Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30217039›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2018

Exploring Social Desirability Bias in Perceptions of Dog Adoption: All's Well that Ends Well? Or Does the Method of Adoption Matter?

Courtney Bir, Nicole Olynk Widmar, Candace Croney

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Courtney BirDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. birc@purdue.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0862-8241
Nicole Olynk WidmarDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. nwidmar@purdue.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6574-5295
Candace CroneyDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology and Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. ccroney@purdue.edu.

Funding

World Pet Association and the Pet Food Institute NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs are a popular companion animal in the United States; however, dog acquisition is often a contentious subject. Adoption is often cited as an ethical and popular method of acquisition but interpretation of the term 'adoption' may vary. In a nationally representative survey of the U.S., 767 respondents were asked questions regarding their opinions of dog acquisition and adoption. Within the sample, 45% had a dog; of those, 40% had adopted a dog, and 47% visited a veterinarian once a year. A best-worst choice experiment, where respondents were asked to choose the most ethical and least ethical method of acquiring a dog from a statistically determined set of choices, was used to elicit respondents' preferences for the most ethical method of dog adoption. A random parameters logit and a latent class model were used to estimate relative rankings of dog adoption methods. In the random parameters logit model, the largest preference share was for adoption from a municipal animal shelter (56%) and the smallest preference share was for adoption from a pet store (3%). Dog acquisition was further evaluated by creating an index of social desirability bias using how important respondents believed certain dog characteristics were compared to how important respondents believed others would rate/rank the same dog characteristics. The highest incidences of social desirability bias occurred for the dog characteristics of appearance and breed.

Indexed as

best-worst scalingdog acquisitiondog adoptionsocial desirability bias

Identifiers

PMID30217039
PMCPMC6162534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.