Preventing Dog Bites in Children: An Evaluation of the Blue Dog Project's Influence on Parents
Photo: Sofya Apkalikova/Shutterstock |
By Zazie Todd, PhD
An assessment of how parents behave when an unknown dog is
near their child shows much still needs to be done to prevent dog bites in
children.
The study took place in Guelph, Ontario and in Birmingham, Alabama. Parents with a child aged between three and six years old were recruited to the study and randomly assigned to one of two conditions. All parents came in to the lab with their child, then had a period of three weeks at home in which they had to watch a DVD with the child, and then came into the lab again.
The alternate DVD was about fire safety and also used a cartoon format. Diaries completed by the parents showed that each group spent the same amount of time studying the DVD (about an hour).
The dogs were well-behaved, but this does not seem to have been a factor in how parents behaved, because they did become more protective during the interaction.
Children are at greater risk of dog bites than adults. The Canada Safety Council estimates that 460,000 Canadians are bitten by dogs every year, of whom 75% are children under the age of ten. If bitten, children are
more likely than adults to be hospitalized because of their small size and the closeness of their face to a dog’s mouth.
The Blue Dog Project was designed to increase children’s
knowledge about dogs and alter the behaviour of both children and their
parents. While earlier studies show it successfully increases children’s knowledge,
little is known about whether parents are more cautious around dogs as a
result. Barbara Morrongiello (University of Guelph, Ontario) et al set out to
evaluate its effect on the behaviour of a parent when their child is in the
presence of an unfamiliar dog.
The study took place in Guelph, Ontario and in Birmingham, Alabama. Parents with a child aged between three and six years old were recruited to the study and randomly assigned to one of two conditions. All parents came in to the lab with their child, then had a period of three weeks at home in which they had to watch a DVD with the child, and then came into the lab again.
One group watched The Blue Dog DVD. This is a cartoon in which
various scenes are shown, such as a dog sleeping in its bed. The child is asked
how they should respond to the dog. If they make the wrong choice, the blue dog
becomes growly, but if they pick the right choice then the dog and child in the
animation have a nice, positive interaction. The DVD comes with a guide with
advice for parents about dogs and children.
The alternate DVD was about fire safety and also used a cartoon format. Diaries completed by the parents showed that each group spent the same amount of time studying the DVD (about an hour).
On each of the two visits to the lab, the researchers set
things up so that the child would meet an unfamiliar dog. The dogs were of
assorted breeds and all had passed the Canine Good Citizen or the Delta Society
Pet Partnership. The dog’s handler was
in the room, but sat in a corner and pretended to be busy; parents were not
told this person had a connection to the dog. In the second session, a
different dog was used so that it was still unfamiliar.
The child went into the room first, without knowing a dog
would be there. The parent followed a few minutes later, having been informed
there was a dog in the room because a lab member had brought one to work that
day.
The researchers studied how the child interacted with the
dog, whether the parent encouraged or discouraged interaction, and whether the
parent stayed within arm’s reach or not. This distance was chosen because a
parent could not expect an unfamiliar dog to respond to their voice, hence for
reasons of safety they should stay close.
Both groups of parents behaved the same in the first
encounter, as you would expect. Most parents were within reach of their child
at the first and subsequent interactions with the dog, and they were more
likely to pay continuous (rather than non-continuous) attention.
In the second session (after the DVD work), parents from
both groups were less likely to be within reach of their child than they had
been in session one. There was no difference in their attention levels.
The researchers also found that in both sessions, parents
tended to begin by encouraging their child to interact with the dog, becoming
more protective later on. When the child was being cautious, parents tended to
encourage approach. They also modelled approach and interaction, which is
significant because one of the ways children learn is through copying others.
Unfortunately the Blue Dog intervention did not have an
effect on parent’s behaviour. Parents were just as likely to encourage their child
to interact with the dog, which is risky behaviour, and those in both groups
became more lax at the second session.
It is possible that because the study was about child
safety, parents assumed that a dog in such a laboratory would be calm and
well-behaved. If the study were repeated, perhaps the researchers could pretend
the dog was linked to another lab down the hall or something similar.
Nonetheless, because the dog was unfamiliar, parents should have shown more
caution. (It’s worth mentioning that caution is also necessary with familiar
dogs; young children in particular are at risk of being bitten by a dog they
live with (Reisner et al 2011)).
The dogs were well-behaved, but this does not seem to have been a factor in how parents behaved, because they did become more protective during the interaction.
The authors say, “Over time, parents seemed to adopt a ‘watchful-waiting
approach’ in which they watched the child-dog interaction from a beyond-reach
distance. This supervision strategy is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent a
dog bite injury given the size of the child, their proximity to the dog, and
the parent’s minimal readiness to intervene from a distance.”
These results are disappointing, because even though the DVD
is designed for children, it also aims to change parent’s behaviour. This is a
common problem in health intervention research: unfortunately, even when
interventions are shown to increase knowledge (like this one), it does not
necessarily translate into less risky behaviour. This study is an important one
which shows the need to consider parents’ perceptions of risk as part of the
wider picture of improving children’s safety around dogs.
What do you teach children about interactions with dogs?
Reference
Morrongiello, B. A., Schwebel, D. C.,
Stewart, J., Bell, M., Davis, A. L., & Corbett, M. R. (2013).
Examining parents’ behaviors and supervision of their children in the
presence of an unfamiliar dog: Does The Blue Dog intervention improve
parent practices?. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 54, 108-113.
Reisner, I. R., Nance, M. L., Zeller,
J. S., Houseknecht, E. M., Kassam-Adams, N., & Wiebe, D. J. (2011).
Behavioural characteristics associated with dog bites to children
presenting to an urban trauma centre. Injury prevention, 17(5), 348-353.