Article Laser Light Pointers for Use in Companion Cat Play: Association with Guardian-Reported Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors Lori R. Kogan 1, * and Emma K. Grigg 2 1 2 * Citation: Kogan, L.R.; Grigg, E.K. Laser Light Pointers for Use in Companion Cat Play: Association with Guardian-Reported Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors. Animals 2021, 11, 2178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani11082178 Academic Editor: Dennis C. Turner Received: 23 June 2021 Accepted: 21 July 2021 Clinical Sciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA; ekgrigg@ucdavis.edu Correspondence: lori.kogan@colostate.edu; Tel.: +1-970-218-5580 Simple Summary: Use of laser light pointers for feline play is popular with many cat guardians. It can be an enjoyable shared interaction and provide an easy way to encourage cats to exercise. Laser light play alone, however, does not allow cats to complete the hunting sequence; cats cannot ‘catch’ the prey. It has been suggested that this might trigger frustration and stress, both of which can contribute to compulsive behaviors. This study examined the potential relationship between the use of laser light pointers for play and the occurrence of excessive or abnormal repetitive behaviors (ARBs) often linked to diagnosis of feline compulsive disorders. Using an online, anonymous survey, we explored cat guardians’ use of laser light toys (e.g., reasons for and frequency of use) and reported ARBs. A total of 618 responses, primarily female participants from the United States, were analyzed. Nearly half (45.5%) of the respondents in our study reported using laser light toys to play with their cats, although frequency of use was low for many survey respondents. Although the statement “Laser pointers can make cats frustrated if they do not get to ‘catch’ something at the end of play” was familiar to over half of respondents (52.1%), only 35.6% of respondents reported following this advice. We found significant associations between the frequency of laser light play and the occurrence of all surveyed ARBs, apart from overgrooming. Overall, the more frequently LLP toys were used, the more likely guardians were to report ARBs in their cats. Provision of outdoor access and cat age were also significant predictors of reported ARBs: indoor-only cats, and young (1–2 years) cats were more likely to display ARBs. The strongest associations were seen for behaviors which may be connected to laser light play: chasing lights or shadows, staring “obsessively” at lights or reflections, and fixating on a specific toy. These results, although correlational, suggest that laser light toys may be associated with the development of compulsive behaviors in cats, warranting further research into their use and potential risks. Published: 23 July 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Abstract: Use of laser light pointers for feline play is popular with many companion cat guardians. It can be an enjoyable shared interaction and provide an opportunity for feline exercise. Laser light play alone, however, does not allow cats to complete the hunting sequence and it has been suggested that this may trigger frustration and stress, common contributors to compulsive behaviors. This study examined the potential relationship between the use of laser light pointers for play and excessive or abnormal repetitive behaviors (ARBs) often linked to diagnosis of feline compulsive disorders. Using an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey, we explored cat guardians’ use of laser toys and reported ARBs in their cats. A total of 618 responses were analyzed, primarily female participants from the United States. We found significant associations between the frequency of laser light play and the occurrence of all surveyed ARBs, apart from overgrooming. Provision of outdoor access and cat age were also significant predictors of reported ARBs: indoor-only cats, and young (1–2 years) cats were more likely to display ARBs. The strongest patterns were seen for behaviors which may be connected to laser light play: chasing lights or shadows, staring “obsessively” at lights or reflections, and fixating on a specific toy. Although correlational, these results suggest that laser light toys may 4.0/). Animals 2021, 11, 2178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082178 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
2 of 15 be associated with the development of compulsive behaviors in cats, warranting further research into their use and potential risks. Keywords: feline; laser light pointer; play; abnormal repetitive behaviors; stress; frustration; feline compulsive disorder; toy 1. Introduction Use of laser light pointers (LLPs) for play and to stimulate species-typical hunting behavior is popular with many cat guardians. Interactive play between human and cat using an LLP would appear to meet two of the five pillars of a healthy feline environment [1]: allowing for an enjoyable shared interaction between human caretaker and their cat, and potentially providing an opportunity for exercise in the form of species-typical, normal hunting behaviors. Hyman [2] has suggested that a primary reason why cats enjoy laser light play involves the light’s motion. Citing research from Tremoulet and Feldman [3,4], he notes that the nature of the motion (e.g., frequent changes in speed and direction, appearing to ‘react’ to the cat’s movements) is a critical component of the perception of animacy (i.e., that the laser light ‘prey’ is alive). The appearance of goal-directed behavior on the part of the light (e.g., ‘avoiding’ the cat, ‘hiding’ behind furniture etc.) adds to this perception, similar to the “wolfpack effect” described by Gao et al. [5], in which multiple triangles ‘chasing’ a single moving circle are perceived as animate when the triangles remained oriented (pointed) towards the circle as it moves. However, LLP play alone does not allow cats to complete the hunting sequence; essentially, the cat can never ‘catch’ the prey. It has been suggested that this may trigger frustration and stress, common contributors to feline behavioral problems, including compulsive behaviors [6,7]. Thus, in theory at least, using LLPs to play with cats could contribute to the development of compulsive behaviors. Compulsive behaviors are usually brought on by conflict, and appear abnormal because they are repetitive, exaggerated or sustained, and displayed out of context [8]. In cats, common signs of a compulsive disorder include oral behaviors such as overgrooming, self-directed aggression (such as chasing/chewing the tail), and hallucinatory behaviors such as staring at shadows or chasing light reflections [9]. Treatment for feline compulsive disorders (FCD) often includes the identification and removal of things that cause (motivational) conflict, frustration, and stress [9]. Complete resolution of FCDs is uncommon, although treatments (including medications) are often used to decrease the frequency or severity of the behavior, thereby increasing quality of life of the effected animal [10,11]. Providing environmental enrichment is another important component of treatment, designed to decrease stress and the risk for developing stress-related behavior problems [1,6,12,13]. A common recommendation for enrichment involves interactive play with toys. To maintain the enrichment value (in addition to the physical exercise benefits) of LLP play, while minimizing the risks of frustration, many experts recommend a modification to this type of play [14,15]. This modification consists of ending LLP play by having the light land on a small toy that resembles catchable prey (e.g., a stuffed toy mouse) [16], or a high-value food treat. In their recommendations for environmental enrichment for indoor cats, Herron and Buffington [17] list laser toys as an ‘appropriate toy’ given their ability to simulate the natural predatory sequence, but caution that the “general rule among behaviorists about light-beam games is that they should always be followed by the presentation of a treat or toy to reward the cat for the extensive ‘hunt’ and to prevent frustration” (p. 5). To our knowledge, however, the use of LLPs for play, including the potential protective value of this recommendation for reducing the risk of frustration or the development of compulsive behaviors, has never been tested. Behavior problems are a significant risk factor for relinquishment and euthanasia of domestic cats [7,18], and even without these tragic end
3 of 15 points, often negatively impact animal welfare, especially when they are a result of stress or anxiety [7]. Additionally, compulsive behaviors can interfere with normal behaviors and damage the human-animal bond [19]. As noted by Amat et al. [20], compulsive behaviors are among the top five cat owner complaints. The negative impact of compulsive behaviors makes it important to identify any type of activity that might increase their prevalence. This study examines the potential relationship between the use of LLPs for play with companion cats and the occurrence of excessive or abnormal repetitive behaviors (ARBs) often linked to diagnosis of feline compulsive disorder (FCD). Our primary hypothesis was that there would be a relationship between the use and frequency of laser light play and reported ARBs. We were also interested in examining how common use of LLP play is in cat guardians; their attitudes towards this type of toy (i.e., reasons they chose to use or not use LLPs); whether or not they were familiar with the recommended modification for LLP play and employed this strategy (e.g., ending the game by providing a toy or treat); and whether or not reported ARBs had any impact on the human-animal bond. 2. Materials and Methods An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was developed using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Inc., Provo, UT, USA). The survey was designed, reviewed, and tested by the co-investigators and their colleagues. The survey was pre-tested by eight individuals for ambiguity and/or potentially missing or inappropriate response options, with revisions made based on the results of this testing. The final survey and study design were approved by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (IRB # 21-10566H). Survey respondents were recruited between February 2021–April 2021 via social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). Adult (18 years or older) participants who were the current guardians and primary caretakers of at least one adult cat (at least one year of age), and had owned the cat for at least 6 months, were recruited for the study. Guardian demographics were collected (e.g., country, age group, gender, education level, number of cats in the household). A series of questions from a published survey [21] measuring the relationship between cat and guardian were included. The Pet Relationship Scales (PRS) consists of 22 self-report items organized into three subscales, “Affectionate Companionship,” “Equal Family Member Status,” and “Mutual Physical Activity”. For this study, questions from the Affectionate Companionship subscale with an additional three items (“I consider my cat a member of the family,” “I have considered relinquishing my cat because of his/her behavior” (reverse coded), and “My cat provides me comfort during difficult times” were included. Possible total scores for the Affectionate Companionship subscale range from 8–48, with higher scores indicating a closer bond. Cronbach’s alpha for the PRS Affectionate Companionship subscale in our study was 0.755. Next, respondents were asked a series of questions about their cat, including characteristics of the cat (such as age, sex/reproductive status, whether the cat is an indoor or outdoor cat, and whether the cat is declawed). They were next asked how often their cat displayed behaviors that might indicate compulsive tendencies (spins or tail chases, chases lights and shadows, fixates on a specific toy, stares obsessively at lights or reflections, overgrooms him/herself) [8], using a 7-point Likert scale anchored by 1 = never and 7 = multiple times a day. The survey was not directed at cat guardians experiencing behavior problems with their cats; recruitment materials only mentioned wanting to understand how people played with their cats. The list of behaviors came before any other questions besides demographic questions (and the order of the behaviors was randomized). Note that in the survey, we did not define “obsessive”, instead allowing respondents to interpret the term in the most common sense, i.e., excessive, resembling an obsession (see Supplementary Materials for the complete survey). For each such behavior noted, respondents were then asked to report how the behavior impacted them and/or the cat (e.g., negatively impacts the cat’s quality of life; negatively impacts the bond we have; does not affect me at all). They could select all answers that applied. They were next asked how easy it is to
4 of 15 redirect their cat when doing each of these behaviors using a 4-point Likert scale (from 1 = very easy to 4 = very challenging). Guardians were also asked to indicate if their cat had ever been treated by a veterinarian for any compulsive behaviors, and if they had ever sought help for excessive fear/anxiety, aggression, or “inappropriate” elimination exhibited by their cat. The next series of questions pertained to the use of an LLP, defined as any form of play that involves light, such as a pen light or flashlight. They were first asked if they play with their cat using an LLP, with response options including no, have never used; no, used to but no longer use; rarely (less than once a month); some (less than once a week); fair amount (2–3 times/week); frequently (more than three times a week); and daily. For those who did not currently use an LLP (not currently or ever), they were asked to select all reasons why they do not use them (e.g., “I am afraid of hurting my cat’s eyes”; “my cat does not like laser pointers”; etc.). Those guardians who indicated they currently do play with an LLP (or have in the past) were asked to select the reasons why (e.g., my cat seems to enjoy it; it is an easy way to play with my cat). They were then asked if they let their cat ‘catch’ something at the end of the play session (for example, by ending the game with the laser landing on a food treat or favorite stuffed mouse or toy). Additionally, they were asked how long the cat continues to look for the light when the game is over, and the cat’s typical behavior at the end of the LLP play session (e.g., goes to sleep; seems agitated or upset, etc.); and, if these behaviors are similar or different than when finished with other forms of play. They were asked if they feel their cat benefits from the LLP play, as well as if they think their cat suffers any negative effects of LLP play. All respondents were also asked to indicate, by selecting from a series of statements, what they had heard about LLPs (e.g., laser pointers are a good way to exercise your cat, laser pointers can lead to obsessive cat behavior). In addition, respondents were asked to report the total amount of time they spend with their cat over the span of an entire day either playing with an LLP, in other forms of play, or cuddling/sitting together/petting, on a 7-point Likert scale (with 1 = less than 5 min and 7 = more than 5 h). Guardians were also asked to report how bonded they felt with their cat during each of these types of interactions using a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 = much less bonded, 5 = much more bonded). Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize guardians’ views of LLP play and their cats’ behaviors. Kruskal–Wallis (KW) nonparametric analyses of variance were used to explore the relationship between specific behaviors and LLP play. We next performed a multiple linear regression analysis using a total compulsive behavior score (the sum of reported compulsive behaviors significantly associated with LLP play) as the response variable. Results of the exploratory KW analysis were used to guide the selection of predictors for the multiple regression model. Potential predictor variables in the model included: LLP play [never used; used to use but no longer; rarely used (less than once a week); frequently used (at least 2–3 times a week)]; total number of cats living in the home (1, 2, >2); cat variables including age, sex, indoor/outdoor; guardian variables including age (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50 and older), gender, country, and bond score. Because LLP play was the largest predictor of potentially compulsive ARBs, separate chi-square analyses were next performed for each of the associated ARBs. Significance level (α) was set at p = 0.05 and all tests were two-tailed. Data were analyzed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Characteristics of Guardians and Cats (Descriptive Statistics) A total of 618 responses were obtained, with the largest percentage from the United States (65.5%), followed by the United Kingdom (13.9%) and Canada (8.4%). The mean age of respondents was 39.8 (±12.3) years; median = 38 years and 88.5% identified as female. Most respondents had a university degree (78.6%).
5 of 15 Cat ages ranged from 1–2 years (15.9%) to older than 10 years of age (23.9%), and more than half of respondents (51.1%) had been living with their cat for five years or longer. The majority of cats in the study were either spayed females (48.6%) or neutered males (50.1%) and were classified as indoor cats (75.9%). Most cats were not declawed (93.5%). The median number of cats in respondents’ homes was 3, with 45.5% of respondents living in single-cat homes and 33.5% living in homes with two cats. The mean score for the affectionate companionship subscale of the Pet Relationship Scale (PRS) was 37.12 (± 7.0; range: 9–48). Demographic data on survey respondents and their cats are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic data on cat guardians and their cats (n = 618). Human Participants Country Age Gender Education Length of ownership United States United Kingdom Canada Australia Other 405 (65.5%) 18–29 years 149 (24.2%) Female 547 (88.5%) High school/GED or College qualification (e.g., A/AS level, Nat cert/diploma) 44 (7.1%) 6 months but less than 1 year 32 (5.2%) 86 (13.9%) 30–39 years 184 (29.9%) Male 47 (7.6%) 52 (8.4%) 40–49 years 137 (22.2%) Non-binary 21 (3.4%) 10 (1.6%) 50 and older 146 (23.7%) NA 3 (0.5%) 65 (10.5%) Some college University Degree (e.g., BS, BA, BSc/BSc (Hons)) Higher degree (e.g., MS, MA, MSc/PhD) NA/Other 73 (11.8%) At least 1 year but less than 3 years 154 (24.9%) 196 (31.7%) At least 3 years but less than 5 years 116 (18.8%) 290 (46.9%) 15 (2.4%) 5 years or longer 316 (51.1%) Cats Cats in the home 1 281 (45.5%) 2 207 (33.5%) 3 77 (12.5%) 4 27 (4.4%) Age 1–2 years 3–4 years 5–7 years 8–10 years 98 (15.9%) Male, neutered 309 (50.1%) Indoor 469 (75.9%) 130 (21.0%) Male, intact 4 (0.6%) Indoor/outdoor 148 (23.9%) Declawed, front and back 8 (1.3%) 157 (25.4%) Female, spayed 300 (48.6%) Outdoor 1 (0.2%) 85 (13.8%) Female, intact 4 (0.6%) Sex Indoor/outdoor Declaw status Declawed, front only 32 (5.2%) 5 or more 26 (4.3%) Older than 10 years 148 (23.9%) NA 1 Not declawed 578 (93.5%) 3.2. Cat Guardians’ Experience with Behavior Problems A total of 553 (89.5%) of guardians reported their cat displayed at least one behavior problem and 5.8% reported that their cat had been treated by a veterinarian for an obsessive behavior. When asked if they had ever sought help for a specific behavior problem, 90 (14.6%) indicated they had sought help for “inappropriate” elimination/house soiling, 64 (10.4%) for excessive fear/anxiety, and 43 (7.0%) for aggression. 3.3. Reported Behaviors and Guardians’ Responses When asked to indicate how frequently their cat engaged in several behaviors that have been identified as potential indicators of FCD (including: spins or tail chases, chases lights and/or shadows, fixates on a specific toy, stares obsessively at lights or reflections, and overgrooming), the behaviors reported most frequently include fixating on a specific toy and chasing lights and/or shadows (Figure 1). When asked, for each behavior reported, how easy it was to redirect their cat when the cat is performing the behavior, the behaviors
3.3. Reported Behaviors and Guardians’ Responses 3.3. Reported Behaviors and Guardians’ Responses When asked to indicate how frequently their cat engaged in several behaviors that When asked to indicate how frequently their cat engaged in several behaviors that have been identified as potential indicators of FCD (including: spins or tail chases, chases have been identified as potential indicators of FCD (including: spins or tail chases, chases 6 of 15 lights and/or shadows, fixates on a specific toy, stares obsessively at lights or reflections, lights and/or shadows, fixates on a specific toy, stares obsessively at lights or reflections, and overgrooming), the behaviors reported most frequently include fixating on a specific and overgrooming), the behaviors reported most frequently include fixating on a specific toy and chasing lights and/or shadows (Figure 1). When asked, for each behavior retoy and chasing lights and/or shadows (Figure 1). When asked, for each behavior reported, how easy it was to redirect their cat when the cat is performing the behavior, the reported as easy was to redirect their cat when the cat is light and/or shadow chasing ported, howeasiestitto redirect were spinning/tail chasing andperforming the behavior, the behaviors reported as easiest to redirect were spinning/tail chasing and light and/or (Figure 2). behaviors reported as easiest to redirect were spinning/tail chasing and light and/or shadow chasing (Figure 2). shadow chasing (Figure 2). Figure 1. 1. Cat guardian responses to questions related to frequency of exaggerated or abnormal repetitive behaviors in Figure Cat guardian responses to questions related to frequency of exaggerated or abnormal repetitive behaviors in Figure cats. guardian responses to questions related to frequency of exaggerated or abnormal repetitive behaviors in their 1. their cats. Cat their cats. Figure 2. Cat guardian responses to questions related to their ability to redirect their cat’s behavior. Figure 2. Cat guardian responses to questions related to their ability to redirect their cat’s behavior. Figure 2. Cat guardian responses to questions related to their ability to redirect In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the impact of each of these behaviors on their, or their cats’, lives. For those who reported spinning/tail chasing (n = 243), most guardians indicated that the behavior did not affect them at all (96.3%). A small percentage reported the behavior kept them awake at night (1.2%) or negatively impacted their cat’s quality of life (1.2%). The remaining effects (e.g., negatively impacts the guardian’s bond with their cat; requires medication; etc.) were reported by less than 1% of the respondents.
In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the impact of each of these behaviors on their, or their cats’, lives. For those who reported spinning/tail chasing (n = 243), most guardians indicated that the behavior did not affect them at all (96.3%). A small percentage reported the behavior kept them awake at night (1.2%) or negatively impacted their cat’s quality of life (1.2%). The remaining effects (e.g., negatively impacts the guardian’s 7 of 15 bond with their cat; requires medication; etc.) were reported by less than 1% of the respondents. Similarly, when asked about chasing lights or shadows (n = 459), 97.4% reported that the behavior did not affect them at all, and only 1.3% found the behavior annoying. The remaining about chasing lights or shadows (n = of the 97.4% reported that Similarly, when asked effects were reported by less than 1% 459), respondents. When asked about their cat fixating themspecific toy, 94.5% 1.3% found the behavior annoying. the behavior did not affect on a at all, and only indicated the behavior did not affect them, similar to effects were reported by at lights or1% of the respondents. When asked The remaining reports regarding staring less than reflections (n = 327, 95.4%). However, for overgrooming (n = on a only 47.6% of guardians reported that the behavior did not about their cat fixating 84), specific toy, 94.5% indicated the behavior did not affect them, affect them (Figure 3). Even so, no guardiansor reflections (n = 327, 95.4%). However,imsimilar to reports regarding staring at lights reported that overgrooming negatively for pacted the bond with their cat. overgrooming (n = 84), only 47.6% of guardians reported that the behavior did not affect them (Figure 3). Even so, no guardians reported that overgrooming negatively impacted the bond with their cat. Figure 3. Cat guardian responses to questions related to the impact of overgrooming behaviors (n = 84). overgrooming behaviors (n = Cat 3.4. Cat Guardians’ Reported Use and Perceptions of Laser Light Pointers 3.4. Cat Guardians’ Reported Use and Perceptions of Laser Light Pointers Over half of respondents did not currently use LLPs cat play (54.5%), either because Over half of respondents did not currently use LLPs for for cat play (54.5%), either bethey have never neverthem (26.2%) or used them in the past but nobut no longer (28.2%). cause they have used used them (26.2%) or used them in the past longer (28.2%). Those who had never never used, or no longer LLP were asked to indicate the reasons reasons Those who hadused, or no longer used anused an LLP were asked to indicate the for their decision. The most common reason was that they enjoyed playing playing with in other for their decision. The most common reason was that they enjoyed with their cat their cat ways; only 5.2% reported that they were concerned about the development of obsessive in other ways; only 5.2% reported that they were concerned about the development of behaviors (Figure 4). For those who currently used an LLP with their cat, 50.7% percent obsessive behaviors (Figure 4). For those who currently used an LLP with their cat, 50.7% used them less than once a month, 29.1% less than once a week, 14.2% used them two to percent used them less than once a month, 29.1% less than once a week, 14.2% used them three times a week, 2.8% more than three times a week, and 3.2% reported using them daily. two to three times a week, 2.8% more than three times a week, and 3.2% reported using For regression and Kruskal–Wallis analysis, these response categories were combined into them daily. For regression and Kruskal–Wallis analysis, these response categories were four categories: never used, used in past but no longer, used less than once a week, and combined into four categories: never used, used in past but no longer, used less than once used more than once a week. The guardians who reported using LLPs to play with their a week, and used more than once a week. The guardians who reported using LLPs to play cat were asked to report the reasons why they used the LLPs. The most common response with their cat were asked to report the reasons why they used the LLPs. The most common was that their cat seemed to enjoy it, followed by a way for their cat to get exercise (41.6%) response was that their cat seemed to enjoy it, followed by a way for their cat to get exerand an easy way to play with their cat (39.0%) (Figure 5). cise (41.6%) and an easy way to play with their cat (39.0%) (Figure 5).
15 of Animals 2021, 11, x 15 of 15 Animals 2021, 11, 2178 8 of 15 Figure 4. Reasons given by cat guardians for not currently (or ever) using laser light pointers to pla with their cats (n = 336). Figure 4. Reasons given by cat guardians for not currently (or ever) using laser light pointers to play Figure 4. Reasons 336). with their cats (n = given by cat guardians for not currently (or ever) using laser light pointers to play with their cats (n = 336). Figure 5.5. Reasons given by cat guardians for using laser light pointers to play with their cats = 282). Figure Reasons given by cat guardians for using laser light pointers to play with their cats (n (n = 282). When guardians were asked total amount of amount of time over the When guardians were asked to report theto report the totaltime they spent they spent over th span of a LLP play, other LLP play, other forms of play and cuddling/petting, span of a day engaged in day engaged in forms of play and cuddling/petting, they reported they r ported spending laser light pointers to play with their cats (n = 2). Figure 5. Reasons given by cat guardians for using the least amount of timein LLP play (Tablein LLP playasked 2). Whe spending the least amount of time each day engaged each day engaged 282).When (Table asked how bonded they felt after interacting with their cat, guardians most how bonded they felt after interacting with their cat, guardians reported feeling reported feelin most bonded after by play without laser, and then time they then over When cuddling, followedcuddling, followed by amount ofLLP play (Table LLP the bonded afterguardians were asked to report the total play without laser, andspent3). play (Table 3 span of a day engaged in LLP play, other forms of play and cuddling/petting, they reTable 2. Total amount of time spent over the span of an entire dayday engagedactivities. ported spending the least amount of time each in cat related in LLP play (Table 2). When asked how bonded they felt after interacting with their cat, guardians reported feeling Play (Excluding Laser Light Play) (n = 564) Laser Light Play (n = 290) Cuddling/Petting (n = 586) most bonded after cuddling, followed by play without laser, and then LLP play (Table 3). Less than 5 min 5–15 min 16–30 min 31–59 min 1–2 h 3–5 h More than 5 h 73 (12.9) 195 (34.6) 155 (27.5) 82 (14.5) 51 (9.0) 7 (1.2) 1 (0.2) 214 (73.8) 60 (20.7) 13 (4.5) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.3) 0 0 2 (0.3) 29 (4.9) 42 (7.2) 60 (10.2) 214 (36.5) 165 (28.2) 74 (12.6)
31–59 min 1–2 h 3–5 h Animals 2021, 11, 2178 More than 5 h 155 (27.5) 82 (14.5) 51 (9.0) 7 (1.2) 1 (0.2) 13 (4.5) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.3) 0 0 42 (7.2) 60 (10.2) 214 (36.5) 165 (28.2) 74 (12.6) 9 of 15 Table 3. Guardian reported bond feelings after cat interactions. Table 3. Guardian reported bond feelings after cat interactions. Play (Excluding Laser Light Laser Light Play (n = 297) Play) (n = 574) Play (Excluding Laser Light Play) Laser Light Play I feel much less bonded 1 (0.2) 7 (2.4) (n = 574) (n = 297) I feel somewhat less bonded 5 (0.9) 15 (5.1) I feel much less bonded 1 (0.2) 7 (2.4) No change in how bonded I feel 125 (21.8) 147 (49.5) 5 (0.9) 15 (5.1) I I feel somewhatmorebonded feel somewhat less bonded 209 (36.4) 100 (33.7) No change in how bonded I feel 125 (21.8) 147 (49.5) I feel much more bonded 234 (40.8) 28 (9.4) I feel somewhat more bonded 209 (36.4) 100 (33.7) I feel much more bonded 234 (40.8) 28 (9.4) Cuddling/Petting (n = 582) Cuddling/Petting 3 (0.5) (n = 582) 0 3 (0.5) 15 (2.6) 0 65 (11.2) 15 (2.6) 499 (85.7) 65 (11.2) 499 (85.7) When asked to indicate, from a series of statements about LLPs, those they had heard, the most commonly heard statements included ‘Laser pointers can make cats frustrated if theyWhen asked to indicate, from a series of end of play’ (reported to have been heard by do not get to “catch” something at the statements about LLPs, those they had heard, the most commonly heard statements included ‘Laser pointers can make(Figure 6). 52.1%) and ‘Laser pointers are a good way to exercise your cat’ (47.1%) cats frustrated if they do not get to “catch” something at the end of play’ (reported to have been heard by 52.1%) and ‘Laser pointers are a good way to exercise your cat’ (47.1%) (Figure 6). Figure 6. Laser light pointer statements reported to have been heard by cat guardians (n = 618). Figure 6. Laser light pointer statements reported to have been heard by cat guardians (n = 618). 3.5. Associations between Exaggerated or Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors and Laser Light Play, Cat Guardian, Cat, and Household Variables Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors and Laser Light Play, 3.5. Associations between Exaggerated or Cat Guardian, Cat, and Household Variables to explore the relationship between LLP play Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed (never used; used, buttests currently; less than once a month; more than once a month) play Kruskal–Wallis not were performed to explore the relationship between LLP and frequency of ARBs (never; less than once athan once a month; more than least several times (never used; used, but not currently; less month; about once a week; at once a month) and a week). With ARBs (never; of overgrooming, month; about once a week;associated with frequency of the exception less than once a all ARBs were significantly at least several LLP play (Table 4). The relationshipsovergrooming,feline ARB and significantly associated times a week). With the exception of between each all ARBs were frequency of LLP play are depicted in (Table5. The relationships between each feline ARB and frequency of LLP with LLP play Table 4). play are depicted in Table 5. Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis test results assessing the association between laser light play and exaggerated or abnormal repetitive behaviors (n = 561). H (df) Spins or tail chases Chases lights and shadows Fixates on a specific toy Stares obsessively at lights or reflections Overgrooms him/herself P 7.89 (3) 52.03 (3) 11.46 (3) 28.31 (3) 1.41 (3) =0.049 <0.001 =0.009 <0.001 =0.704
Fleepit Digital © 2021