The Adaptation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to the Hierarchy of Dogs’ Needs Using a Consensus Building Approach

Abstract

It is crucial for good dog welfare that humans be able to accurately and adequately recognize and meet dogs’ needs. However, humans may do a poor job of recognizing dogs’ needs due to their tendency to anthropomorphize. The aim of this study was to develop a framework for dogs’ needs that would help humans to recognize and meet their actual needs, thereby improving dogs’ quality of life. Using the Delphi method, to reach as close to a consensus as possible from an expert panel, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was adapted to become the Dogs’ Hierarchy of Needs. To do so, the relevant scientific literature was reviewed to identify 37 specific dog needs, which were group into seven need groups. Those groups were then organized onto five need levels, which were as analogous to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as possible. The expert panel was asked to assess various aspects of the adapted hierarchy in comparison to the original, including face validity, whether they agreed with how the need levels were ordered in terms of importance/priority, and whether they felt that any need groups should be more or less prioritized for any specific dog categories (e.g., senior dogs). After three rounds of expert feedback, there was sufficient consensus for all aspects except items pertaining to the prioritization of any need groups for specific dog categories. That aspect of the adapted hierarchy will need to be readdressed in the next phase of this project: the development of a tool to assess the quality of life of dogs that reside in shelters/rescue organizations and post-adoption once they have been rehomed.

The agency domain and behavioral interactions: assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model

“…For this reason, positive welfare, or more precisely, the uncertainty surrounding mental (affective) experiences that can be inferred, has resulted in risk-averse animal welfare scientists returning to the relative safety of positivism. This has meant that aspects of positive welfare are often referred to as animal "wants" -and "needs" are the basic provisions that precede these "wants" (28)(29)(30)(31)(32). Framing animal welfare as "needs" and "wants" risks reducing human responsibility towards animals to solely neutralizing negative experiences ("needs"), while positive experiences ("wants") could be perceived as an optional luxury (33,34).…”

Celebrating Women in Science: Pioneering Contributions to Animal Behaviour and Welfare

“…The article by Griffin and colleagues [7] presents us with a novel objective framework of shelter and recently rehomed dogs' needs regarding their quality of life and overall welfare. The authors, after reviewing relevant publications by canine experts, set a prioritization of their needs, grouping related needs and listing them by their nature and by hierarchy as physiological, safety, social, movement, and cognitive needs.…”