Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Behavioural Processes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc

A review of over three decades of research on cat-human and

human-cat interactions and relationships
Dennis C. Turner ∗
Animal Behavior, Dept. of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This review article covers research conducted over the last three decades on cat-human and human-cat
Received 28 October 2016 interactions and relationships, especially from an ethological point of view. It includes findings on cat-
Received in revised form 16 January 2017 cat and cat-human communication, cat personalities and cat-owner personalities, the effects of cats on
Accepted 17 January 2017
humans, and problems caused by cats.
Available online 22 January 2017
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Cat-human relationships
Ethology
Socialization
Personality
Communication

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
2. Socialization and sensitive phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3. Other factors affecting the first cat to human relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.1. A paternal effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.2. Presence of the mother nearby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.3. Curiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3.4. Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3.5. The effect of later experiences with humans after initial socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
4. The ethology of cat-human interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
5. Combining ethological observations with subjective (psychological) assessments of cat personality traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
6. Cat and cat-human communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
7. Cat personalities and cat-owner personalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8. Breed differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
9. Effects of cats on humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
10. Problems caused by cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

1. Introduction of Zurich from 1982 to 2011 and at the private institute, the Institute
for Applied Ethology and Animal Psychology (I.E.A.P.), near Zurich
The author has been involved in, conducted or led research on from 1991 to today. Over those years Turner has advised many stu-
cat behaviour and human-cat relationships while at the University dents and had fruitful collaborations with a number of research
assistants, to whom he is greatly indebted for their fine work. Before
that period, most of the domestic cat research was conducted by
∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Seestrasse 254, CH-8810 Horgen, the late Paul Leyhausen (1956, 1979) who concentrated on the
Switzerland. ethology and evolution of predatory behaviour patterns with very
E-mail address: [email protected] little interest in the social behaviour of this ‘solitary species’. It

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.01.008
0376-6357/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
298 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304

wasn’t until 1970 that Michael Fox, and later, Karsh (1983a,b) began the sensitive period for socialization, they could be held signifi-
looking at the ‘socialization’ of kittens. With the late Leyhausen’s cantly longer by their familiar person than by another unfamiliar
retirement, the number of domestic cat researchers and research person. However, when the holding scores of these cats were com-
centers working on cats increased to the point that a symposium pared with those of their littermates who were handled and tested
seemed useful to assess current knowledge and knowledge gaps. by four different people, they were similar. These results indicate
This was organized in Zurich (Cats’ 86) by the present author and that cats are capable of developing a personal relationship with
the contributions published in the first edition of The Domestic Cat. their individual handlers, but also that socialized animals are able
The biology of its behaviour (Turner and Bateson, 1988), which was to generalize their responses to other people (see Turner, 1995a).
translated into several languages and has since enjoyed two fur-
ther editions (2000, 2014). With some notable exceptions, much
3. Other factors affecting the first cat to human
of what is known today about cat-human and human-cat inter-
relationship
actions and relationships have come from the Zurich lab and will
be summarized in this review article. Topics to be covered are:
3.1. A paternal effect
The development of the first relationship of a kitten to humans,
in other words, socialization and the sensitive phase; other factors
Feaver et al. (1986) demonstrated that persons familiar with
affecting the cat to human relationship; the ethology of cat-human
the cats in a research colony, when asked to make independent
interactions; combining ethological observations and subjective
assessments of the cats’ ‘friendliness to people’, showed high inter-
assessments of cat personality traits; cat and cat-human commu-
observer correlations of the rank order in which they placed the
nication; cat and cat-owner personalities; breed differences; the
cats. Independently and later, Turner et al. (1986) asked persons
effects of cats on humans; and problems caused by cats.
familiar with the cats at the Cambridge University cat colony to rank
both the mothers and their 3–4-month old offspring on ‘friendli-
ness to people’ without knowledge of the ultimate purpose of their
2. Socialization and sensitive phase
ratings. There was no correlation between the friendliness rankings
of the mothers and those of their offspring. The authors later com-
Fox (1970) was the first researcher to describe the socializa-
pared paternity of those juveniles, sired by two unrelated fathers
tion period in cats, “beginning at 17 days of age”, when increased
over a two-month period, which the offspring had never seen. They
sensory abilities and improved locomotor abilities allow the kit-
found that the friendly-ranked young were significantly dispropor-
ten to interact with the environment and littermates. Later, Karsh
tionately distributed between the two fathers, assuming expected
(1983a,b, 1984) conducted well-designed handling experiments of
values intrinsic to the data.
lab colony kittens by humans and demonstrated a sensitive phase
Similarly, at the Zurich colony with different cats bred and born
for socialization between the second and seventh week of age. For
there, Turner had four persons familiar with those mothers and
a detailed description of these and related experiments see Karsh
their juvenile offspring (between 3 and 8 months old) rank the
and Turner (1988). Casey and Bradshaw (2008) later compared
animals on ‘friendliness to people’, again without mentioning the
the effect of regular “handling” during the socialization period of
ultimate hypotheses being examined. The inter-observer rankings
kittens in three rescue centers (relatively little direct handling, mul-
of the 8 mothers, as well as of the 35 juveniles were again sig-
tiple feedings each day and cleaning the cages with mothers and
nificantly correlated. The mothers were divided equally into more
offspring, involving contact with one to four different persons in the
friendly and less-friendly animals based on rank sums. Two unre-
cages) and enhanced handling from 2 to 9 weeks of age (increas-
lated fathers had also sired all of the Zurich offspring and had left
ing holding the kittens from 2 to 5 min at 6 weeks of age and
the colony before the first litter arrived. Thirty-two of the offspring
increased time playing with them) before homing. One year later,
could be assigned to the friendlier or less-friendly class, and again
interviews with the owners revealed that those animals with the
Turner found that the friendly young were significantly dispropor-
enhanced handling showed fewer signs of fear of humans. Meier
tionately distributed between the two fathers. Male and female
and Turner (1985) were able to demonstrate the existence of social-
offspring were proportionately distributed among the friendlier
ized and non-socialized adult cats during encounters between cats
and less-friendly classes. However in Zurich a significant mother
and an unfamiliar person on neighborhood streets, while Lowe
effect was also found on ‘friendliness to people’ and the friend-
and Bradshaw (2002) experimentally demonstrated the stability of
liness of their offspring; this, of course could be genetic and/or
responses to being handled by an unfamiliar person from weaning
modificatory (see below), whereas in both colonies, Cambridge and
(8 weeks) to three years of age.
Zurich, the paternal effect had to be genetic (Turner et al., 1986).
Concerning the amount of handling, this certainly affects a cat’s
The authors never proposed “a gene for friendliness” but rather
attachment to humans. Karsh (1983b) conducted an experiment
a genetic effect on some behavioral correlate of what one calls
with her lab cats and found that subjects which had been handled
friendliness; later, McCune (1995) determined that the paternal
for 40 min a day stayed significantly longer with the test person
effect was indeed an effect on ‘boldness’ and exploratory behaviour,
in a holding test than cats handled for only 15 min a day. They
which of course might promote contact with persons in the room
also approached a person faster, but did not stay with the person
or environment.
significantly longer. Nevertheless, home-reared cats adopted from
Karsh’s colony still surpassed even the long-handled cats on these
measures and their adopters reported total interaction times with 3.2. Presence of the mother nearby
the adoptees of one to two hours per day. Similar interaction times
(on average, 1.5 h) were reported by cat owners in Zurich (Turner Studies on the effects of early handling on kittens’ behaviour
1985). Most experimental studies have used handling periods of and attachment toward humans have mostly ignored the fact that
30–40 min but up to 5 h per day. It seems though that not much the mother is normally present during early kitten-human contact.
changes after more than an hour of handling (McCune et al., 1995). Rodel (1986); see also Turner (2000a,b) examined this effect exper-
Regarding the number of handlers a kitten has experienced, the imentally in the lab’s human-cat encounter room and found that
results probably reflect degree of attachment to an individual per- when the kittens’ mother was present (but restrained in a cage)
son as well as original socialization to humans. Looking at Karsh’s along with an unfamiliar test person, the kittens entered the room
8 lab cats handled daily for 40 min by one person during most of on their own at an earlier age than those kittens tested without
 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304 299

their mothers; however they went directly to their mothers and not ized during the sensitive period: a human-friendly, trusting cat
the test person. Nevertheless these same kittens were still the first needs only a few positive experiences with an unfamiliar person
ones to start exploring the encounter room with the test person. A (e.g., a new owner) to show positive behaviour towards that person
human-socialized, calm mother may reduce a kitten’s anxiety and but significant negative experience to override the initial (posi-
build up its confidence enabling bolder exploration of the envi- tive) socialization. A shy, less socialized cat requires a great deal of
ronment. On the other hand, if she is shy or nervous, she might positive experience with a stranger to overcome its deficit of expe-
induce her kittens to be even more fearful when exposed to humans rience during the sensitive phase; however, it reacts negatively
without her. Further but indirectly, if the mother is fearful or non- (and strongly) to even minor negative encounters. The human-
socialized to humans she might hide her kittens after birth delaying friendly, socialized cat generalizes positive experiences quickly;
first kitten contact with people until late or even after the sensi- the un-socialized or incompletely socialized cat does not general-
tive phase for socialization (Turner, 1995b). Of course any effects ize its later positive experiences, but rather, its negative ones. The
of the mother on her kitten’s behaviour could be either genetic or former cats are relatively easy to re-home, the latter cats require
modificatory or both. more patience and understanding on the part of a new owner, but
probably make good ‘one person’ or ‘one family’ cats in due course.
3.3. Curiosity If the latter are rehomed, they start over at square one with the
new owners. Many animal shelter directors agree with the author’s
Curiosity (exploratory behaviour) in older kittens might also premises, but this model still needs testing in the field.
promote (first) contact with humans and allow establishment of a Dinis and Martins (2016) compared the reported attachment
relationship with a person, once anxiety in a strange situation has levels of cat owners to their animals with those of volunteers from
been reduced. Podberscek et al. (1991) even found that adult (2–3 a cat rehoming centre and found no significant difference; how-
years old) male lab cats - presumably socialized toward humans ever amongst the cat owners, duration of ownership had a positive
– made more direct contacts with an unfamiliar person than a effect on the level of attachment, especially after two years of com-
familiar test person, but that attention-seeking behaviours to both panionship.
persons declined from day 1 to day 3. Interestingly, many people
report that cats at home will first approach a person in a seated
group who doesn’t appreciate cat contact. The author hypothesizes 4. The ethology of cat-human interactions
that these persons as opposed to other group members avoid eye
contact with the cat and any gestures inviting approach by the cat The period following the initial experimental studies on the sen-
and that the cat is simply ‘curious’ and attempting to assess that sitive phase of kittens for socialization toward persons witnessed a
person’s position. number of ethological (observational) studies on cat-human inter-
actions both in the lab and home setting. Mertens and Turner (1988)
3.4. Feeding published results on first encounters between 19 socialized cats
and a convenience sample (volunteer cat friends including children,
Many people claim that house cats, especially those allowed 6–10 years, and adults, >18years) of 240 persons unfamiliar with
outdoors, are mostly interested in securing a meal and therefore the cats in a room with a carpet, table and chairs at the university
associate with us. Clearly the usual feeding time is one of the most cat colony. The cats knew each other and were familiar with the
important times for social contact with all cats. However, Geering encounter room. There were 10 males (all neutered) and 9 females
(1986) in an outdoor enclosure experiment involving two male (4 spayed) between 15 and 24 months old. During the first five
students unfamiliar to the colony’s adult cats, whose position in minutes the human subject had to ignore the cat, which entered
the enclosure, and role as the “feeder” was experimentally varied, the room through a cat-door on the side, and read or look at a mag-
was able to show otherwise. The “feeding” person simply held the azine. During the following five minutes the person could do as
large food tray until the cats entered the enclosure then placed s/he pleased. This allowed recording cat behaviour in two different
it mid-way between the two men on the ground. Neither person situations. In a second run of only five minutes the person could
was allowed to look at, speak with, or otherwise interact with the do as s/he pleased from the start and human behaviour toward
cats before both, in time, left the enclosure. Geering found that a the cat was recorded. Interactions were observed and recorded
preference for the feeder (not the food, which was the same over all through a one-way glass window from outside of the room. The
trials) as shown by cat-initiated contacts developed within the first results of these experiments in the lab setting have been substan-
half of the phase after feeding but disappeared during the second tiated by ethological observations in the home setting and can be
half and switched to the other person when he was the feeder. Her summarized as follows: The spontaneous behaviour of the cat, e.g.
interpretation: yes, the act of feeding can facilitate establishment approaches to the person during the first five minutes, was inde-
of a relationship between a cat and a person, but it takes more (e.g. pendent of the cats’ sex (but again all males were neutered, as in
speaking with the cat, stroking the cat) to maintain that preference most households), and independent of the person’s age or gender.
and relationship. Only the individuality (individual differences) of the cats affected
their spontaneous behaviour. When data from the second five min-
3.5. The effect of later experiences with humans after initial utes were compared, the cats reacted to differences in the behaviour
socialization of men and women and between children (especially boys) and
adults, which were also found in the second run. Changes in the cats’
Meier and Turner (1985), Podberscek et al. (1991), Lowe and behaviour between the “reading” and following phase included:
Bradshaw (2002), and McCune et al. (1995) found evidence that decreased vocalizations and increased play behaviour; decreased
early experience with humans during the sensitive phase for social- approaching and increased withdrawal; and increased head rub-
ization had long-lasting effects well into adulthood. McCune et al. bing. Most of these results have been confirmed in studies, e.g.
proposed the term social referencing to refer to the broadening of Mertens (1991), of human-cat interactions in the home setting.
an animal’s experience during the juvenile period, i.e. after ini- Men tend to interact from a seated position, while women and girls
tial socialization. Turner (1995a,b) has proposed that negative and (no age difference) more often move down to the level of the cat
positive experiences with humans after the sensitive period work on the floor. Children, especially the boys, tend to approach the cat
differently depending on whether or not a kitten was truly social- directly and quickly as a first social behaviour, which is not always
300 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304

appreciated by the cat. Women speak more frequently with the cat lower for single women than for mothers or, as a tendency, women
and the cats vocalize more frequently with them as well. living with just a partner. (More of the intents were due to the
Podberscek et al. (1991) observed interactions between lab cats women, when they lived alone.) It was significantly higher for
and familiar and unfamiliar persons as mentioned above and found indoor cats than for those with outdoor access (meaning the indoor
a significant decline in attention behaviours (e.g., rubs against the cats are responsible for more interaction time with their owners,
person, claws the person, stands and watches, stretches head out perhaps helping to compensate for lower levels of environmental
to person) from the first to second and third day toward both the stimuli indoors than outdoors). Further, the proportion of success-
unfamiliar and familiar person. ful intents to interact due to the cat was significantly lower for
Turner’s (1991) team visited 158 cat-owning households hous- single cats than for cats living in multiple cat households.
ing 344 cats in Switzerland (urban, suburban and villages), which Finally looking a total interaction time per cat and per minute of
had volunteered for participation. Using a catalog of 33 well- joint human-cat presence) between the cats and women in these
defined behavioral elements, which could be exhibited by the households, Turner (1991) found significant differences between
person, the cat or both, they recorded all interactions observed women without children (more) and mothers (less), between
between the cat or cats there and the adult woman of the household indoor (more) and outdoor (less) cats and between owners with
on three consecutive days (an average 16 h per household of which single cats (more) and each cat in multiple cat households (less).
a cat was present on average 10.8 h). The behavioral elements were Looking specifically at one type of human-cat interaction,
recorded on an electronic keyboard chronologically with automatic namely stroking the cat, Ellis et al. (2015a) analyzed the influence of
time measurement. Three elements were particularly of interest: body region touched and handler familiarity on the cats’ behavioral
Either the woman or the cat could show an “intent” to interact by response to being stroked. Both parameters significantly influenced
approaching the partner or vocalizing with/towards the partner. If negative responses by the cats.
either the partner reacted to that or if the initiator continued the
approach to within one meter of the partner, then “start interac-
tion” was recorded. “End interaction” was typed whenever one of 5. Combining ethological observations with subjective
the two moved more than one meter away or withdrew from the (psychological) assessments of cat personality traits
scene entirely without being followed by the partner. From these
data it was possible to assess 1) the initiator of an interaction; 2) Following Serpell’s (1983) lead indicating the usefulness of
the partner’s willingness to comply with the assumed interactional combining observational data with subjective character trait
wishes of its counterpart; 3) the content of the interactions; and 4) assessment for dogs, the Zurich team attempted this in its cat work.
the duration of individual interactions and total interaction time in As an integral, but methodologically separate part of the above-
each relationship sampled. Over 6000 social interactions were reg- mentioned study, Turner and Stammbach-Geering (1990) asked
istered for the final analyses and of course human demographics the women in those 158 households to assess their cats (one of
(single woman, woman with partner but no children, mothers with them in the case of multiple cat households) and relationships to
children at home and partner) and cat housing conditions (indoor them for 31 traits on a continuous visual analog scale between
cats vs. cats allowed outdoors, domestic mixtures vs. pedigree cats, two extremes for each trait. After completing the form the first
single cats vs. cats in multiple cat households) were noted and ana- time using one symbol to mark the position of their actual (real)
lyzed by the appropriate tests. Statistically significant results will cat and relationship between the two extremes, they had to com-
be summarized here but occasionally also a statistical tendency will plete the form again, this time using a different symbol for their
be noted as such. For more detail see Turner (1991). “ideal cat” or the “ideal relationship”. Significant correlations (pos-
Concerning initiation of interactions and what Turner called itive and negative) between 18 of the traits over all women and
“willingness to comply with the partner’s assumed wishes to inter- differences between “actual” and “ideal” values for each trait over
act”: 1) When successful initiations made by the persons and those all women were calculated and analyzed along with the effect of
made by the cats were analyzed separately, the more successful the the parameters mentioned above in the observational study (civil
person was in initiating interactions with the cat, the shorter, the status, house- vs. pedigree cats, housing conditions).
total interaction time with the pet. 2) The higher the proportion of Averaged over all 31 traits, 76% of the women rated their actual
all successful intents to interact that were due to the cat, the more cat and relationship at exactly the same place along the continuum
time spent interacting. 3) Willingness to comply with the partner’s that their ideal cat/relationship would be found - ranging from 94%
assumed wishes to interact was significantly, positively correlated for both cleanliness and owner affection to the cat to a low of 42%
between the cat and the human over all pairs examined. for degree of dietary specialization (fussiness at meal time). 76%
But various parameters were found to influence this “willing- indicated a high level of satisfaction with the cats at least in this
ness to comply with the partner’s interactional wishes” at least for sample of volunteer owners.
the human partner: Single women had a tendency to be less will- Civil status showed no significant effect on owner-assessment
ing to comply with their cat’s wishes to interact than women with a of the cats or relationships; only housing conditions (indoor vs.
partner (but not mothers). The women in general were less willing outdoor and number of cats kept) were found to affect trait rat-
to comply with their indoor cats’ wishes than those of cats with ing significantly either for the actual or ideal cat and relationship.
outdoor access. No differences were found between the owners of Women with outdoor cats said their cats should be (ideally) less
housecats (domestic mixtures) and pedigree cats on willingness to friendly to strangers than those with indoor cats. The owners of
comply with interactional wishes. But the women were more will- cats with outdoor access rated their animals as being less curious
ing to comply with the wishes of cats kept singly than those of cats than the owners of indoor cats and since indoor cats initiated con-
in multiple cat households. As far as the cats’ “willingness to comply tact with their owners more often than cats allowed outdoors, it
with the human partners’ interactional wishes” is concerned, none is possible that the indoor cats might be more inquisitive and seek
of the above parameters had even the slightest effect, meaning that environmental stimulation even from their owners. Owners of out-
the cats were equally willing to comply with the women’s interac- door cats rated them as being more independent than those with
tional wishes independent of her civil status, or the cat’s genetic indoor cats and also said their cats should be (ideally) more inde-
heritage and housing conditions. pendent than those with indoor cats. Owners of indoor cats wished
Looking at the proportion of successful intents to interact that (ideally) their cats would more often be close to them than those
were due to the cat, Turner (1991) found that it was significantly with outdoor cats and were also more tolerant of their animals’
 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304 301

destructive tendencies (e.g., scratching furniture), although no dif- ments of meow-like vocalizations are found within the purr and
ferences in the actual ratings for indoor and outdoor animals on the humans can detect the difference. Brown and Bradshaw suggest
latter trait were found. Possible reasons for these findings are dis- that this purring may function as a ‘manipulative’ contact- and care-
cussed in Turner and Stammbach-Geering (1990). Lastly on dietary soliciting signal possibly encouraged by the positive response of
specialization, owners of more than one cat wished (ideally) their the owner. Ellis et al. (2015b) found that 40% of the participants in
cats would be less fussy about food than owners of single cats did, it their study identified the correct contexts of recorded meow vocal-
probably being easier to cope with the preferences of one cat than izations of their own cats at a level greater than that predicted by
several, all being fed at the same time. chance. However, no participants performed above chance when
The woman-cat pairs were divided into two groups, one where the vocalizations were from an unfamiliar cat.
both partners showed above average ‘willingness to comply with One visual signal of the domestic cat must be mentioned: the
the other’s interactional wishes’ (observational data) and the other vertical “tail up”. This has long been associated with affiliative
where both partners showed low willingness to comply. The behaviour between cats (see Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont,
women in the two groups rated their cats and relationships dif- 2000; Cafazzo and Natoli, 2009) to signal intention to interact ami-
ferently, but only on three of the traits (one trait, actual values; cably. The same signal is used when cats (re-) establish contact with
two traits, the difference between actual and ideal values). On their owners. Serpell (2014) states that it is likely that a sacred
actual values for the trait ‘dietary specialization’, owner-cat pairs cattery or breeding colony of cats adjoined the Temple of Bastet
showing low willingness to comply with the partner’s interactional in Bubastis, ancient Egypt, ca. 450 BCE, and Bateson and Turner
wishes rated their cats as being less fussy about what they eat. (2014) postulate that the “tail-up” signal, which is not present in the
Also when comparing the amount of difference between actual domestic cat’s ancestor, was favored to indicate friendly intentions
and ideal values on this trait, the owners who were less willing to other cats kept in dense breeding colonies at that time.
to comply showed a smaller difference statistically whereas own- Concerning cat-human communication, Bahlig-Pieren and
ers more willing to comply with their cats interactional wishes, Turner (1999) found a clear difference in the ability to inter-
wished their cats would be less fussy than they were. Further on pret facial expressions from still photos and video sequences of
the trait “independence”, women from pairs less willing to comply behaviour of cats and dogs between experienced owners and inex-
showed significantly smaller differences between actual and ideal perienced persons, even though the inexperienced persons still
values, while woman more willing to comply with the cats’ wishes interpreted these better than one might expect.
to interact viewed the ideal cat as being even more independent. Miklosi et al. (2005) compared the ability of dogs and cats to
The more recent work of the team surrounding Kotrschal et al. use human pointing gestures in an object-choice task and con-
(2014) also combines ethological observations with psychological cluded that both species were equally able to find the hidden food.
(temperament) assessments of cats with the personality traits of However, when the hidden food was made inaccessible so that the
their owners and these will be summarized further below with animals needed to indicate to their naïve owners its location, the
other references on cat-owner personalities. cats lacked some of components of attention-getting behaviour
Potter and Mills (2015) modified the Ainsworth Strange Situa- that the dogs showed. This was perhaps related to the longer
tion Test to examine the bond between cats and their owners and period since domestication and of co-habitation with humans of
found that the animals did not show signs of secure attachment to the canids.
them. The results were consistent with the view that adult cats are
typically autonomous and not necessarily dependent on others to
provide as sense of security and safety. 7. Cat personalities and cat-owner personalities

One of the most persistent findings about domestic cat person-

6. Cat and cat-human communication alities is their ‘individuality’, which has either had to be statistically
blocked out as “noise” in order to investigate how other parameters
Excellent summaries of cat–cat communication over olfac- affect cat behaviour (Turner, 1995a), or indeed examined to deter-
tory, auditory, visual and tactile channels are already available in mine its origin, development and stability (Mendl and Harcourt,
Bradshaw (1992), Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont (2000) and 2000; Lowe and Bradshaw 2001). In spite of the cat’s individual-
Bradshaw et al. (2012). Brown and Bradshaw (2014) also added ity, several personality types or behavioral styles have consistently
aspects of interspecific (cat-human) communication in a more emerged in most studies: Karsh’s team (Karsh and Turner, 1988)
recent review, which will be mentioned here. Most involve sig- identified socialized individuals, which were more ‘timid’. Feaver
nals used in cat–cat encounters that are applied by the cats in et al. (1986) identified active/aggressive cats, timid/nervous ani-
cat-human interactions, some with slight modifications. Early on mals, and confident/easy-going animals. Meier and Turner (1985),
Mertens and Turner (1988) found that head-rubbing on an unfa- Turner (1988) and Mertens and Turner (1991) identified two basic
miliar human partner increased significantly once the stranger’s cat types: trusting (initiative friendly) and shy/fearful (reserved
attention was secured by flank-rubbing. Cats living in the same friendly) when encountering strangers, which remind us of person-
colony often rub their heads (foreheads, cheeks) on each other upon ality dimensions found in other animal species as well as human
greeting, which presumably exchanges individual odors of the par- children (see Mendl and Harcourt, 2000). At least some traits (e.g.
ticipants. Whether or not they are mixing a “group odor” has been boldness) formed during the socialization period appear to remain
hypothesized, but not yet examined (Brown and Bradshaw, 2014). stable into adulthood in cats (Lowe and Bradshaw, 2001, 2002).
Cats employ vocalizations much more frequently when humans are Stammbach and Turner (1999) analyzed how social support
present than when together with conspecifics, probably reflecting from other humans, emotional support from the cat, and owner
a learning process. Generally, meows are typical attention-seeking attachment to the cat are interrelated. Overall the results indi-
vocalizations in interspecific settings and higher pitched (more cated that for some of the 330 volunteer participants filling out all
pleasant) than the equivalent vocalization in feral cats and the wild five standardized questionnaires (all confirmed for reliability and
ancestor of the domestic cat (see e.g., Yeon et al., 2011). Meows and validity), cats can substitute for, or replace persons in the social
purring can be varied by the cat in different situations and be inter- network. But in most cases, cats appear to be an additional source
preted differently by human listeners (McComb et al., 2009; cited of emotional support, especially for those persons who are strongly
in Brown and Bradshaw, 2014). In food-soliciting situations ele- attached to their animals. Therefore, both social support and attach-
302 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304

ment are at work in these relationships, the relative importance of (which has not yet been explained), the aforementioned authors
each depending upon the individual person. as well as Qureshi et al. (2009) have found that for cats considered
Kotrschal et al. (2014) have provided the most recent review separately, and for both current and past cat owners the risk rates
about cat personalities and how human personalities interact with for cardiovascular disease are significantly lower than for non-cat
those of the cat. owners.
In particular, the results of the study by Wedl et al. (2011), In an early study, Zasloff and Kidd (1994) found that adult
again combining ethological observations of interactions in the women living entirely alone were significantly more lonely than
home setting with psychological personality assessments (five cat those living with pets only, with both other people and pets, and
personality axes identified by PCA on the behavioral data; owner with other people but without pets. Since cats can apparently
personality assessment by NEO-FFI), take investigation of these be a source of emotional support to their owners (Stammbach
questions to a higher level than in the past. The PCA identified four and Turner, 1999), especially those with strong attachment to
cat personality axes very similar to those determined by Feaver their animals, it seemed reasonable to hypothesize that cats might
et al. (1986) and others. On the human side, owners scoring higher affect human moods and that human mood might affect behaviour
in Openness had cats that were less anxious and tense and these towards the cat.
cats more often ignored the object in a novel object test. Owners Rieger and Turner (1999), Turner and Rieger (2001) and Turner
high on Neuroticism turned to their cats mainly as emotional social et al. (2003) tested these hypotheses with behaviour observations
supporters and hence, thereby, may offer a less secure base for the of human-cat interactions and psychological (mood) testing before
cat than the owners high in Openness. The latter consider their cats and after those interactions in private households. The results can
companions for play rather than social supporters. be summarized as follows: A depressive mood in the owner signif-
Gossling et al. (2010) also found significant differences between icantly affected intentions to interact, the starting of interactions,
the personalities of self-identified “dog people” and “cat people” willingness to comply and interact, head- and flank-rubbing, and
using an Internet survey (over 4’500 participants who completed vocalizations by the cat. Interacting with one’s own cat can reduce
the NEO-FFI, Big Five Inventory). Self-proclaimed dog people were (improve) negative moods (fear, anxiety, depressiveness, introver-
higher on Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, but sion), but an affect (increase or change) on positive moods was
lower on Neuroticism and Openness than were the cat people. not found. More mood subscales were affected by the cat (pres-
ence and/or interactions) in women than in men, and they were
more strongly affected in women than in men. Given these effects
8. Breed differences
on human moods, it should not surprise the reader to note that
cats are often present in or around psychiatric clinics and in psy-
There have been very few observational studies comparing the
chotherapeutic practices (Turner, 2007). Nevertheless, dogs are
behaviour of different breeds of cats with each other or with
much more frequently involved in animal-assisted interventions
non-pedigree cats (domestic short- or longhaired cats) or their
than cats, probably because they are more easily understood (after
interactions with humans. Turner (1995b, 2000a, 2000b) compared
tens of thousands of years of co-habitation with people), more eas-
observed behaviour and ratings of behavioral traits by owners of the
ily controlled (trained) and more willing to interact with clients
two oldest breeds, Siamese and Persian cats, and domestic mixtures
than the felines are due to their basic social nature.
(taking into account housing differences). The popular descriptions
Lastly, pets can be considered as social capital of a society. Pet
of the character of these two breeds are the most divergent of all
owners have been found to be significantly more likely to get to
pedigree cats and the rational for their selection was to “ensure”
know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners, whereas
finding differences between cat breeds in behaviour and trait rat-
dog owners were significantly more likely than owners of other
ings. A few differences were indeed found (Siamese being very vocal
types of pets to regard people whom they met through their pet
and active, Persians quiet and lethargic, domestic mixtures very
as a friend. Pet owners also reported receiving one or more types
independent) coinciding with the popular breed descriptions, but
of social support via people they met through their pet and scored
not as many as one might expect, indicating convergent artificial
higher on civic engagement scales (Wood et al., 2005; Wood et al.,
selection in the pedigree cats, mostly favoring human-cat interac-
2015).
tions and relationships. Nevertheless, the domestic housecats were
much more highly rated than either of the pedigree cats on the trait
‘independence’, a cat trait highly appreciated by most cat owners.
Hart and Hart (2013) interviewed some 80 veterinarians in
10. Problems caused by cats
feline practices randomly chosen across the US and considered to be
unbiased authorities on breed differences in cats. These vets first
No review of human-cat interactions and relationships would
compared neutered males and spayed females independently of
be complete without at least mentioning the problems that can be
cat breed, then ranked a random selection of seven (five breeds
caused by domestic cats, namely: allergies, bites and scratches on
plus domestic short- and longhaired cats) out of the 15 cat breeds
owners and non-owners, zoonotic diseases, and predation.
under consideration along 12 behavioral traits. There were three
Based on a large scale stratified random sample of over 8300
traits with high predictive value to distinguish the breeds, seven
Swiss adults, Wuethrich et al. (1995) determined a prevalence of
traits with moderate, and two traits with low predictive value. It
allergic reactions via skin prick tests to grass (12.7%), followed by
remains to be seen if comparative behavioral observations coincide
house dust mite (8.9%), silver birch pollen (7.9%), cat (3.8%) and dog
with the subjective rankings made by the veterinarians.
(2.8%) allergens. Especially the cat allergen prevalence seems to be
much lower than that reported orally (e.g., by parents in school
9. Effects of cats on humans classes) without medical testing. Nevertheless, Wuethrich (pers.
comm.) cautions about encouraging contact with pets when a child
There have been numerous studies reporting the effect of dogs is predestined to develop full-blown asthma from a less serious
and cats on cardiovascular health risk factors and especially sur- allergic reaction. On the other hand, there are numerous studies,
vival rates after a heart attack (Friedmann et al., 1980; Friedmann e.g. Roduit et al. (2010), indicating an advantage of mothers hav-
and Thomas, 1995). Interestingly, although the effect of stroking ing pre-natal contact with cats and farm animals on their toddler’s
dogs and cats is different on systolic and diastolic blood pressure atopic dermatitis during their first few years.
 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304 303

Very few countries require mandatory reporting of cat bites, Bradshaw, J.W.S., Cameron-Beaumont, C., 2000. The signaling repertoire of the
let alone medical treatment of cat scratches. Both are to be domestic cat and its undomesticated relatives. In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P.
(Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 2nd ed. Cambridge
taken seriously given the pathogens found in the mouths and University Press, Cambridge.
on the claws of this carnivorous species. Bites and zoonotic Bradshaw, J.W.S., Casey, R.A., Brown, S.L., 2012. The Behaviour of the Domestic Cat,
disease transmission by pets were the topics of a recent 2nd ed. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Brown, S.L., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2014. Communication in the domestic cat: within-
three-year study financed by the European Commission Frame- and between-species. In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The
work Program called CALLISTO and the results are summarized Biology of Its Behaviour. , 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
on the website http://www.callistoproject.eu/joomla/index.php/ Cafazzo, S., Natoli, E., 2009. The social function of tail up in the domestic cat (Felis
silvestris catus). Behav. Process. 80 (1), 60–66.
about-callisto and in Sterneberg-van der Maaten et al. (2015).
Casey, R.A., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2008. The effects of additional socialization for
Another problem is purportedly caused by cats, namely the kittens in a rescue centre on their behaviour and suitability as a pet. Appl.
endangerment of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles and amphib- Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 196–205.
Churcher, P.B., Lawton, J.H., 1987. Predation b domestic cats in an English village. J.
ians) by owned cats allowed outdoors and feral (free-living) cats.
Zool. 212 (3), 439–455.
No doubt, such cats kill and consume millions of prey each year Dinis, F., Martins, T., 2016. Does cat attachment have an effect on huzman health?:
(see e.g., Churcher and Lawton, 1987; Loss et al., 2013), but unless A comparison between owners and volunteers. Pet. Behav. Sci. 1, 1–12.
such extrapolations take many factors known to influence pre- Ellis, S., Thompson, H., Guijarro, C., Zulch, H., 2015a. The influence of body region,
handler familiarity and order of region handled on the domestic cat’s response
dation by cats into account - including prey species density and to being stroked. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 173, 60–67.
annual prey production rates, they lack credibility. The results of Ellis, S., Swindell, V., Burman, O., 2015b. Human classification of context-related
over 60 field studies about cat predation on the continents and on vocalizations emitted by familiar and unfamiliar domestic cats: an exploratory
study. Anthrozoös 28 (4), 625–634.
oceanic island were analyzed by ecologist Fitzgerald (1988), who Feaver, J., Mendl, M., Bateson, P., 1986. A method for rating the individual
came to the conclusion that on the mainland, such cats were not distinctiveness of domestic cats. Anim. Behav. 34, 1016–1025.
the main cause for the disappearance of endemic wildlife species, Fehlbaum, B., Waiblinger, E., Turner, D.C., 2010. A comparison of attitudes towards
animals between the German- and French-speaking part of Switzerland.
as opposed to the situation on small oceanic islands. Further stud- Schweiz. Arch Tierheilk. 152, 285–293, http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/0036-7281/
ies and factors were added in Fitzgerald and Turner (2000) and a000066.
Turner (2014) all arriving at the same conclusion. More recently it Fitzgerald, B.M., 1988. Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations.
In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its
would appear that extreme conservationists consider the outdoor
Behaviour. , 5th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
cat to be an enemy “imported” by man, overpopulating the main- Fitzgerald, B.M., Turner, D.C., 2000. Hunting behaviour of domestic cats and their
land because of human activities (Swiss Animal Protection, Wildlife impact on prey populations. In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic
Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,
Office, 2016, pers. comm.). The facts that cats more or less domes-
Cambridge.
ticated themselves albeit with some support from early human Fox, M.W., 1970. Reflex development and behavioral organization. In: Himwich,
agrarian settlements (Leyhausen, 1988; Bradshaw, 1992; Serpell, W.A. (Ed.), Developmental Neurobiology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.
2014), are socially and environmentally flexible (Bradshaw, 2015) Friedmann, E., Katcher, A., Lynch, J., Thomas, S., 1980. Animal companions and
one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public
and capable of surviving on their own, and dispersed from the fertile Health Rep. 95 (4), 307–312.
crescent northwards and eastwards in spite of attempts to prevent Friedmann, E., Thomas, S., 1995. Pet ownership, social support, and one-year
that dispersal, speak against this categorization. Cats have them- survival after acute myocardial infarction in the Cardiac Arrhythmia
Suppression Trial (CAST). Am. J. Cardiol. 76, 1213–1217.
selves successfully expanded their geographic range and increased Geering, K., 1986. Der Einfluss der Fütterung auf die Katze-Mensch-Beziehung.
in population size, using their superior hunting abilities when out- Thesis. University of Zurich (Zoology Inst.), Switzerland.
side and signals that solicit human support when inside. Random Gossling, S.D., Sandy, C.J., Potter, J., 2010. Personalities of self-identified dog people
and cat people. Anthrozoös 23 (3), 213–222.
samples of adult persons in all countries that have been surveyed Hart, B.L., Hart, L.A., 2013. Your Ideal Cat. Insights into Breed and Gender
(n = 12) consider cats to be ideal pet animals and do not agree that Differences in Cat Behaviour. West Lafayette Purdue University Press.
stray cats are causing problems in their countries (Turner, 2010; Karsh, E.B., 1983a. The effects of early handling on the development of social bonds
between cats and people. In: Katcher, A.H., Beck, A.M. (Eds.), New Perspectives
Fehlbaum et al., 2010). Intervening to reduce that population is an
on Our Lives with Companion Animals. University of Pennsylvania Press,
unwarranted and unjustified intervention in a naturally evolving Philadelphia.
predator-prey system. Karsh, E.B., 1983b. The effects of early and late handling on the attachment of cats
to people. In: Anderson, R.K., Hart, B.L., Hart, L.A. (Eds.), The Pet Connection,
Despite the problems potentially caused by domestic cats, one
Conference Proceedings. Globe Press, St. Paul.
should never forget the health benefits that cat ownership and Karsh, E.B., 1984. Factors influencing the socialization of cats to people. In:
social support from companion cats bring to millions of cat peo- Anderson, R.K., Hart, B.L., Hart, L.A. (Eds.), The Pet Connection: Its Influence on
ple throughout the world. As always, one has to balance the costs Our Health and Quality of Life. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Karsh, E.B., Turner, D.C., 1988. The human-cat relationship. In: Turner, D.C.,
against the benefits and the present author is convinced that this Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 1st ed.
will favor having cats as companions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kotrschal, K., Day, J., McCune, S., Wedl, M., 2014. Human and cat personalities:
building the bond from both sides. In: Turner, Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.),
Conflict of interest The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 3rd ed. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Leyhausen, P., 1956. Katzen, eine Verhaltenskunde. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin.
The author has no conflicts of interest and has always followed Leyhausen, P., 1979. Cat Behavior. The Predatory and Social Behaviour of Domestic
the Swiss government and university guidelines on ethics and eth- and Wild Cats. Garland STPM Press, New York.
ical treatment of animals and secured the necessary permits. Leyhausen, P., 1988. The tame and the wild—another Just-So story? In: Turner,
D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 1st ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
References Loss, S.R., Will, T., Marra, P.P., 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on
wildlife in the United States. Nat. Commun. 4L, 1396.
Bahlig-Pieren, Z., Turner, D.C., 1999. Anthropomorphic interpretations and Lowe, S.E., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2001. Ontogeny of individuality in the domestic cat in
ethological descriptions of dog and cat behaviour by lay people. Anthrozoös 12 the home environment. Anim. Behav. 61, 231–237.
(4), 205–210. Lowe, S.E., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2002. Responses of pet cats to being held by an
Bateson, P., Turner, D.C., 2014. Postscript: questions and some answers. In: Turner, unfamiliar person, from weaning to three years of age. Anthrozoös 15 (1),
D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 3rd ed. 69–79.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McComb, K., Taylor, A.M., Wilson, C., 2009. The cry embedded within the purr.
Bradshaw, J.W.S., 1992. The Behaviour of the Domestic Cat. CABI Publishing, Curr. Biol. 19 (13), 507–508.
Wallingford. McCune, S., 1995. The impact of paternity and early socialization on the
Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2015. Sociality in cats: a comparative review. J. Vet. Behav. 11, development of cats’ behaviour to people and novel objects. Appl. Anim.
113–124. Behav. Sci. 45, 109–124.
304 D.C. Turner / Behavioural Processes 141 (2017) 297–304

McCune, S., McPherson, J.A., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 1995. Avoiding problems: the Turner, F.D., 1995a. The human-cat relationship. In: Robinson, I. (Ed.), The
importance of socialization. In: Robinson, I. (Ed.), The Waltham Book of Waltham Book of Human-Animal Interaction: Benefits and Responsibilities of
Human-Animal Interaction: Benefits and Responsibilities of Pet Ownership. Pet Ownership. Pergamon/Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford.
Pergamon/Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford. Turner, F.D., 1995b. Die Mensch-Katze-Beziehung. Ethologische und
Mendl, M., Turner, D.C., 1985. Reactions of house cats during encounters with a psychologische Aspekte. Gustav Fischer Verlag (VET Special). Jena/Stuttgart.
strange person: evidence for two personality types. J. Delta Soc. (later Turner, F.D., 2000a. The human-cat relationship. In: Turner, F.D.C., Bateson, F.P.
Anthrozoös) 2, 45–53. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 2nd ed. Cambridge
Mendl, M., Harcourt, R., 2000. ndividuality in the domestic cat: origins, University Press, Cambridge.
development and stability. In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. Turner, F.D., 2000b. Human-cat interactions: relationships with, and breed
The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. differences between, non-pedigree Persian and Siamese cats. In: Podberscek,
Mertens, C., Turner, D.C., 1988. Experimental analysis of human-cat interactions F.A.L., Paul, F.E., Serpell, F.J.A. (Eds.), Companion Animals and Us. Exploring the
during first encounters. Anthrozoös 2, 83–97. Relationships Between People and Pets. Cambridge University Press,
Mertens, C., 1991. Human-cat interactions in the home setting. Anthrozoös 4, Cambridge.
214–231. Turner, F.D., 2007. Katzen in der tiergestützten Arbeit. Tiergesützte Therapie.
Miklosi, A., Pongracz, P., Lakatos, G., Csanyl, V., 2005. A comparative study of the Pädagogik & Fördermassnahmen, Nr. 3, pp. 4–6.
use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis Turner, D.C., 2010. Attitudes toward animals: a cross-cultural, international
familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. J. Comp. Psychol. comparison Plenary presentation/Abstract Book. In: 12th International IAHAIO
119 (2), 179–186. Conference, July 1–4 2010 Stockholm, Sweden.
Podberscek, A.L., Blackshaw, J.K., Beattie, A.W., 1991. The behaviour of laboratory Turner, D.C., 2014. Social organization and behavioral ecology of free-ranging
colony cats and their reactions to a familiar and unfamiliar person. Appl. Anim. domestic cats. In: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology
Behav. Sci. 31, 119–130. of Its Behaviour. , 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Potter, A., Mills, D., 2015. Domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) do not show signs of Turner, D.C., Bateson, P., 1988. The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour, 2nd
secure attachment to their owners. PLoS One 10 (9), E0135109. ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Second edition, 2000; third
Qureshi, A., Zeeshan Memon, M., Vazquez, G., Suri, M. Fareed, 2009. Cat ownership edition, 2014).
and the risk of fatal cardiovascular diseases. Results from the second national Turner, D.C., Rieger, G., 2001. Singly living people and their cats: a study of human
health and nutrition examination study. Mortality follow-up study. J. Vasc. mood and subsequent behaviour. Anthrozoös 14 (1), 38–46.
Interv. Neurol. 2 (1), 132–135. Turner, D.C., Stammbach-Geering, K., 1990. Owner assessment and the ethology of
Rieger, G., Turner, D.C., 1999. How depressive moods affect the behaviour of singly human-cat relationships. In: Burger, I. (Ed.), Pets, Benefits and Practice. BVA
living persons toward their cats. Anthrozoös 12 (4), 224–233. Publications, London.
Rodel, H., 1986. Faktoren, die den Aufbau einer Mensch-Katze-Beziehung Turner, D.C., Feaver, J., Mendl, M., Bateson, P., 1986. Variations in domestic cat
beeinflussen. Thesis. University of Zurich (Zoology Inst.), Switzerland. behaviour towards humans: a paternal effect. Anim. Behav. 34, 1890–1892.
Roduit, F.C., Wohlgensinger, F.J., Frei, F.R., et al., 2010. Prenatal animal contact and Turner, D.C., Rieger, G., Gygax, L., 2003. Spouses and cats and their effects on
gene expression of innate immunity receptors at birth are associated with human mood. Anthrozoös 16 (3), 213–228.
atopic dermatitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 127, 179–185. Yeon, S.C., Kim, Y.K., Park Se, J., et al., 2011. Differences between vocalization
Serpell, J.A., 1983. The personality of the dog and its influence on the pet-owner evoked by social stimuli in feral cats and house cats. Behav. Process. 87 (2),
bond. In: Katcher, F.A.H., Beck, F.A.M. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives 183–189.
with Companion Animals. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Wedl, M., Bauer, B., Gracey, D., Grabmayer, C., Spielauer, E., Day, J., Kotrschal, K.,
Serpell, J.A., 2014. Domestication and history of the cat. In: Turner, F.D.C., Bateson, 2011. Factors influencing the temporal patterns of dyadic behaviours and
F.P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat. The Biology of Its Behaviour. , 3rd ed. Cambridge interactions between domestic cats and their owners. Behav. Process. 86,
University Press, Cambridge. 58–67.
Stammbach, K., Turner, D.C., 1999. Understanding the human-cat relationship: Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., 2005. The pet connection: pets as a conduit
human social support or attachment. Anthrozoös 12, 162–168. for social capital? Soc. Sci. Med. 61, 1159–1173.
Sterneberg-van der Maaten, T., Turner, D., Van Tilburg, J., Vaarten, J., 2015. Benefits Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Nathan, A., Lauritsen, C., Houghton, S., et al.,
and risks for people and livestock of keeping companion animals: searching for 2015. The pet factor - companion animals as a conduit for getting to know
a healthy balance. J. Comp. Path. http://dx.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.06.007. people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS One 10 (4), e0122085,
Turner, D.C., 1985. The human/cat relationship: methods of analysis. In: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122085.
IEMT-Austria (Ed.), The Human-Pet Relationship. International Symposium on Wuethrich, B., Schindler, C., Leuenberger, P., Ackermann-Liebrich, U., the
the Occasion of the 80th Birthday of Nobel Prize Winner Prof. DDr. Konrad SAPALDIA-Team, 1995. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 106, 149–156.
Lorenz. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. Zasloff, R., Kidd, A., 1994. Loneliness and pet ownership among single women.
Turner, F.D., 1988. Cat behaviour and the human/cat relationship. Anim. Famil. 3, Psychol. Rep. 75 (2), 747–752.
16–21.
Turner, F.D., 1991. The ethology of the human-cat relationship. Swiss Arch. Vet.
Med. 133, 63–70.