Optimism Bias and screening adopters

Earlier this week, the fine folks over at the ASPCA Pro Blog posted the video below. It is a presentation from a recent TED presenation. For those not familiar with TED, it is a series of presentations that has been going on for years now that features thought leaders on a variety of different topics.

The  speaker in this presentation is Tali Sharot --and the topic of this discussion is "optimism bias".

For those of you not familiar with the concept of Optimism Bias (and about 80% of us have it) -- it essentially the idea that we are more optimistic, than realistic about ourselves and our own strengths.  In general, we are more optimistic about our ability to have a successful marriage, have successful children, about our ability to get along with others, our driving ability, how interesting we are, how attractive we are and how honest we are. The reality is that about 80% of us think we're better than average drivers, at getting along well with others and more honest than everyone else.

Statistically this obviously can't be true (even though I do think the readers of this blog are extraordinary).

The ASPCA Pro blog then notes that this plays a role in screening pet adoptors as well. We have a tendency to overestimate our own abilities as pet owners, and underestimate the ability of others. And thus, during the adoption screening process, we are often quick to disqualify others from owning pets for doing many of the things we ourselves have done.

Do you or your organization decline potential adopters if you...

--- ever had a pet hit by a car

-- ever had a dog escape confinement and roam at large (at which point, the getting hit by a car is often just dumb luck)

-- ever lied on an adoption application

-- you don't have a fenced yard

-- you don't take your dogs for a walk at least twice per day

-- ever had a pet that produced a litter

-- ever disobeyed a city law, or apartment building guidelines to keep a pet, or

-- ever fell behind on a pet's vaccinations

I think most people, even in animal welfare, if they're honest, will have violated one or more of these policies.

A few years ago I was in a meeting with our city's animal control director with a room full of animal rescue folks, and at one point I dared request that the city consider eliminating it's pet limit (which is currently four). The majority of the people in the room were not pleased with my request -- because they wanted the law to get after hoarders, and abusers. I then just kindly asked for a show of hands of anyone in the room (all animal rescuers) that was currently living within the city's pet limit. No one raised their hands. Not one.

But see, THEY were good pet owners (and no doubt most of them were, and stil are), but they then projected others, in the same situation, as bad pet owners.

Having biases is natural. Most of us have them. But understanding them is really important if we are to make fact-based decisions -- so we base them on facts, not our own biases.

So here are a couple of thoughts:

1) The vast majority of people who come to adopt are good pet owners, or at least desire to be good pet owners. While there are some people who we should deny for adoption, most strive to be good pet owners (even if they're not perfect). Give them the information they need to be successful. Be a resource for them when they get in a bind. And more often than not the pet will be rewarded with a happy home.

2) As yourself realistically if you or your staff would be allowed to adopt from your own shelter. If the answer is no, you're being far too strict in your adoption requirements.

I enjoyed the post, and the TED Talk presentation. Biases are something I've always been interested in and this is a particularly good talk about one specific bias. For more info about bias in decision-making:

Mistakes were made (But not by Me)

On Being Certain

The Science of Fear (my favorite of these three books).

 

Comments

[YesBiscuit]

"the fine folks over at the ASPCA Pro Blog"? The same schmucks who posted and then deleted their anti-no kill docs, right? I don't think it's optimism bias at play when I say I don't trust them farther than I can throw them.

[Brent]

YB - -I find it unfortunate that somehow animal welfare has come to all of this. Do I agree with everything the ASPCA does? Definitely not. But honestly, I don't know of a single org out there that I agree with everything they say/do. I don't understand dismissing good and valuable information just because we don't like everything the organization does or stands for...

[YesBiscuit!]

Your choice to characterize them as "fine folks" is what I initially took issue with. That lead me to observation that I don't trust them.

They may have good information on the topic in the post. But they showed their hand - they are engaged in a war to discredit and take down no kill activists with lies and deceptive tactics. Knowing that, it makes me question everything they say and do, even if it seems like good information.

PETA does low cost spay-neuter which I think is a great service but, knowing their opposition to no kill and their deceptive practices, I am naturally going to question anything they do. And I'm definitely not going to allow them, or anyone I know to be dishonest and opposed to saving animals, to be characterized as "fine folks" without piping up with my two cents.

[Brent]

As I noted before, pretty much every group out there has things I disagree with. I can either choose to ignore all of them - -or, listen to all of them and take what I find to be valuable. If I waited until I agreed with everything someone believed in I'd believe nothing.

My bigger concern is actually becoming the ongoing trend of many (and you're quickly becoming one of them) to criticize EVERYTHING everyone else does who isn't 'perfect'.

[Caveat]

I'm more surprised when ASPCA does something worthwhile than when they don't, so you can count me among those who suspect an agenda in everything they do, much like HSUS. I discount Peta as a circus act with no real power, especially now that journalists are finally catching on to what they are up to and are helping, in a typically lukewarm manner, to spread the word.

ASPCA has joined in a campaign against No Kill and Nathan Winograd using a campaign of dis- and misinformation. They sem to support the killing of healthy animals in shelters and are apologists for the shelter industry.

So, while I love this post and find the topic very interesting indeed, I wouldn't call them the 'good folks', even if I might highlight the material.

[Erich]

As someone who is trying to operate a home based adoption group, I wish there were more official guidance for us.

My main requirement is a veterinary reference. I check each reference, and at least 2/3 come back with the veterinarian having no record of the applicant.

I do also want pets to be spayed or neutered, unless there is some logical reason.

Now that we have had some dogs adopted and returned, I am asking more questions to make sure the people understand their choices and it is a good match. I have videos of dogs playing like maniacs and the adopter is still surprised when the dog plays like a maniac, so it is good to talk about everything.

As to the ASPCA Pro Blog, Nathan Winograd wrote what seems to me a similar post about his own difficulty in adopting.

[DubV]

No kill nutters here?

Optimism bias, pretty amazing how bad TED has gotten. Next, they'll have a talk about how people tend to be more disgusted by the defecation smell of others more so than their own. Anywho.....

I think optimism bias EXACTLY describes pit nutters, so that's why I'm surprised you posted on it.

The optimism that a dog from a breed group created to kill their own species in a pit will be able to live their life safely so long as a pasty, scrawny white guy like Brent here can get his lion tamer on.

Face, it you so-called responsible pit bull owners are simply the ones luck enough to get a pit bull from the more gentle side of the pit bull aggression bell curve. The pit bulls from the other side of this genetically determined distribution are either dead because their "irresponsible" owner couldn't possibly handle the beast, got into the hands of a dog fighter, or are in some "sanctuary" or somewhere else where they are kept like zoo animals.

You folks are the definition of cognitive bias.

[Brent]

Welcome DubV. I would normally delete this comment because a) it's off topic and b) it is definitely not adding to intelligent debate -- but I'm going to leave it because it actually does a great job of demonstrating why the small fraction of people like you are so woefully misinformed. Let's break down your "discussion points":

First, start with an insult. Always a good way to start.

Second, belittle science so you can be dismissive of science. The speaker her has a masters in psychology and is respected in her field.

Third, rewrite the history of a breed of dogs. Because actual history doesn't matter either.

Fourth, insult again.

Fifth, compare pit bulls (50 lbs domesticated dogs) to Lions (500 lbs wild animals). Obviously a ridiculous comparison, but again, science and history are no longer relevant.

Sixth, dismiss all knowledge from people who are certified in dog training and handling.

Insult again.

Yes, that's a winner of an argument. And when you dismiss science this is the type of argument you get. Pretty sad.

[Erich]

Of our current group of dogs, the one who appears to possibly be part Pit Bull Terrier is the best as a visitor at the VA Center.

Calm and mature around people, playful with dogs. A true joy to be around.

[J.M.]

Do people who say no to potential adopters think they`re actually stopping people from getting a pet?
I sent friends(great people BTW) to a Rescue group that I donate to or I should say used to.
My friends pointed out to me that right on the website Adoption page it says that they don`t adopt to people with children under the age of 10.
Is that ridiculous or what?
No wonder today`s kids don`t know how to behave around dogs.
This was not the 1st Rescue that my friends tried.
They already had 1 dog and simply wanted a canine friend for that dog.
They finally gave up on Rescue groups and just bought a dog from a farmer.
That dog has a great home with their first dog and their little girl(well under the age of 10) is having a great time with these dogs.
A win win except for numerous Rescues that lost out on a great family because they don`t adopt to people with kids under a certain age.

[Erich]

JM, your donations entitle to inquire about the group's policy.

Things are different when a person adopts pets out of his or her home. I have had two well behaved, happy, potty trained dogs returned more than once, with zero or one day notice. It is hard to handle logistically, but at least the dogs were returned instead of bartered or sold.

It definitely changes the adoption process for me, from assuming people are reasonable to realizing some people truly are clueless, and it is incorrect to assume anything. After living with a dog for a month, or two, or six, having them follow me around the house and sleep in my bed every night, I really want them to have a good life.

[J.M.]

"JM, your donations entitle to inquire about the group's policy."

I`m not even going to bother.
I just quit donating.
This is the 2nd Rescue I tried dealing with.
I stopped donating to the 1st one because I did ask some questions and got no response.
Apparently my donation didn`t entitle me to ask questions.
I know my friends got fed up trying to deal with Rescues and I can`t say that I blame them.
I grew up in a family with 3 kids under the age of 3 and we always had a dog and that`s probably why we`re dog savvy today.
All these restrictions and requirements today are ridiculous as far as I`m concerned.
Most people are good people but Rescues(maybe not all) assume that most people are bad people.
I consider adoption a lifetime commitment as do all of my friends.
Having a fence or having no kids or owning your own house doesn`t mean you consider adoption a lifetime commitment.
That`s the only question that Rescues need to ask.
They`re losing out on a lot of good people because you`re made to feel like a criminal up front.

[Erich]

One widely cited statistic is that only 10% of dogs and 1 of 12 cats find a permanent home.

I don't know how close that is to accurate, there is a lot of bad math when it comes to animal welfare. But I think that to assume "most" as in a majority of pet owners keep their pets for the life of the pet is probably wrong.

I also don't personally understand the home check, what are people looking for in a home check? Overloaded electrical circuits?

However, every pet we take in was mistreated in some way before we got the pet, and several are mistreated after they are adopted - hopefully they have been returned to us - so real experience with people and pets does change one's perspective.

[J.M.]

All I know is I`ve been turned off by Rescues as have many of my friends and acquaintances.
If those statistics are correct I have to wonder why people even bother getting a pet in the first place if it`s not a lifetime commitment.
There`s nothing that would make me give up a pet.The thought would never cross my mind.
I think even a homeless person can be a good owner.
If I only had $10 in my pocket,I`d feed my dog before I`d feed myself.
Maybe I`m wrong to assume that I`m the norm but I like to think that that I am.

[Erich]

JM, for the sake of the pets that group surely wants to help, and the pets that need help, you should tell them exactly how you feel and ask them to explain their policies.

The KC Pet Project has the best adoption process I have seen on its website:

"No Blanket Adoption Rules

We take your individual situation into consideration during a brief adoption consultation and will help you find a pet that works best with your lifestyle and living arrangement."

http://kcpetproject.org/adoption-process/

[MichelleD]

Thanks for the shout out Erich. I hope JM will send his friends (and donations :-) to us at KC Pet Project in the future. We'll for sure find them the right pet!

We do have a couple of rules (no tethering as primary form of containment, cruelty charges etc) but nothing silly like fencing, or no children under 10, etc.

[J.M.]

"I hope JM will send his friends (and donations :-) to us at KC Pet Project in the future."

I buy monthly treats for the cats and dogs at my local Humane Society instead of giving to Rescue but I`ll keep you in mind.

If I was closer I`d foster for you.

One Rescue didn`t even bother replying to my inquiries about fostering.
Another had me fill out an extensive application.
Said forget about the dogs..I`d like to live there after seeing some pictures.
Then said we`ll keep you in mind.
That was last August as in 2011.
Emailed at Xmas.
No reply.

Guess I gave the "wrong" answer to some question.
My Vet Tech was flabbergasted...she said yet they beg for foster homes.

[Erich]

The rule about kids is particularly silly. Most animal welfare people will complain loudly about people abandoning pets when a human baby comes along. But then some won't adopt to people with human babies.

There is no good source for private groups to go to for guidelines on how to do things properly. It is trial and error, and I think feedback helps. I have a house full of dogs right now and it is isolating.

[Brent]

I think this is why the no blanket rules is the only policy that makes sense. Some dogs are great with kids (even young kids). Some aren't. And not all kids are created equally - -I've met 2 year olds that are more mature than 6 year olds depending on their parent's parenting skills - -and recently met a 12 year old that is more mature than many adults I've met. Just like no two dogs are the same, no two families are either -- and in most cases you can find a pet that matches the needs of an individual family and the needs of that pet. To me, the blanket policies are just a lazy way of decision-making to save people from having to make individual decisions for each situation.