Docile, Shy Dogs Live Longer Than Bold Dogs

[Swiss Girl]

http://www.longevitys.com/n719317c30.aspx

The emergence of man’s best friend, it is clear from scientific studies and historical records, was a rather strategic process of artificial selection that occurred over hundreds of years. Humans bred dogs for certain personality traits and looks. Over time, hundreds of breeds emerged.

An inadvertent consequence of this breeding, a new study shows, is longevity. Docile, shy dogs tend to live much longer than bold, aggressive dogs, according to a paper that will be published next month in The American Naturalist.

“We can think of this as a correlation — an undesired correlation into longevity,” said Vincent Careau, the paper’s lead author and a doctoral student of biology at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec. He and his colleagues analyzed available data and studies, including one by a Swedish pet insurance company that evaluated canine longevity.

For instance, the English springer spaniel is 34 percent more docile than the basset hound based on a scale established in a 1995 Journal of General Psychology study and twice as likely to live longer than 10 years, Mr. Careau said. Similarly, the poodle is 29 percent more docile than the boxer, and is four times as likely to live past 10.

Mr. Careau was careful to compare dogs of similar size, since it is known that large dogs tend to die younger than smaller ones.

Interesting article that really makes you think

[Kissindra]

sounds like a load of carefully constructed data set up to support useless hogwash while ignoring the big fat holes made by obvious variables that have failed to be accounted for. YAY SCIENCE!

[mita]

I'm pleased to see, tho', that they controlled for the variable of size (tho' that should also include 'lightness' of body frame.) I suspect that some of the studies that keep getting cited for crossbreed pets living longer that purebred pets, did not control for size. Many larger pure breeds are popular pets.

Mr. Careau was careful to compare dogs of similar size, since it is known that large dogs tend to die younger than smaller on

Slightly longer account which better reflects the science, here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00513112759.htm

Edited May 21, 2010 by mita

[spottychick]

sounds like a load of carefully constructed data set up to support useless hogwash while ignoring the big fat holes made by obvious variables that have failed to be accounted for. YAY SCIENCE!

I'm with you Kissindra. Wonder how much moola they were paid to come up with these "results" based on sweeping generalisations?

[Kelly_Louise]

If shy dogs live longer - Sasha will probably outlive me then!

[Sheridan]

I wonder how much longer my Grumpy would live if he was shy, given he's 14, very healthy, and as bold as brass.

[mita]

sounds like a load of carefully constructed data set up to support useless hogwash while ignoring the big fat holes made by obvious variables that have failed to be accounted for. YAY SCIENCE!

I'm with you Kissindra. Wonder how much moola they were paid to come up with these "results" based on sweeping generalisations?

The study doesn't say that temperament/personality is the only variable linked with longevity in dogs.

It seems to be paralleling the findings re human logevity. Temperament/personality is one variable significantly associated with longevity in humans, too.

Nor does the study say that temperament/personality alone will decide the life span of each individual dog. For individual dogs, it'll be a mix. But the tendency across numbers of dogs will be for temperament/personality to have significance. However, for a variable to be statistically significant does not mean there'd be no exceptions.

As to 'ignoring the big fat holes made by obvious variables'....science has to study influence of single variables. That's why they controlled for size/weight. Which is already known to be another variable.

This is reducationism....by which science can gradually build up an overall picture of the reality via studies that test the contribution of each element.

As to wondering how much 'moola' the researchers were paid...of course, research gets funded.

This study has made it to the level where it'll be published in a peer-reviewed journal. That means its method & findings had to pass extensive independent scrutiny. Then the study gets even further exposure to critique from others in that field of study.

Other researchers can set up testing to see if their results are the same. Which is how science works....not just that one research study came up with certain findings, but also if they can be replicated....or not...by others.

Also helps to read what researchers actually wrote, too. Reports in the general media can suffer in translation.

Like, this study was as much about metabolism & energy output, but they got dumbed out...

Edited May 23, 2010 by mita

[GeckoTree]

Dang mine should be dead by now.

[Kissindra]

Mita your faith in the establishment does you credit but quite frankly and awful lot of pap gets published in peer reviewed journals and it is not what I would call a reasonable indication of the worth of findings.

[Sheridan]

There's faith and there's blind faith. I also find loads of rubbish in peer reviewed journals. Just because it's academic, doesn't mean it's any good.

[Hetzer]

When you consider body chemistry, with adrenalin, cortisol etc, then there could it can make some sense. A candle that burns twice as bright can only burn half as long.

[mita]

Mita your faith in the establishment does you credit but quite frankly and awful lot of pap gets published in peer reviewed journals and it is not what I would call a reasonable indication of the worth of findings.

I pointed to the process....not the quality. The quality is decided on longevity & usefulness of what is published. Marked by numbers of citations.

It also depends on the level of the journals. There's a gradation of journal types & prestige. Ranging from those with high international reputations thro' to some that are little more than in-house journals to get work 'published.

So it will be interesting to read the actual article in the actual journal....& follow any citations.

What was it about this journal that leads you to talk about an 'awful lot of crap' in this context?

I'm interested why the general media report on this particular article....scarcely a few lines in length....raised your ire???

By the way.....it's not a question of my 'faith'.....it's a question of occupation. 'Faith' seems a strange word to use when talking about science.....where the default position is scepticism.

Edited May 26, 2010 by mita

[mita]

Just out of interest....because this study about dogs' longevity & temperament/personality, seems to be paralleling humans.

A study released last month of 190 Australians 100 yrs +, also showed that certain personality traits best predict a ripe old age, more than others (Prof Robyn Richmond, uni of nsw).

Obviously personality can't be the single predictor....same as it can't be for dogs.

So work continues looking for what elements contribute to the mix. And where are the links....like the underlying metabolism & energy output, which turned up in the dog study.

Quote from the oldest lady in the study, born 1899:

'They tell me I'm the oldest Australian. How did I get here? Just quietly, living one day at a time.'

Edited May 26, 2010 by mita

[anniek]

Mmmm maybe that it why the docile greyhound has a longer life span that most large breeds?

[Kissindra]

Mita your faith in the establishment does you credit but quite frankly and awful lot of pap gets published in peer reviewed journals and it is not what I would call a reasonable indication of the worth of findings.

I pointed to the process....not the quality. The quality is decided on longevity & usefulness of what is published. Marked by numbers of citations.

It also depends on the level of the journals. There's a gradation of journal types & prestige. Ranging from those with high international reputations thro' to some that are little more than in-house journals to get work 'published.

So it will be interesting to read the actual article in the actual journal....& follow any citations.

What was it about this journal that leads you to talk about an 'awful lot of crap' in this context?

I'm interested why the general media report on this particular article....scarcely a few lines in length....raised your ire???

By the way.....it's not a question of my 'faith'.....it's a question of occupation. 'Faith' seems a strange word to use when talking about science.....where the default position is scepticism.

oh terribly sorry, you see this "This study has made it to the level where it'll be published in a peer-reviewed journal. That means its method & findings had to pass extensive independent scrutiny." did rather sound to me like an assumption of quality at that level.

data sources cited and the assumption of accurate theoretical basis of those lovely percentage studies do tend to suggest a high probability of skewed findings. I'd have to look at the equivalent human studies to determine if it is relevant, perhaps I would find them equally shoddy sounding, but frankly I can't be arsed.

As to why it raised my ire, well I'm afraid that is rather personal but I believe I can share that it is responsible for giving Spotty a nasty wedgie in a dark alley and stealing Sheridan's prized thimble collection - including the rare one with a badger playing poker with a lemming....tsk tsk tsk

[Sheridan]

Mita your faith in the establishment does you credit but quite frankly and awful lot of pap gets published in peer reviewed journals and it is not what I would call a reasonable indication of the worth of findings.

I pointed to the process....not the quality. The quality is decided on longevity & usefulness of what is published. Marked by numbers of citations.

It also depends on the level of the journals. There's a gradation of journal types & prestige. Ranging from those with high international reputations thro' to some that are little more than in-house journals to get work 'published.

So it will be interesting to read the actual article in the actual journal....& follow any citations.

What was it about this journal that leads you to talk about an 'awful lot of crap' in this context?

I'm interested why the general media report on this particular article....scarcely a few lines in length....raised your ire???

By the way.....it's not a question of my 'faith'.....it's a question of occupation. 'Faith' seems a strange word to use when talking about science.....where the default position is scepticism.

oh terribly sorry, you see this "This study has made it to the level where it'll be published in a peer-reviewed journal. That means its method & findings had to pass extensive independent scrutiny." did rather sound to me like an assumption of quality at that level.

data sources cited and the assumption of accurate theoretical basis of those lovely percentage studies do tend to suggest a high probability of skewed findings. I'd have to look at the equivalent human studies to determine if it is relevant, perhaps I would find them equally shoddy sounding, but frankly I can't be arsed.

As to why it raised my ire, well I'm afraid that is rather personal but I believe I can share that it is responsible for giving Spotty a nasty wedgie in a dark alley and stealing Sheridan's prized thimble collection - including the rare one with a badger playing poker with a lemming....tsk tsk tsk

Oh, give us me thimble back, thief!

And you know, Kissindra, I'm betting there's never ever been a shonky scientist whose had utter nonsense published in a peer reviewed journal.

[waffle]

you can't judge the paper from what is written about it in the media. if you read the paper it says that the correlation has been found in other species.

the paper is just testing that theory in dogs and there seems to be evidence for it. and when it says docile dogs it means dogs that are highly trainable and not aggressive (a previous study found that trainability is inversely proportional to boldness) which is kind of a questionable criterion but i guess they didn't have much to work with.

and they hardly talk about it in terms of shy, docile or bold. in the paper they are studying activity levels, aggressiveness and trainability.

if u think about it in those terms then you can see why there would be a correlation (less fights, less likely to run onto the road etc.)

not an AMAZING paper but i wouldnt be so quick to judge seeing as most people only have anecdotal 'evidence' whereas this guy has at least tried find out in a systematic way whether there is a correlation. hes linked it to other studies which shows his results are somewhat supported.