Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
The presence of animals has been associated with decreased physiological responses to stressors. Not all individuals respond equally to the presence of friendly animals. The current study was designed to examine whether attitudes toward animals are related to individuals' physiological responses when an animal is present. The relationship of individuals' perceptions of animals to their blood pressure and heart rate responses during verbalization in the presence of a dog were examined among urban college students (n= 218). Lockwood's projective Animal Thematic Apperception Test (ATAT) was used to assess subjects' attitudes toward animals and people in scenes containing animals and identical scenes without animals. The significant period by perception interactions in analyses of variance with repeated measures revealed that cardiovascular responses to verbalization with an animal present were significantly lower for individuals who perceived scenes with animals more positively than for individuals who perceived scenes with animals present less positively. Cardiovascular responses when the dog was present were not related to perceptions of scenes without animals present. The differences in cardiovascular responses depended upon the scenes used. This study supports the view that how people perceive animals moderates their physiological responses to stressors when an animal is present.
REVIEWS AND RESEARCH REPORTS
In recent years animal experimentation in American psychology has been subjected to harsh criticism from inside and outside the discipline (Bannister 1981; Giannelli, this volume;Griffin 1976Griffin , 1984MacDonald and Dawkins 1981;Rollin 1981). The critics have warned of a loss of both an ethical framework and a creative spark in contemporary psychology. It is no secret that much of what passes for good science in psychology is trivial, boring, repetitive, and inhumane. I think that many of the factors that stifle creativity in this field are the same ones that lead researchers to conduct studies that are ethically impoverished. Conversely, I believe that an empathic and humane viewpoint often encourages scientists to ask valid scientific questions that are fresh, challenging, and beneficial to human and non-human animals alike.How did psychology, particularly American comparative psychology, get into this sterile and often cruel rut? I would like to examine that question by briefly reviewing the history of the field and my own experiences as a student in this area.When I first entered the world of the scientific study of animal behavior almost twenty years ago, I was given the distinct impression that it was time to put away my teddy bears and memories of Disney films and acquire the cold, hard, "objective" eye of the scientist. My textbooks were quite clear about the dangers of viewing animals in any other way:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.