves and greeting herhen she comes back in, reaching for her, bending over her,

miling, vocalizing, and laughing. In this study, the ownerakes the mother’s place. The cats followed the owner, madehysical contact, and jumped onto the owner’s lap when thewner was seated.

ody type, sex and reproductive conditionomparisons

In comparisons of behavioral categories between differ-nt body types, the cobby group spent more time in loco-otion compared to other body types, an interesting dis-

overy because literature reports that Persian cats belongingo the cobby group are most indifferent to the environmentnd not very active in comparison to the oriental and mus-ular types, which are more active (Schneck and Caravan,991; Clark, 1992; Case, 2003). On the other hand, resultsf a study by Schwartz (2002) indicate that Persian cats areore likely to suffer from separation anxiety. There is

nother interesting finding regarding a significant differencen the vocalization frequency between body types. Orientalats vocalize more in comparison to other groups. Thesendings correspond with other studies saying that orientalreeds, particularly Siamese cats, are more vocal than othersSchneck and Caravan, 1991; Case, 2003). Unlike theseesults, the ones obtained in the study by Topal (1998)howed that there was no significant difference between dogreeds.

When behavior categories were compared between neu-ered versus intact cats, there were no significant differ-nces. There was no difference found in the attachmentond, therefore it can be deduced that reproductive hor-ones have nothing to do with the creation of the attach-ent bond between cat and owner.The data gathered through this study demonstrate that the

ats’ behaviors in this experiment meet the criteria enumer-

ted for attachment to owners. These results indicate that

ats exhibit attachment behaviors to their owners and thushould be able to experience separation anxiety. These re-ults, along with results of previous studies regarding stress-ul situations in felines (Carlstead et al, 1993a; Carlstead etl, 1993b; Kessler, 1997; Rushen, 2000; Pageat, 2003),ndicate that cats are more likely to show a reduction ineneral activity, with increased hiding or sleeping as theajor signs of stress or anxiety.These findings indicate that in cases of separation anxi-

ty in cats, the main signs may not be as easy to observe andhe cat remains undiagnosed (Bowlby, 1973; Monaghan and

ood-Gush, 1990; Martin and Bateson, 1991; Voith, 1991;dney, 1993; Blunt and Goodnow, 1997; Hart and Eckstein,997; Kalin et al., 1997; Turner et al., 1998; King et al.,000; Heiblum et al., 2005).

cknowledgments

The authors wish to thank:

Purina Pro Plan - Mexico.Melissa Castillo Vázquez (Translation),Valeria Aguilar Sánchez (Translation),All the cats and their owners that participated in thisstudy.

eferences

insworth, M.D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., Wall, S., 1978. Patterns ofAttachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ.

rch-Tirado, E., McCowan, B., Saltijeral-Oaxaca, J., Zarco de Coronado,I., Licona-Bonilla, J., 2000. Development of isolation-induced vocalbehavior in normal-hearing and deafened guinea pig infants. J. SpeechLang. Hearing Res. 43, 1-8.

eaver, B.V., 2003. Feline Behavior: a Guide for Veterinarians. (2nd ed.).Elsevier Science, St. Louis, MO.

eerda, B., Schilder, M., Van, Of J., De Vries, H., 1997. Manifestations ofchronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 52, 307-319.

lunt, B.D., Goodnow, J.J., 1997. Socialization processes. In: Damon, W.(Ed). Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons,Inc., New York.

orchelt, P., Voith, V.L., 1982. Classification of animal behavior prob-lems. Vet. Clin. North Am. Sm. Anim. Pract. 12, 571-585.

owlby, J., 1958. El vínculo afectivo. (1era. reimpresión.). Ed. Paidós,España.

owlby, J., 1969. Loss, Sadness and Depression. Basic Books Inc., NewYork.

owlby, J., 1973. Separation Anxiety and Anger. Basic Books Inc., NewYork.

arlstead, K., Brown, J.L., Monfort, S.L., Killens, R., Wildt, D.E., 1992.Urinary monitoring of adrenal responses to psychological stressors indomestic and nondomestic felids. Zoo. Biol. 11, 165-176.

arlstead, K., Brown, J.L., Seidensticker, J., 1993a. Behavioral and adre-nocortical response to environmental changes in leopard cats (felisbengalensis). Zoo. Biol. 12, 321-331.

arlstead, K., Brown, J.L., Seidensticker, J.. 1993b. Behavioral and phys-iological correlates of stress in laboratory cats. App. Anim. Behav. Sci.

38, 143-158.

C

C

C

E

E

F

H

H

H

H

I

K

K

K

K

K

M

M

M

M

M

O

P

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

T

T

T

V

V

V

W

W

125Edwards et al Attachment in cats

ase, L.P., 2003. The cat. Its behavior, nutrition and health, Iowa StateUniversity Press, Ames, IA.

lark, D., 1992. Medical, genetic and behavioral aspect of purebred cats.Forum Publications, Inc., Atlanta, GA.

rowell-Davis, S.L., Barry, K., Wolfe, R., 1997. Social behavior andaggressive problems of cats. Vet. Clin. North Am. Sm. Anim. Pract. 27,549-568.

dney, A., 1993. Manual del Cuidado del Gato. Javier Vergara Editor.Buenos Aires, Argentina.

dwards, P.C., Tejeda, P.A., de Juan, G.L.F., 2002. Behavioral ProblemsReported in Dogs and Cats Brought to the Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México (UNAM) Veterinary Hospital. Procedings of the36th International Congress of the ISAE. ISAE, the Netherlands.

ogle, B., 1995. The cat’s mind, understanding your cat’s behavior. Mac-millan Publishing, New York.

arlow, H.F., Harlow, M.K., 1965. The affectional systems. In: Scrier,A.M., Harlow, H.F., Stolintz, F. (Eds.), Behaviour of nonhuman pri-mates, vol. 2. New York Academic Press, New York.

art, B.L., Eckstein, R.A., 1997. The role of gonadal hormones in theoccurrence of objectionable behaviors in dogs and cats. Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci. 52, 331-334.

eiblum, F.M., Tejeda, P.A., Torres, C.W., Salmerón, V.J., Edwards, P.C.,Matus, C.V.. 2005. Current State of Clinical Ethology in Mexico.Proceedings of the Dogs Trust Meeting on Advances in VeterinaryBehavioral Medicine, London, 4 – 7th November. Vet. J. 169, 145-146.

emsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., 2000. Human-animal interaction and ani-mal stress. In: Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds.), Human-animal inter-action and animal stress. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK,pp. 309–335.

mmelmann, K., Beer, C., 1989. A Dictionary of Ethology. Harvard Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, MA.

alin, J., Shelton, P., Barksdale, D.E., 1997. Socialization processes. In:Damon, W. (Ed). Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.), vol. 3. JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

essler, M.R., Turner, D.C., 1997. Stress and adaptation of cats (Felissilvestris catus) housed singly, in pairs and in groups in boardingcatteries. Anim. Welf. 6, 243-254.

essler, M.R., Turner, D.C., 1999. Effects of density and cage size onstress in domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) housed in animal sheltersand boarding catteries. Anim. Welf. 8, 259-267.

ing, J.N., Simpson, B.S., Overall, K.L., 2000. Treatment of separationanxiety in dogs with clomipramine: results from a prospective, ran-domised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenterclinical trial. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67, 255-275.

onrad, K.W., Bagshaw, M., 1970. Effects of novel stimuli on cats rearedin a restricted environment. J. Comp. Physiol. 70, 157-164.

anteca, V.X., 1996. Etología clínica veterinaria. Ed. Multimédica, Es-paña.

artín, P., Bateson, P., 1991. La medición del comportamiento. Alianzaeditorial, España.

cCrave, E.A., 1991. Diagnostic criteria for separation anxiety in the dog.Vet. Clin. North Am. Sm. Anim. Pract. 21, 247-255.

cCune, S., 1992. Temperament and animal welfare of caged cats. Ph.D.Thesis. University of Cambridge, UK.

onaghan, P., Wood-Gush, D., 1990. Managing the behavior of animals.

Chapman and Hall, London.

verall, K.L., 1997. Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals.Mosby, St. Louis, MO.

ageat, P., Beata, C., García, A., 1999. Etología clínica. Proceedings,UNAM, México.

ageat, P., Gaultier, E., 2003. Current research in canine and feline pher-omones. Vet. Clin. North Am. Sm Anim. Pract. 33, 87-211.

anksepp, A.S., Normansell, L.K., Herman, J., Bishop, F., Crepeau, H.D.,1997. Socialization processes. In: Damon, W. (Ed). Handbook of ChildPsychology (5th ed.), vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

aragon, B.M., Vaissaire, J.P., 2000. Enciclopedia del Gato. Tomo 1.Aniwa Publishing, Paris, France.

arthasarathy V., 2000 Attachment to owners, anxiety separation andsociality to strangers of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). PhD thesis.University of Georgia.

ampin, C., Cepuglio, R.C.N., Jouvet, M., 1991. Immobilization stressinduced a parodoxical sleep rebound in rats. Neurosci. Lett. 126,113-118.

ochiltz, I., Podberseek, A.L., Broom, D.M., 1995. The behavior andwelfare of cats in quarantine. In: Damon, W. (Ed). Procedings of the 7th

international conference of animal-human interactions, Geneva, Swit-zerland.

ushen, J., 2000. Some issues in the interpretation of behavioral responsesto stress. In: Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds), The Biology of AnimalStress. CABI Publishing., New York.

chneck, M., Caravan, J., 1991. Animales domésticos. Gatos del mundo.Ed. Hispano Europea, S.A., Barcelona, Spain.

chwartz, S., 2001. Comparison of anxiety in the cat and dog. AmericanVeterinary Medical Association 138th Annual Convention, Boston,MA.

chwartz, S., 2002. Separation anxiety syndrome in cats: 136 cases (1991-2000). JAVMA. 220, 7, 1028-1033.

cott, J.P., 1962. Critical periods in behavioral development. Science. 138,949-958.

opál, J., Miklósi, A., Csányi, V., Dóka, A., 1998. Attachment behavior indogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth’s (1969)Strange Situation Test. J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 219-229.

orres, Ch.A., Zaraboso, D., López, F., 1992. “Registro Conductual Com-putarizado,” Software development in Psycology Faculty of Univer-sidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

urner, D.C., Stammbach-Geering, K., 1998. Correlations between humansocial support levels and amount of attachment of cats. Abstract book,8th International Conference on Human-Animal Interactions, Prague,September.

oith, V., 1991. Applied animal behavior and the veterinary profession.Vet. Clin. North Am. Sm. Anim. Pract. 21, 203-206.

oith, V.L., Borchelt, P., 1985. Separation anxiety in dogs. Compendiumof Continuing Education for the Practising Veterinarian. 7, 42-52.

oith, V.L., Ganster, D., 1993. Separation anxiety: review of 42 cases.Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 37, 84-85.

ielebnowski, N., Fletchall, N., Carlstead, K., Busso, J., Brown, J., 2002.Noninvasive assessment of adrenal activity associated with husbandryand behavioral factors in the North American Clouded Leopard popu-lation. Zoo Biol. 21, 77-98.

iener, S., Coe, F., Levine, D.P., 1997. Socialization processes. In: Da-mon, W. (Ed). Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.). vol. 3, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.