Separation Anxiety, Attachment, and Sensory Status: Are Deaf Dogs More Attached to Their Human?

Traditionally, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and breed specific clubs (Dalmation Club of America; Australian Shepherd Club of America) advocated the immediate euthanasia of HVI dogs. Folklore held that these dogs were untrainable, aggressive and made poor family pets (Strain, 2011). Research in our lab (Farmer-Dougan, et al., 2014; Farmer-Dougan, 2017) has shown that these dogs can, indeed, be trained. As a result, the AKC and breed clubs have started to change their policies. However, little is known about the appropriate way to train these dogs, or how and why behavior problems may develop that are specific to this population. Our research suggest that these dogs may be more prone to higher attachment and separation anxiety. The present project will examine the form of attachment and behaivors related to the three main attachment types. Understanding differences in attachment between HVI and NHV dogs, if they exist, will allow trainers and behaviorists to develop improved training and intervention methods

Data from: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

This record contains the underlying research data for the publication "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" and the full-text is available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5257Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams