3.1. Compatibility—Most Owners Feel like a Good Match for Various Reasons
Table 4 presents an overview of the main results of compatibility. Nineteen of twenty-one owners felt they were a good match with their dog, whereas two owners felt themselves and their dog were rather not a good match. Out of the 19 owners with a well-matched dog, most felt they and their dog were similar in their personality (14/19), and about one-quarter of them felt they were different (5/19). Of all participants, six owners (6/21) reported their dogs would adapt to them in some aspects. Four owners (4/21) reported their relationship with their dog was “love at first sight”, all of them continued to believe they were a good match (4/4), and most of them felt more similar in their personality (3/4). These four participants also reported that their expectations for their guide dog were met or exceeded.
Three owners (3/21) did not name any specific personality traits that they identified as matching or not matching with their dog. Research classifies these difficulties as a common phenomenon and that assessing one’s own personality is biased by egoistic and moralistic biases and is not always easy, or accurate [
32,
33,
34]. Most of those owners who could not name precise personality traits (2/3) did not feel like a good match with their dog.
Many owners reported that they share certain characteristics that make them and their dog a good match. These read as follows: both are friendly (mentioned by three), greedy (mentioned by two), happy (mentioned by two), reserved, interested, cuddly, humorous, physical, loyal, scattered or both show no pain. For example, participant 6 said “My dog is friendly, greedy, and likes to swim. All characteristics that I have as well.” Comparable to the result regarding friendliness and happiness, Bauer and Woodward [
16] found an expression of the trait “warmth” to predict owners’ attachment to the pet and satisfaction with the human–animal bond. Moreover, a study by Curb et al. [
14] supports these results, in which four out of eight similarity characteristics between the owner and the dog were associated with owner satisfaction. Similarly, strong openness resp. extraversion in both was important for six participants. Four of them said they and their dog were open and approached other people together, while two described that they themselves approached other people openly, and their dogs did the same with other dogs. Participant 18 described it like this: “When someone comes up to us in town, he first approaches everyone in a friendly manner. He also offers his friendship to every dog. And that’s actually how I am, too.” Indeed, research supports the importance of openness in owners—it was found to be generally associated with greater attachment between the dog and the owner [
35]. Two owners described that their dogs’ openness was a door opener to social contact with others for them, as they tended not to be open themselves, and another said it was a good fit that her dog was more open and curious than she was. This positive impact of high openness in dogs on relationship satisfaction has been observed by Cavanaugh and colleagues [
36] before. Also, an explanatory approach can be found within the social support hypothesis [
37], which proposes that companion animals act as facilitators of social interactions between other human beings and provide social support themselves [
38]. If the dog expresses an open attitude toward other humans, this effect could be reinforced.
In terms of complementary personality traits, the following results emerged. Two participants said they had the dominance their dog needed. This also is supported by previous research as Bauer and Woodward [
16] reported the combination of submissiveness and dominance to be linked to higher attachment of the dog and the owner. Another participant reported that his dog and he complemented each other well because his dog grasped situations more quickly than he did. One owner described that she herself was often nervous and that her dog’s calm nature helped her to calm down more quickly. Similarly, participant 21 reported that her dog’s calm manner helped her overcome her anxiety: “Well, I am naturally a very fearful person (...) but (name of the dog) was supposed to show me that it can be done differently. And we achieved that.”
As a non-matching trait, one participant mentioned that her dog was too meticulous, while another reported that she was very fond of music and that her dog disliked music; both participants still felt like an overall good match with their dog. One owner who felt she was not a good match with her dog (1/2) indicated that her dog was too temperamental for her, while the other owner who felt she was not a good match could not provide specifics.
For an overview of temperament and activity level, see
Table 5. Five participants felt they were a good match with their dog because they were similarly active and three because they were similarly calm. Three of all participants stated it was a good fit that their dog was more active than they were and thus carried them along (participant 10: “On days when I’m in a worse mood and maybe want to go for smaller walks only, he goes: ‘No, but we still have to do more. That’s good for you’, (…) Yes, he then brings you back on the right track.”). This has also been the case in a study by Chopik and Weaver [
39], in which owners reported higher relationship quality when dogs were more active than themselves. These three participants also feel that themselves and their dog are generally different, with one of them not feeling like an overall good match with her dog.
Participants reported the importance of shared hobbies within their relationship. Two owners said they and their dogs equally loved water. Another participant loved ball sports as much as her dog. Three owners felt the shared hobby of walking was a great fit, and two participants felt it matched their active lifestyles that their dogs could go everywhere with them and were always relaxed. One participant reported the matching common weather preference for winter. This is supported by former studies that identified shared hobbies to increase owner satisfaction [
14,
40] and decrease risk factors of problematic dog behavior [
39].
3.2. Relationship Parameters—Can Dog and Owner Have a Too Close Bond?
Table 6 shows an overview of the results regarding relationship aspects. No owner reported being generally unsatisfied. Fourteen of all participants reported to have a subjectively strong bond with their dog (this was not asked explicitly but considered if owners stated how intimate/intense/close the relationship was or that the dog was their best friend/partner). From this group, most owners felt similar to their dog (12/14), and all felt they were a good match with their dog (14/14). Five participants felt very secure with their dog and stated that they could rely on them. All of these (5/5) had a strong bond and felt similar to their dog. Out of six teams in which the dog and the owner shared a high expression of the openness trait, almost all (5/6) had a strong bond.
A variety of statements were made about the value of the dog, such as feeling dependent on it or seeing it as a family member. Participant 3 described the importance of her dog as follows: “(...) aid with soul. So, of course, a family member, friend, but just also an aid.” Three participants said their dogs brought a lot of relief and freedom in everyday life; two said they were partners and best friends. Two owners described that even in times when things were not going well with the dog, they still did not want to give it up. Two participants described a very close proximity to their dogs and that they had nothing else and found their lives no longer worth living without them (participant 20: “If he’s no longer there, then... then you can put me in the coffin right away. There is nothing more then.”).
Previous studies have shown that benefits of pet ownership show when owners are moderately attached to their dogs [
41,
42]. Very high or extreme expressions of attachment are associated with the development of mental health issues (at least in elderly women, which are also strongly represented in our study [
41]). Three of the strongly attached owners also felt negative social impacts on their life, and two owners found their lives no longer worth living without their dogs. These findings and the fact that we did not investigate the general satisfaction with life or mental status of our participants lead to the conclusion that negative psychological impacts on strongly attached owners cannot be excluded and need to be further explored.
3.4. Former Guide Dog Relationships Can Have Strong Influence on the Subsequent Ones
Of 12 participants who had one or more guide dogs before their current one, three stated they were just as well matched with the previous one as they were with their current one (for an overview of compatibility in previous relationships, see
Table 8). None of these (0/3) were disappointed in their expectations of a guide dog, and two (2/3) had a strong bond with their dog.
One participant reported that her previous dog was a better match for her because he was more generally sensitive and temperamental when playing, and they were generally more similar. Participant 4 reported that she had a closer bond with her previous dog because “I sometimes felt myself that he notices and thinks what I feel and when I wasn’t feeling well or I was upset or something, he felt and sensed that exactly.” These two participants who experienced their previous dog as a better fit are the ones who experienced their current dog as a mismatch, did not have a strong bond or felt very secure with their dog. Participant 2 described it as follows: “So you always have a sweetheart dog, unfortunately, and I’m sorry about that, that was just her predecessor. That’s maybe like first love too.” This might also explain why they could not name precise personality traits as determinants of compatibility: The individuals may have had certain expectations about the compatibility based on their previous relationship. However, when faced with the actual interactions and behaviors of their dogs, they may have found discrepancies in comparison to their former dog. This incongruence could lead to difficulties in identifying and reporting specific traits as determinants of compatibility. It is possible that the high expectations due to former relationships themselves influenced the feeling of incompatibility. A study by Powell and colleagues [
44] furthermore showed that previous dog owners had reduced odds of expecting challenges than non-owners. This indicates bias through selective recall of positive experiences from previous ownership. The same could be the case for the two interviewees in our study. What should be mentioned when looking at this possible explanation, though, is that none of the two mismatching owners reported to be disappointed in their expectations (one was ambivalent though, and both described their answer to the question more on a mobility level).
Two participants (2/12) reported their previous dog was very active, which suited them well at the time; they are now somewhat calmer, and the current, less temperamental dog is a better match. Five owners (5/12) reported their current dog was a better match than previous ones, one because his calmness suited her, one because the chemistry was just better, one said the previous dog was too reserved, and another said he had too much anxiety. One participant felt her previous dog was unsuitable for her but believed this was also due to his training with punishment, which she herself did not use. Participant 13 reported that his previous dog was good for beginners and his recent one a little too temperamental: “So I no longer need to be completely carefree. But I don’t necessarily need quite as much stress as with this one right away. Something in between would be quite good”.
Four prior guide dog owners (4/12) felt their current relationship was influenced by their previous one (for an overview, see
Table 9). Two of them (2/4) felt the match with their current dog was better, and two (2/4) felt it was worse than with their previous one. The fact that none of those owners thought the dogs equally matched might hint at a lack of neutral evaluation due to an extremely positive or negative prior relationship. This underlines the power of the influence of prior relationships as already found by Lloyd and colleagues [
24].
Five owners (5/12) said they were not affected by the relationship with their previous guide dog, of those only one (1/5) felt any impact on their social life, and none (0/5) were disappointed in their expectations of a guide dog. Two (2/12) participants did not give specific statements about being influenced, and one person was ambivalent. There was no apparent connection between being influenced and second-, third- or fourth-time ownership. Two individuals said their expectations had been very high due to good previous relationships; these two were also the two participants who experienced themselves as not matching with their dog. For these two participants, also a higher attachment to their prior dog could be the case that led to more grief and sorrow, in turn negatively influencing the subsequent relationship [
45]. One participant said she had known exactly what she did not want because of a previous mismatch. Four participants (4/12) said it was important to them not to compare the dogs to each other. Two owners (2/12) said the transition was difficult for them because the dogs had very different personalities. One first-time owner commented that she would have liked to have had some dog experience and believed this would have positively influenced the current relationship.