Oh boy! We just might be opening up a touchy debate on this subject, but it is pretty fascinating stuff, we think. What's the subject, you ask? Well, only the really simple, non-controversial topic of just how much cats are attached to their owners. Some of you will no doubt exclaim "POPPYCOCK!" (frothing rabidly at the mouth) at the mere notion that cats aren't attached to their owners, but let's take a moment to consider one study by Professor Daniel Mills, a Professor of Veterinary Behavioral Medicine at the University of Lincoln in the United Kingdom.
The experiment, published in June 2013 (and which caused no harm to any animals; only, perhaps, to the ego of the cat owners involved), was based on a study involving babies, dogs and cats to determine their connection to mothers and owners respectively. From the experiment, Professor Mills surmised that while dogs and babies look to humans as a source of comfort and safety, cats on the other hand look to owners as a resource (for food!) but NOT for comfort or safety. Have a look at the video of Professor Mills explaining the study and his conclusions.
So, does this study definitively conclude that cats are unattached to their owners? We'll leave that up to each of you to decide for yourselves (no fisticuffs, please), but we bet if you ask a cat owner, they'll argue that their cat does indeed show affection, what with the headbutts, purring and winding figure-eights through our legs. Certainly these are forms of cat affection, right? BUT… does affection equal attachment?? Can attachment mean more than looking to humans for comfort and safety? Who are we to say that viewing humans as a resource doesn't represent attachment? In the end, what probably matters most is the relationship that YOU have with your cat (however deluded your perceptions might be ). And if you wanted a dog-like relationship... well, darn it, you'd get a dog!
Love... and other stuff too