Exploring and Developing the Questions Used to Measure the Human–Dog Bond: New and Existing Themes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

a. This paper identified a gap in the literature specifically related to the lack of dog-centric experience. Dog trainers, pet parents and dog handlers are hearing of this importance in many webinars - choice, consent, welfare and well-bing. It is great timing for this paper. The citations are appropriate as this investigated many questionnaires in time related to the topic. The investigation design was appropriate for the topic, and also allowed for clear discussion of outcomes. 

b. The themes were clear and how they were derived were well explained. 

c. Well rounded preliminary investigation and quite a hot topic in the several human-animal interaction circles. And the presentation was an easy read which is so needed for the general population.

d. I do wonder why animal assisted interventions is a key word for this work. Nothing was mentioned that related specifically to AAIs that I can recall. While I do believe it is relevant to it, some references for AAIs or specifically AAA, AAE or AAT would help make the relation.

e. The supplementary information was well organized, the tables were clear.

f. Line 66: Many researchers have developed tools to help assess the value, strength, and benefit 66 of human-dog relationships. *****(Reference to the supplementary information in Table may be appropriate here or to some of the more recent questionnaires from the supplement)

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, please find our responses to your comments below and the amended paper attached with tracked changes from all 5 reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 1

1. This paper identified a gap in the literature specifically related to the lack of dog-centric experience. Dog trainers, pet parents and dog handlers are hearing of this importance in many webinars - choice, consent, welfare and well-being. It is great timing for this paper. The citations are appropriate as this investigated many questionnaires in time related to the topic. The investigation design was appropriate for the topic, and also allowed for clear discussion of outcomes. 

Authors: Thank you for your positivity and regard for our paper’s content, it is greatly appreciated.

2. The themes were clear and how they were derived were well explained. 

Authors: Thank you.

3. Well rounded preliminary investigation and quite a hot topic in the several human-animal interaction circles. And the presentation was an easy read which is so needed for the general population.

Authors: Great feedback, thank you.

4. I do wonder why animal assisted interventions is a key word for this work. Nothing was mentioned that related specifically to AAIs that I can recall. While I do believe it is relevant to it, some references for AAIs or specifically AAA, AAE or AAT would help make the relation.

Authors: The Keywords we’ve chosen for the paper were “Human-animal interaction; dog; bond; questionnaire; dog investment”, apologies if this has been miscommunicated somehow through the reviewing process. We did interview a guardian of an assistance dog so there is mention dogs interactions through such roles but we agree with what you say here, it is not a specific focus of the paper. 

5. The supplementary information was well organized, the tables were clear.

Authors: Thank you

6. Line 66: Many researchers have developed tools to help assess the value, strength, and benefit 66 of human-dog relationships. *****(Reference to the supplementary information in Table may be appropriate here or to some of the more recent questionnaires from the supplement)

Authors: Noted and amendment made: “(for examples see Table S1 in the Supplementary Data)”. Thank you for this suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have really enjoyed getting into the detail of this fascinating paper that explores human - companion animal relations and seeks to test forms of proximity through a distinct methodology. I am not familiar with this method, although I have written on the need for such techniques in my book, Ethnography after Humanism which I published in 2017. At that time, we had very few people working in this distinctive template, and this is definitely an advance. 

The text is well organised and presented, I was slightly challenged by the figures as I am more usually reviewing text only articles. However, the diagrams and figures were certainly in keeping with the content and findings. 

The paper was well written and I found very few issues with the way that it explained the context or method, the findings were interesting and set out a way forward for investigating forms of proximity in more granular depth. 

Overall, a valuable paper that I can use in teaching, and in methodology writing. I feel with some very minor proof edits, this will be an important contribution. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, please find our responses to your comments below and the amended paper attached with tracked changes from all 5 reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 2

I have really enjoyed getting into the detail of this fascinating paper that explores human - companion animal relations and seeks to test forms of proximity through a distinct methodology. I am not familiar with this method, although I have written on the need for such techniques in my book, Ethnography after Humanism which I published in 2017. At that time, we had very few people working in this distinctive template, and this is definitely an advance. 

The text is well organised and presented, I was slightly challenged by the figures as I am more usually reviewing text only articles. However, the diagrams and figures were certainly in keeping with the content and findings. 

The paper was well written and I found very few issues with the way that it explained the context or method, the findings were interesting and set out a way forward for investigating forms of proximity in more granular depth. 

Overall, a valuable paper that I can use in teaching, and in methodology writing. I feel with some very minor proof edits, this will be an important contribution. 

Authors: Thank you for your positive feedback on our study and the qualitative methodology chosen, we’ve found it very useful for the purpose of this study, and especially in preliminary investigation when gathering data to design larger, quantitative research projects. We appreciate the time you’ve taken to review our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I must congratulate the authors to work on a significant aspect of Human -dog relationship which provides novel approaches to define the relationship and use such approaches for unexplored areas such as quantifying the trainability of dogs hitherto considered untrainable (such as free-roaming dogs). 

The manuscript is presented in a logical manner and connects all through. At times there are some long sentences, but their use is understandable given the gamut of issues being explained together. 

This work points out that the nature of studies on Human Dog Bonding hitherto draw from those of studies on Human Animal Interaction and are mostly biased against the dog's perception of the human -dog relationship. This manuscript investigates the appropriateness of current methodology adopted by studies in the domain. Further, themes that need to be included in prospective studies to efficiently define human-dog relationships.  

It is a novel work that takes a counterview to evaluate the existing tools for assessing their efficacy of animals' investment in the human- dog relationship.

It is a comprehensive work which follows qualitative analysis of interviews of various dog-guardians; one of the salient ones being multiple persons' home, identification of male, and working dogs.

The methodology of qualitative analysis is appropriate

The article refers to appropriate previous works in the field

The tables and figures are well explained, and informative.  

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, please find our responses to your comments below and the amended paper attached with tracked changes from all 5 reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 3

I must congratulate the authors to work on a significant aspect of Human -dog relationship which provides novel approaches to define the relationship and use such approaches for unexplored areas such as quantifying the trainability of dogs hitherto considered untrainable (such as free-roaming dogs). 

The manuscript is presented in a logical manner and connects all through. At times there are some long sentences, but their use is understandable given the gamut of issues being explained together. 

This work points out that the nature of studies on Human Dog Bonding hitherto draw from those of studies on Human Animal Interaction and are mostly biased against the dog's perception of the human -dog relationship. This manuscript investigates the appropriateness of current methodology adopted by studies in the domain. Further, themes that need to be included in prospective studies to efficiently define human-dog relationships.  

It is a novel work that takes a counterview to evaluate the existing tools for assessing their efficacy of animals' investment in the human- dog relationship.

It is a comprehensive work which follows qualitative analysis of interviews of various dog-guardians; one of the salient ones being multiple persons' home, identification of male, and working dogs.

The methodology of qualitative analysis is appropriate

The article refers to appropriate previous works in the field

The tables and figures are well explained, and informative.  

Authors: Thank you kindly for your positive feedback on our study. We appreciate the time you’ve taken to review our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript is in two parts. The first consists of a review of the literature about the measurement of the human-dog bond (HDB) through questionnaires, that highlighted a lack of questions about the dogs' investment in this bond (barely 7% of all HDB questions). The second, starting from 12 semi-structured dog-guardians interviews, and using a thematic analysis of the transcripts, aims to identify new themes in order to question dog investments in the HDB.

The methodological approach is original and allows a broader view of what HDB is, by asking guardians to describe it and to indicate what, for them, materializes this bond. The perspectives that emerge from the discussion are very interesting and I have no doubt that they will make it possible to finally take into account, in this notion of HDB, the partner that is the animal.

This manuscript is very well written, with a fluid and well argued reading. It may be published with a few clarifications which are reproduced below.

-L. 62: species humans: shouldn’t one of these words be deleted?

-L. 85-92: I do not understand the use of criteria: Table 2 presents 6 criteria. Which condition must satisfy a question to be judged: passed/unsure/reject? Is that criterion 2?

-L. 116-17 : until saturation was reached … interviews continued … : I am not familiar with this process. Who decided that saturation had been reached (continued means longer discussion, more sub-questions were provided?)

-L. 148-150: It is appropriate ? I guess the Dogs Trust Ethical Review Board is interested in the ethical use of animals in research. Here, only humans were questioned. Is there a human ethical committee inside this Board ?

- L. 158 : are there 228 or 229 HDB questions (see suppl. Mat. And Suppl. Table 1)

- Table 5 : Miscellaneous line: needed ? Does not provide any information in this document.

- L 171-73 : Is it here that N-Vivo was used ? If it is the case, please mention it.

- Suggestion: to move L. 171-187 under L. 188. In the negative, formulate the 3 themes that will be developed in the second part of the results, under line 188, in a short sentence.

- L.691: the ‘signs OF affirmation’?

- L. 694-670 ; 706: The THREE themes OR call them back here.

- Figure 1: Why is the Dog’s preferences arrow towards Expectations not bi-directional? The smaller oval should be placed at the bottom of the larger oval to allow adaptation table (2 entries: owner/dog) to be out of the larger oval. The dotted line to ‘Affirmation of the HDB’ should be similar to the line linking Dog’s Preferences to Adaptation. ‘ Affirmation of the HDB’ should be Quality of the HDB OR Type of the HDB (only if owner and his dog adapts, there is an affirmed bond).

- Structure of the discussion: 4.1/4.2/4.3: why not follow the same order as in the section Results: Affirmation/ Preferences/ Adaptation?

- L. 798/-801 : there is a human tool (i.e. interpretation of affirmation behavior) but not a dog’s one, as mentioned L. 785-787. Could this section of the discussion about HDB affirmation lead to an alternative of direct observation of the dog, while interacting with his guardian (body language, stress/arousal related behaviors, acute physiological reactions such as respiration/heart rate, heart rate variability, dermal/eye/ear/nose thermography, etc.)?

- Table S1 : It is no clear to me how the 15 (*) questions were selected. Could you explain why this question ‘My dog always pays attention to me and obeys me right away’ did not receive a (*), such as : ‘My dog does not look at me often’, ‘My dog is constantly attentive to me’, ‘My dog pays more attention to strangers than he/she does with me’. And same with ‘My dog does not follow me around the house very often’, ‘My dog follows me wherever I go’, ‘My pet is constantly at my side’, ‘Your pet tries to stay near by following you’, such as : ‘My dog will follow me around the house’, ‘My pet stays close to me when I am upset’

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, please find our responses to your comments below and the amended paper attached with tracked changes from all 5 reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 4

This manuscript is in two parts. The first consists of a review of the literature about the measurement of the human-dog bond (HDB) through questionnaires, that highlighted a lack of questions about the dogs' investment in this bond (barely 7% of all HDB questions). The second, starting from 12 semi-structured dog-guardians interviews, and using a thematic analysis of the transcripts, aims to identify new themes in order to question dog investments in the HDB.

The methodological approach is original and allows a broader view of what HDB is, by asking guardians to describe it and to indicate what, for them, materializes this bond. The perspectives that emerge from the discussion are very interesting and I have no doubt that they will make it possible to finally take into account, in this notion of HDB, the partner that is the animal.

This manuscript is very well written, with a fluid and well argued reading. It may be published with a few clarifications which are reproduced below.

Authors: Thank you kindly for your positive feedback on our study. We appreciate the time you’ve taken to review it and the recommendations you have suggested below (of which we have addressed – details below).

-L. 62: species humans: shouldn’t one of these words be deleted?

Authors: Amended to: “…that those animal species, which humans form bonds with…”

-L. 85-92: I do not understand the use of criteria: Table 2 presents 6 criteria. Which condition must satisfy a question to be judged: passed/unsure/reject? Is that criterion 2?

Authors: Each question had to pass all 6 criteria for it to be included in the next stage of the process. If a question failed any one of the criteria it was rejected. We carried out this research initially as a foundation to build our own HAB tool. When reviewing all the questions that had ever been included in such tools there were some which were clearly inappropriate for the task, therefore we used the 6 suitability criteria (listed in Table 2) to ensure our methods were reproducible and the questions passed this initial stage of construct validity assessment.

We have changed the title of Table 2 to hopefully explain this more clearly. Amended to: “Table 2. Suitability criteria that tool questions had to meet for assessing the human-dog bond (HDB).”

-L. 116-17 : until saturation was reached … interviews continued … : I am not familiar with this process. Who decided that saturation had been reached (continued means longer discussion, more sub-questions were provided?)

Authors: This is a process often applied in qualitative research when interviews or other forms of data collection no longer produce “new” patterns (themes) on a subject. Braun & Clarke (2006) explain it further in their paper which can be accessed here (reference below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235356393_Using_thematic_analysis_in_psychology  Ultimately it is the researcher’s decision as to when data saturation is reached as they have conducted the interviews so are aware of the data content. Here it refers to the number of interviews carried out rather than the length of individual interviews. Each interview follows a semi-structured line of questioning (i.e., the same set of questions are asked in every interview but interviewers may like to follow up any interesting points raised by interviewees with the odd additional question or request for more detail / elaboration on something that was mentioned to discuss it more if it seems relevant to the research topic).

We have adjusted the phrasing and added the citation to try to make this clearer. L119-122 amended to: “Data were collected until saturation was reached (i.e., in line with accepted qualitative research approaches [e.g., 16], interviews were conducted until similar themes were identified multiple times between interviewees and additional sampling was unlikely to lead to new information being collected).”

Ref: Braun & Clarke (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006, 3, 77-101

-L. 148-150: It is appropriate ? I guess the Dogs Trust Ethical Review Board is interested in the ethical use of animals in research. Here, only humans were questioned. Is there a human ethical committee inside this Board ?

Authors: Ethical review is relevant for any research Dogs Trust undertake, whether that includes humans and/or animals. More information can be found here: https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/help-advice/research/research-ethics

- L. 158 : are there 228 or 229 HDB questions (see suppl. Mat. And Suppl. Table 1)

Authors: It is 228 - Thank you for pointing this error out!

- Table 5 : Miscellaneous line: needed ? Does not provide any information in this document.

Authors: In the interest of accurately reporting the results we obtained we wish to leave this in, however we agree that aside from this being an observed category it tells us little else.

- L 171-73 : Is it here that N-Vivo was used ? If it is the case, please mention it.

Authors: We have added “from analysis” to L175, however it would not be applicable to mention N-Vivo here.

- Suggestion: to move L. 171-187 under L. 188. In the negative, formulate the 3 themes that will be developed in the second part of the results, under line 188, in a short sentence.

Authors: We have moved L. 171-187 under L. 188. (i.e. to under the subheading 3.2). If we understand your comment correctly we have restructured the paragraph (now L179 - 185). Does this meet your suggestion appropriately? 

- L.691: the ‘signs OF affirmation’?

Authors: Thank you, amended.

- L. 694-670 ; 706: The THREE themes OR call them back here.

Authors: L709 amended to “the three main themes”.

- Figure 1: Why is the Dog’s preferences arrow towards Expectations not bi-directional?

Authors: Because the interviews were based on the guardians’ perceptions of how they create bonds with their dog / what is important to their dog for a bond (as well as how their dogs showed they were bonded to them), not the other way around. This is why the arc specifically refers to “Dog’s” preferences, likes and dislikes and not the human’s. (Future research could develop this and hypothesise that if tested for both dog and human then the arrow for these two themes, if the themes generic, could be bidirectional).

The smaller oval should be placed at the bottom of the larger oval to allow adaptation table (2 entries: owner/dog) to be out of the larger oval.

Authors: The table is outside of the larger oval. We included the grey “expansion” triangle with the intention of indicating at which point of the diagram it was referring to.  

The dotted line to ‘Affirmation of the HDB’ should be similar to the line linking Dog’s Preferences to Adaptation. ‘ Affirmation of the HDB’ should be Quality of the HDB OR Type of the HDB (only if owner and his dog adapts, there is an affirmed bond).

Authors: We disagree, human’s being pleased by a dog’s affirmation of the bond is not directly related to the dog’s investment in the bond, it is a product of it however we have included it here because we understand that it may have a non-direct impact (e.g. positive reinforcement to emotion) – hence a dotted line was used. We have amended the figure legend to more clearly describe/explain the proposed difference (L775-776).

- Structure of the discussion: 4.1/4.2/4.3: why not follow the same order as in the section Results: Affirmation/ Preferences/ Adaptation?

Authors: Thank you for the suggestion, we have amended.

- L. 798/-801 : there is a human tool (i.e. interpretation of affirmation behavior) but not a dog’s one, as mentioned L. 785-787. Could this section of the discussion about HDB affirmation lead to an alternative of direct observation of the dog, while interacting with his guardian (body language, stress/arousal related behaviors, acute physiological reactions such as respiration/heart rate, heart rate variability, dermal/eye/ear/nose thermography, etc.)?

Authors: We promote measuring behaviours within HAI alongside designing any tool to test its validity (L.682 of discussion). If we understand your comment correctly, these direct observations have been trialled using tests such as the Ainsworth strange situation test and physiological parameters such as oxytocin, these are mentioned in the discussion in Lines 680 and 720.

- Table S1 : It is no clear to me how the 15 (*) questions were selected. Could you explain why this question ‘My dog always pays attention to me and obeys me right away’ did not receive a (*), such as : ‘My dog does not look at me often’, ‘My dog is constantly attentive to me’, ‘My dog pays more attention to strangers than he/she does with me’.

Authors: This question was not chosen to be included as a determinant of a dog’s investment in the bond because we argue it is related to training history. So whilst useful in a tool examining the human-dog relationship is not directly correlated to the dog’s investment in a specific bond. However, we are aware that such topics could be explored if a question like this was reworded to be more indicative of a dog’s investment. There are many questions within the list that are interpretable in this way and rather than focussing on the exact phrasing of questions themselves we aim to showcase the bias that exists in lines of questioning towards human-centric questions. We hope this paper will promote discussion and thought among researchers when designing future tools such as to the points you raise here. We have included this point in L814-826 to address your comment in case other readers have similar queries.

And same with ‘My dog does not follow me around the house very often’, ‘My dog follows me wherever I go’, ‘My pet is constantly at my side’, ‘Your pet tries to stay near by following you’, such as : ‘My dog will follow me around the house’, ‘My pet stays close to me when I am upset’

Authors: You raise a valid point! As these questions are very similar in previous drafts they were pooled together and this must be a typo remaining from this. We have added asterisks to the following questions:

My dog does not follow me around the house very often / My dog follows me wherever I go / Your pet tries to stay near by following you.

We feel it is not appropriate to add an asterisk to the question “My pet is constantly at my side” because it is unclear if this question was related to the human’s behaviour or the dogs i.e.  the guardian taking the dog everywhere with them.

Within the text we have changed the related figure i.e.  18 questions (rather than 15) which is 8% rather than 7% of questions.

Reviewer 5 Report

Introduction

• Line 42 – awkward sentence. Please revise.

Materials and Methods

• Line 84 – you mean 569 HAI questions but Table S1 states 299. Please clarify.
• Please explain the procedure in more detail – eg., you reviewed two previous systematic reviews about how many HAI questionnaires were available? Are all of these questionnaires validated measures? I’m assuming 170 tools means there were 170 questionnaires – and you examined all of these – you should list all of these questionnaires in supplementary material. After reviewing all 170 questionnaires, a total of 569 independent questions were retained, is this correct? Did you have access to all questionnaires? You had two independent reviewers read all of these questions to determine which ones asked questions about the “dogs perceptive” towards a bond, correct?
• Line 161 – where did you get the 15 questions in total for this category? – when I review table 5, there are 4 themes categorized into dog investment but nothing about questions related to this category – what about the other categories, how many questions related to the other categories? Curious if a certain category was overrepresented (e.g., one-to-one engagement equate to 70 questions) which would further demonstrate your point that dog centred questions is not represented. Please add the number of questions related to each category in table 5.
• The organization of the methods and results for Part 1 and Part 2 need to be reorganized. Please separate the studies (Part 1/study 1 – methods – results then part 2/study 2 – methods and results). I would like to read the results for part 1 before reading the methods for part 2 to demonstrate the need for Part 2.
• The description of the process for identifying the dog centred questions needs work. Half of the information is in the methods and the other half is in the results. I think when you reorganize the methods and results between studies will help, though it also needs to be rewritten a bit (or a table). It is hard to follow sometimes.
• Table 4 should be removed as you have this information in table 5 (one-to-one engagement [HVM]) and you can add a note to table 5 (Of the 228 questions related to human-dog bond - LS = 18 content categories; HVW = 21 content categories)

Results

• Line 156 – why were 321 questions rejected?
• Line 171 – this should be separated – have it owns subheading
• Line 171-187 – you should clearly define the various themes broadly and state the subthemes then go into the specific subthemes (e.g., line 500+ discuss the theme broadly – also subtheme expectations etc wasn’t clearly stated as a subtheme above). Clearly state the theme and subthemes. Also, separate them to demonstrate there are three themes in Line 171-187).
• The results need to be reorganized - you don’t need all these “quotes” in the manuscript. You can organize them into supplementary material in a table (excitement and proximity theme and all the appropriate quotes and so on) – the results in the manuscript can have one quote to demonstrate your point but it should mostly be about the themes collected and explain the different interactions/results.

Discussion

• Just a note, proximity could be interpreted differently. Some breeds (in particular smaller dogs) may be much closer (lie on the owner’s lap) while other breeds (in particular bigger dogs) may be close but not physically touching (lying on the floor close by). They would have equal bonding but different preferences for proximity. I believe it is also important to consider breed and personality of the dogs. For example, excitement in one dog when the owner comes home may not mean excitement (but could also mean anxiety/overwhelmed from being alone). Similarly, a quiet dog may mean the dog is relaxed, but in another situation a quiet dog could mean anxiety. I think questions about the dog’s personality is important to consider when evaluating bonding (e.g., shyness, energetic).

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, please find our responses to your comments below and the amended paper attached with tracked changes from all 5 reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 5

• Line 42 – awkward sentence. Please revise.

Authors: This is the definition that encompasses HDB based on the others in existence. Agreed it is slightly awkward, but it is a complicated subject and requires all aspects to ensure the meaning encapsulates the HDB. The phrasing of the definition was agreed by 10 researchers that took part in a HDB discussion panel before the research began (listed in the acknowledgments) therefore we’d rather not change it at this stage.

Materials and Methods

• Line 84 – you mean 569 HAI questions but Table S1 states 299. Please clarify.

Authors: Thank you for your comment, to clarify this we have amended the line to read “(some of these questions and tools are referenced in Supplementary Information, Table S1., the rest can be found in Samet et al. [13] and Wilson & Netting [8])”

• Please explain the procedure in more detail – eg., you reviewed two previous systematic reviews about how many HAI questionnaires were available? Are all of these questionnaires validated measures? I’m assuming 170 tools means there were 170 questionnaires – and you examined all of these – you should list all of these questionnaires in supplementary material. After reviewing all 170 questionnaires, a total of 569 independent questions were retained, is this correct? Did you have access to all questionnaires? You had two independent reviewers read all of these questions to determine which ones asked questions about the “dogs perceptive” towards a bond, correct?

Authors: The details you have requested will be published this year in Samet et al (in press) with Society & Animals (reference 13). It was such a large project that we were unable to detail all aspects in the one manuscript.

• Line 161 – where did you get the 15 questions in total for this category? – when I review table 5, there are 4 themes categorized into dog investment but nothing about questions related to this category – what about the other categories, how many questions related to the other categories? Curious if a certain category was overrepresented (e.g., one-to-one engagement equate to 70 questions) which would further demonstrate your point that dog centred questions is not represented. Please add the number of questions related to each category in table 5.

Authors: Thank you for this comment, we see how this may be unclear and have tried to clarify this in the following ways:

• By amending L163 to “This left 228 HDB questions to be independently categorised for content by the two researchers (the 228 questions can be seen in Supplementary Information, Table S1. Meanwhile Table 4 shows each researcher’s content categorization results).”

• By adding “The 228 questions can be seen in Supplementary Information, Table S1.” To the figure legend of Table 4.

• By adding “(the original 228 questions these categories and themes were derived from can be seen in Supplementary Information, Table S1.)” to the figure legend of Table 5.

• We have added the percentage of questions related to each broad theme to Table 5.

• The organization of the methods and results for Part 1 and Part 2 need to be reorganized. Please separate the studies (Part 1/study 1 – methods – results then part 2/study 2 – methods and results). I would like to read the results for part 1 before reading the methods for part 2 to demonstrate the need for Part 2.

Authors: We originally submitted the paper in the format you suggest above, however the editorial team asked us to restructure the paper into its current format to meet the journal’s requirements for formatting.

• The description of the process for identifying the dog centred questions needs work. Half of the information is in the methods and the other half is in the results. I think when you reorganize the methods and results between studies will help, though it also needs to be rewritten a bit (or a table). It is hard to follow sometimes.

Authors: This is a research project that included several steps and we have endeavoured to communicate our research in the best possible format / way. Please see our comments above about the editors’ request for us to structure the paper in the current format.

• Table 4 should be removed as you have this information in table 5 (one-to-one engagement [HVM]) and you can add a note to table 5 (Of the 228 questions related to human-dog bond - LS = 18 content categories; HVW = 21 content categories)

Authors: Thank you for raising this point, this issue was not raised by the other 4 reviewers so we will ask the editorial team for their thoughts on this. Being qualitative research we were keen to show the progression steps of the analysis as this has been a criticism of qualitative research papers in the past.

Results

• Line 156 – why were 321 questions rejected?

Authors: Because they did not meet the inclusion criteria listed in Table 2.

• Line 171 – this should be separated – have it owns subheading

Authors: Thank you, this has been amended (see L173)

• Line 171-187 – you should clearly define the various themes broadly and state the subthemes then go into the specific subthemes (e.g., line 500+ discuss the theme broadly – also subtheme expectations etc wasn’t clearly stated as a subtheme above). Clearly state the theme and subthemes. Also, separate them to demonstrate there are three themes in Line 171-187).

Authors: Thank you for this observation, we have made ammedments to L179-187 and have added L188-L200 to more fully explain the subthemes of theme 1. Does this address your suggestion fully?

• The results need to be reorganized - you don’t need all these “quotes” in the manuscript. You can organize them into supplementary material in a table (excitement and proximity theme and all the appropriate quotes and so on) – the results in the manuscript can have one quote to demonstrate your point but it should mostly be about the themes collected and explain the different interactions/results.

Authors: We disagree, this is common practice within qualitative research and is documented in papers using similar methods (e.g. Holland et al., 2021; Furtado et al., 2022 etc). It is important to show robust evidence for generation of themes and is complementary to the narrative of the paper.

Discussion

• Just a note, proximity could be interpreted differently. Some breeds (in particular smaller dogs) may be much closer (lie on the owner’s lap) while other breeds (in particular bigger dogs) may be close but not physically touching (lying on the floor close by). They would have equal bonding but different preferences for proximity. I believe it is also important to consider breed and personality of the dogs. For example, excitement in one dog when the owner comes home may not mean excitement (but could also mean anxiety/overwhelmed from being alone). Similarly, a quiet dog may mean the dog is relaxed, but in another situation a quiet dog could mean anxiety. I think questions about the dog’s personality is important to consider when evaluating bonding (e.g., shyness, energetic).

Authors: Agreed, we believe that L797-804 addresses your point raised about excitement. We agree with your comments on proximity, this would need defining in a tool or in future studies regarding this subject. In the context of this thematic analysis this notion was developed as a broader theme within the HDB interviews built to encompass quotes from owners’ descriptions of what proximity means to them (e.g. quotes starting on lines L223, 237, 248) therefore whilst it is a relevant theme to include here, further refinement was not warranted for the purpose of this study’s objectives.