That single design choice collapses the argument before it begins.
Therapy cats are not - to be realistic - typical domestic cats. They are selected for exceptional sociability. They are screened for calm temperaments. They are repeatedly exposed to strangers, transport, novel rooms, and unpredictable environments. They are conditioned, through experience, to treat unfamiliar humans as routine.
They are behavioural specialists.
And the study’s entire logic depends on mild stress revealing attachment preference.
Attachment testing, derived from the Strange Situation paradigm, works by introducing manageable stress and observing whether the subject seeks comfort from a primary attachment figure. Stress activates preference. Preference reveals bond strength.
But therapy cats are, by design, desensitised to precisely those stressors.
If a cat has spent years visiting hospitals, care homes, and public spaces, being handled by strangers and transported to new environments, then a laboratory room with an unfamiliar person is not meaningfully stressful. It is Tuesday.
Remove the stress response and the test ceases to function.
The absence of dramatic owner-seeking behaviour under those conditions does not prove the absence of attachment. It proves habituation.
What the Study Attempted
The researchers used a modified version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test, originally developed for human infants and later adapted for dogs. Cats were observed during separations and reunions with their owners, and during interactions with a stranger in an unfamiliar room.
They measured behaviours associated with:
“Secure base” effects, meaning increased exploration when the owner is present
“Safe haven” responses, meaning comfort-seeking under stress
They reported little evidence of exclusive owner preference and concluded that classical attachment theory may not apply to cats. The concept of “Cattachment,” they argue, may be biologically irrelevant.
That is a sweeping conclusion.
But sweeping conclusions require representative samples.
The Representativeness Problem
Therapy cats are not representative of the domestic cat population. They occupy the extreme sociability end of the behavioural spectrum. They are chosen because they tolerate novelty. They are retained because they cope well with strangers. Those that show fear or distress do not qualify.
This is selection bias embedded in the sample.
To generalise from therapy cats to “cats” as a species is to treat a specialised occupational subgroup as a biological norm. It is equivalent to studying elite endurance athletes and concluding that humans do not experience fatigue under prolonged exertion.
The logic does not survive scrutiny.
If anything, therapy cats are the least suitable group for testing owner-exclusive attachment under mild stress. Their professional role requires them to distribute sociability widely. Their reinforcement history rewards calmness with unfamiliar people. They are trained ambassadors, not anxious homebodies.
Testing them for stress-induced attachment behaviours is methodologically incoherent.
Ecological Misalignment
There is also the issue of context.
Cats are territorial animals. Their security is deeply tied to familiar space. Removing them from home already disrupts normal behavioural patterns. A novel room may trigger scanning, withdrawal, or immobility. Those behaviours can mask subtle social preferences.
A dog, bred for cooperative work with humans, may show overt proximity-seeking. A cat may express attachment differently, or more quietly. Failure to display dog-style attachment is not evidence of absence.
Yet the study imports a framework built for infants and dogs, applies it to a species with a different evolutionary history, and then declares the framework biologically irrelevant when the results do not align neatly.
That is not discovery. That is methodological mismatch.
The Overreach
The title claims the biological irrelevance of “Cattachment.” That is a species-level claim.
But the data, based on therapy cats exposed to mild laboratory stress, can support only a narrow statement:
“Therapy cats did not display strong owner-exclusive behaviours under these test conditions.”
Anything broader exceeds the evidence.
Scientific conclusions must be proportionate to design. When the sample is behaviourally skewed and contextually artificial, bold generalisations become fragile.
The Bottom Line
If therapy cats formed the basis of this study, then the flaw is not peripheral. It is foundational.
The researchers asked whether cats form attachment bonds. They selected animals specifically conditioned to appear calm and sociable in unfamiliar settings. They introduced mild stress unlikely to register as stress for those animals. They observed limited owner preference. Then they questioned the biological relevance of feline attachment.
The chain of reasoning depends on a sample incapable of representing the species.
When you study ambassadors and conclude that citizens do not prefer their own country, the problem is not with the citizens.
It is with the sample.
PS
Domestic cats do form attachments to their caregivers. This is widely recognised in behavioural science and in everyday observation. The caregiver functions as a secure provider of food, safety, warmth, and social interaction. In many respects, the human becomes a surrogate maternal figure.
Domestication has altered feline development in important ways. Adult domestic cats retain juvenile behavioural traits, a phenomenon well documented in domesticated species. This prolonged kitten-like social flexibility supports bonding with human caregivers.
It is natural. It is normal. It is observable in households across the world.
To deny that attachment exists because a small group of professionally desensitised cats did not perform to a particular theoretical script is not bold science.
It is a misreading of the animal.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
Your comments are always welcome.
ملحوظة: يمكن لأعضاء المدونة فقط إرسال تعليق.