Functional analysis and treatment of aggression exhibited by cats toward humans during petting

Abstract

Human‐directed aggression is a common problem that can often result in rehoming or relinquishing the cat as well as injuries and infections for the human. Functional analyses (FAs) have been used to determine the cause of problem behavior by human and nonhuman animals, and treatments developed based on FA results have been proven effective. This study applied this methodology to assess and treat human‐directed aggression exhibited by 3 cats during petting. Results suggested that aggression during petting for all 3 cats was maintained by social‐negative reinforcement (escape from petting), and differential reinforcement of other behavior plus within‐session stimulus fading (escape contingent on the absence of aggression following a specified number of pets that systematically increased as aggression remained low) was effective in decreasing aggression for all 3 cats. All 3 cats were available for adoption through a rescue organization during the study, and all of the cats were adopted after completing treatment.

Functional analyses of undesirable behavior by nonhumans: A concise review

“…In addition, it is unclear whether inclusion of precursors to dangerous behaviors may produce valid results while minimizing safety risks (Heath & Smith, 2019), as only one study included precursors (e.g., freezing, staring, stiffening) in the analysis (Mehrkam et al, 2020). Authors from two additional studies noted that this topic merits further investigation (i.e., Fritz et al, 2022; Salmeron et al, 2021).…”

“…Like research on human behavior (Hurl et al, 2016), several studies included supplemental assessments prior to the analysis (e.g., interviews, Dorey et al, 2012; checklists, Farmer‐Dougan, 2014; surveys, Hall et al, 2015). In some cases, these assessments contributed to the design of conditions that were unique to nonhuman functional analysis research, including an escape from petting test condition (Fritz et al, 2022), a light movement test condition (Hall et al, 2015), and a bed condition as a control (Feuerbacher & Wynne, 2016). As research in this area grows, it may be helpful to assess the correspondence between supplemental assessments and experimental analyses (see Contreras et al, 2023).…”

“…Several safety measures were used to protect the human implementers during the functional analysis. These measures included the use of thick plastic pieces inside protective equipment (Fritz et al, 2022), an artificial hand (Mehrkam et al, 2020), water spray dependent on aggression (Farmer‐Dougan, 2014), specific inclusion criteria (Fritz et al, 2022), and positioning outside of an enclosure (Dorey et al, 2012). With humans, functional analysis outcomes for self‐injury sometimes differ when safety equipment for participants is and is not applied (Le & Smith, 2002), but only one study (i.e., Mehrkam et al, 2020) in the current review compared functional analysis outcomes of potentially dangerous nonhuman responses with and without protections for humans.…”

Strengthening the procedural fidelity research‐to‐practice loop in animal behavior

“…Another purpose of measuring procedural fidelity is to pinpoint specific errors occurring during intervention. For example, a data collector can measure an experimenter's implementation of components of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to treat cat aggression (e.g., ceased petting once the cat met the DRO criteria, initiating petting within 3 s of the end of a break, not delivering enough pets so the cat's behavior could meet the DRO criteria; Fritz et al, 2022). If the data identify specific errors that occur frequently, the experimenter can receive retraining on select components of the treatment protocol.…”