Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: This qualitative research article examines the nature of the decision-making processes used by people to acquire dogs in low-income communities compared to how people in middle and upper socioeconomic communities make this decision. Methods: We explored the preferences, thoughts, and concerns that influenced decisions of a convenience sample of 40 respondents who acquired dogs or puppies within the last 2 years. Sixty-five percent of respondents (N = 26) described living in or near poverty, while 35% held middle or upper socioeconomic status. To elicit detailed accounts of their decision-making process, a semi-structured interview was administered. Results were subjected to qualitative data analysis to identify different features of the acquisition process and to compare these features by respondents’ socioeconomic status. Results: Most respondents described similar ‘stages’ in dog acquisition as consumers making other high-involvement purchases: recognizing need (mulling), information-gathering and evaluating (creating criteria sets, sourcing pragmatically, and encountering decision triggers), and adjusting to new dogs post-acquisition. Aspects of acquisition were extended or attenuated, and more complex than predicted by models built for inanimate products. Social class influenced some but not all stages of dog acquisition. Conclusion: Findings from this analysis support advertising and wide dissemination of adoptable dog information. A community engaged model of sheltering including non-judgmental adoptions, community veterinary and behavioral pet support, and building trust could increase local dog adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arluke et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: