Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim

Does participation in Dolphin–Human

Interaction Programs affect bottlenose
dolphin behaviour?
M. Trone a,*, S. Kuczaj a, M. Solangi b
a
Department of Psychology, 118 College Dr. #5025, University of Southern Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
b
Marine Life Oceanarium, P.O. Box 4078, Gulfport, MS 39502, USA
Accepted 12 January 2005
Available online 2 March 2005

Abstract

The present study quantified the daily (short-term) and monthly (long-term) behavioural
repertoires of three dolphins that participated in Dolphin Interaction Programs with paying guests.
Behavioural data were collected over a 6-month period, with Dolphin Interaction Programs occurring
daily during the central 4 months. Observations were conducted for 90 min before and 90 min after
Dolphin Interaction Programs during the central 4 months, and at corresponding times during the first
and last months. Twelve days of such observations were conducted each month. Statistical analyses
were conducted on the data obtained from three Social Behaviour categories (Solitary, Dolphin–
Dolphin, and Dolphin–Human) and four Behavioural Event categories (Play, Swimming, Orienting,
and Motor Movements). Results revealed no short-term or long-term changes in the frequencies of
Social Behaviours, and no long-term changes in the frequencies of Behavioural Events. However,
there was a significant difference in the short-term frequencies of Play behaviours, with Play being
more frequent during the Observation Sessions that followed dolphin participation in a Dolphin
Interaction Program. The increased levels of Play behaviours following Dolphin Interaction
Programs were indicative of robust psychological health. Furthermore, the dolphins continued to
voluntarily interact with park visitors, even after interacting with a limited number of guests during
Dolphin Interaction Programs. Finally, the lack of observed changes in other behavioural frequencies
suggested that engaging in Dolphin Interaction Programs was not detrimental to the participating
dolphins. However, these conclusions should be accepted with caution, given the low
* Corresponding author. Present address: 3677 Luoisa Street, Marathon, FL 33050, USA. Tel.: +1 305 923 9757;
fax: +1 305 743 7627.
E-mail address: marie@dolphins.org (M. Trone).

0168-1591/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.003
364 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

statistical power resulting from using only three subjects. In addition, the results should only
be generalized to situations where dolphins partake in a single Dolphin Interaction Program each
day.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dolphin; Tursiops truncatus; Swim program; Interaction program; Captivity; Behaviour; Welfare

1. Introduction

Dolphin Interaction Programs require participants to pay a fee in exchange for the
opportunity to directly interact with captive dolphins. These programs are very popular
among the public, and hence extremely profitable for the host dolphin facilities.
Approximately 20 such programs are currently offered in the United States (Frohoff,
2003a) and many more are available in other countries.
Despite the popularity of Dolphin Interaction Programs, emotional controversy exists
concerning the welfare of the participating dolphins (opposing views: Cochrane and
Callen, 1992; Frohoff, 2003b; Rose, 2003; supporting views: Kirtland and Stringer, 1995;
Zilber, 1998). Nonetheless, relatively few scientific studies have investigated the
physiological and behavioural impacts associated with Dolphin Interaction Programs as a
means to assess the welfare of the participating animals.
Two such physiological studies investigated stress hormone levels in captive
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (Dold et al., 2000) and beluga whales (Delphinapterus
leucas) (Schmitt et al., 2002) that participated in interactive programs. In addition to
these physiological investigations, two behavioural studies have been conducted.
Samuels and Spradlin (1995) observed the behaviour of dolphins during interaction
programs that were conducted under trainer control. Trainer control was defined as the
situation where the trainer determined which dolphins and human guests participated in
the interaction, in addition to monitoring the behaviour of these dolphins and people in
order to control the interaction. While Samuels and Spradlin (1995) focused on the
safety of Dolphin Interaction Programs, Kyngdon et al. (2003) investigated behavioural
changes exhibited by captive common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) before, during, and
following public swims that were not conducted under trainer control. These authors
concluded that participation in Dolphin Interaction Programs did not seem to
compromise the welfare of the participating common dolphins.
Although the above studies provide valuable information about the manner in which
Dolphin Interaction Programs affect the participating animals, no study to date has
examined the extent to which dolphin behaviour is impacted by partaking in Dolphin
Interaction Programs when conducted under trainer control. The purpose of this study was
to evaluate the possible daily (short-term) and monthly (long-term) changes in the
behavioural repertoires of the three bottlenose dolphins (T. truncatus) that participated in
Dolphin Interaction Programs at Marine Life Oceanarium, located in Gulfport,
Mississippi. In these programs, human visitors entered a pool to interact with dolphins
that were under trainer control.
 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374 365

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study subjects and setting

This study was conducted at Marine Life Oceanarium, in Gulfport, Mississippi. The
three dolphins that participated in trainer-controlled Dolphin Interaction Programs
throughout the entire duration of the study served as the subjects. Two of these dolphins
were 4-year-old males, while the other dolphin was a 35-year-old female. Table 1 lists all of
the dolphins in the pool, along with their respective gender, age and whether they were
captive or wild born.
The trainer-controlled Dolphin Interaction Programs took place in an oval-shaped pool
approximately 20 m long and 10 m wide. The depth of the pool varied from approximately
1 to 3 m. This pool will be referred to as the Dolphin Interaction Pool and is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
The eastern half of the pool was characterized by an open main area, which had a dock
on its south side. The trainer-controlled Dolphin Interaction Programs generally occurred
within this main area of the pool. There were six shaded pens towards the western end of
the pool with gates that opened to each penned area. The gates to these pens were almost
always open and the dolphins were able to swim freely between the pens through the gates.
At the western end of the pool was another open area, which was also available to the
dolphins.

Table 1
Subject information, including subject gender, birth status, and age at the time of this study
Dolphin Subject Gender Birth status Age (years)
A Yes Female Wild caught 35
B Yes Male Captive born 4
C Yes Male Captive born 4
Da No Male Captive born 4
Eb No Female Captive born 12
a
Dolphin ‘‘D’’ was removed from the Dolphin Interaction Pool in July.
b
Dolphin ‘‘E’’ was introduced into the Dolphin Interaction Pool in July.

Fig. 1. Diagram of the Dolphin Interaction Pool. The pool is approximately 20 m in length, 10 m wide, and varies
in depth from 1 to 3 m.
366 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

During a Dolphin Interaction Program a trainer worked directly with one dolphin and
up to three paying guests while in the water. Under the guidance of the trainer, the guests
petted the back, belly, fins, and teeth of the dolphin, asked the dolphin for trained behaviours
through the use of hand signals, and fed the dolphin. Each of these dolphin interaction
sessions lasted approximately 15 min and was under trainer control. These programs will be
referred to as Dolphin Interaction Programs hereafter.
Outside of these trainer-controlled Dolphin Interaction Programs, the dolphins
occasionally interacted voluntarily with oceanarium visitors that were standing by the
Dolphin Interaction Pool by tossing balls with the guests. All visitors were required to stay
behind a railing that enclosed the pool. Physical contact between oceanarium visitors and
the animals outside the context of Dolphin Interaction Programs was prohibited. Thus,
these voluntary interaction sequences differed from Dolphin Interaction Programs in that
the people were not in the water with the dolphins, the people did not touch or feed the
dolphins, and the behaviour of the dolphins was not under trainer control.

2.2. Sampling times

The frequency of Dolphin Interaction Programs depended on public demand for these
programs. Public demand was high during summer months, and non-existent during winter
months. As a result, Dolphin Interaction Programs usually took place once per day from the
beginning of June through the end of September. Furthermore, these programs occurred at
different times throughout the day. Outside of this ‘‘Dolphin Interaction Season’’ Dolphin
Interaction Programs rarely took place, if at all.
A baseline of the behavioural repertoire of the dolphins was obtained in May, before the
Dolphin Interaction Season began. These baseline observations were conducted on days
when a Dolphin Interaction Program was not scheduled, or prior to the Dolphin Interaction
Program on days when the Dolphin Interaction Program occurred after 2:00 p.m. These
observations consisted of two 90-min Observation Sessions, which occurred between
9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. There were 12 days of observations in May (3 days randomly
selected per week) incorporating 24 Observation Sessions. ‘‘Condition 1’’ consisted of data
obtained during this period.
Observations were also made during June, July, August, and September. These
observations were conducted during two 90-min Observation Sessions, one that preceded
and one that followed Dolphin Interaction Programs. The first 90-min Observation Session
finished approximately 1 h before the Dolphin Interaction Program began. The second 90-
min Observation Session began approximately 1 h following the conclusion of the Dolphin
Interaction Program. There were 12 days of observations during each month of June, July,
August, and September (3 days randomly selected per week), comprising 24 Observation
Sessions each month. ‘‘Condition 2’’ consisted of data obtained during this period.
A final set of 12 observations was obtained during October and the first week of
November, after the Dolphin Interaction Season had terminated. Collectively, this time
frame will be referred to as ‘‘October’’ or ‘‘the month that followed the Dolphin Interaction
Season’’. As was the case for the observations collected in May, these observations were
conducted on days when there was not a scheduled Dolphin Interaction Program, or prior to
the Dolphin Interaction Program on days when the Dolphin Interaction Program occurred
 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374 367

after 2:00 p.m. These observations consisted of two 90-min Observation Sessions, which
occurred between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. There were 12 days of observations in
‘‘October’’ (3 days randomly selected per week for the first 3 weeks in October and the first
week of November), comprising 24 Observation Sessions. ‘‘Condition 3’’ consisted of data
obtained during this period.

2.3. Behavioural categories

Each observed behaviour was classified with respect to its social status and behavioural
event. The Social Behaviour categories included Solitary behaviours, Dolphin–Dolphin
social behaviours, and Dolphin–Human social behaviours. Solitary behaviours occurred
when a dolphin partook in an activity alone, with no other dolphins within 2 m of the
subject dolphin. Dolphin–Dolphin behaviours transpired when two or more dolphins
engaged in joint activities within 2 m of each other. Dolphin–Human behaviours occurred
when a dolphin was not under trainer control and voluntarily interacted with human visitors
standing around the Dolphin Interaction Pool.
Behavioural Event categories included Play, Swimming, Motor Movements, Orienting,
Sexual, Aggressive, Resting, and Miscellaneous behaviours. Play occurred when a dolphin
interacted with an object, bubbles, or water with no apparent intent other than the
behaviour itself. In such cases, individual behaviours were repeated, intermixed with other
behaviours, or increased in complexity. Swimming transpired when the dolphin moved
through the water without engaging in other activities. Motor Movements were defined as
body movements that were not associated with regular swimming and did not involve
playing with an object. Orienting occurred when the dolphin directed its attention toward
one or more other dolphins or humans. Sexual behaviours were demarcated as activities
that involved the genitals, such as the genitals being rubbed on an inanimate object or
another dolphin. If a dolphin displayed an erection, the behaviour was considered Sexual.
Aggressive behaviours were characterized by one dolphin producing agnostic displays or
attacking another dolphin, with one dolphin appearing dominant and the other seeming
more submissive. Resting behaviours were low energy activities, such as floating or lying
on the pool bottom, that were sometimes characterized by a closed eye. Any behaviour that
did not fit into any of the Behavioural Events described above was classified as a
Miscellaneous behaviour.

2.4. Sampling method

Dolphins were observed from the north side of the pool. It was assumed that the
dolphins were relatively unaffected by the presence of the observer since oceanarium
visitors frequented this vantage spot throughout the day. The dolphins were readily
identified as individuals by the shapes of their dorsal fins due to the close proximity to the
animals and the excellent water clarity.
The behaviour of the three dolphins that participated in dolphin interactions was
observed and recorded using a focal-animal sampling technique (Altmann, 1974). There
were 19 Sub-Observation Periods during each of the 90-min Observation Sessions, such
that a Sub-Observation Period began every 5 min. Each of the three subjects was observed
368 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

in succession for 10 s during each Sub-Observation Period. The subjects were observed in
rotation, resulting in a different subject being observed first at the beginning of each Sub-
Observation Period. Thus, although data were recorded during 36 h of observation each
month, each subject was the focus of such observations for 1.3 h evenly distributed among
this 36 h time frame.
During each of the 10 s Sub-Observation Periods, each behaviour displayed was
recorded as having occurred. The duration of behaviours was not documented given the
brevity of the Sub-Observation Periods. As a result, each subject’s data were recorded as
frequencies in terms of the cumulative number of incidents observed during Sub-
Observation Periods each month. Thus, a behaviour could have been recorded a maximum
of 228 times each month for either the First Observation Sessions or Second Observation
Sessions per subject, given that there were 19 Sub-Observation Periods per Observation
Session, and 12 days of Observation Sessions per month. The baseline data recorded for
conditions 1 and 3 are easily categorized with this method given that the two conditions
each lasted 1 month. However, there were 4 months of data collected during the Dolphin
Interaction Season (condition 2). Preliminary analyses revealed no significant effects of
month during condition 2. Thus, in order to more readily compare these data with those
obtained in conditions 1 and 3, the monthly totals obtained during June, July, August, and
September were averaged together for each subject to obtain a single value for each Social
category and Behavioural Event category. These condition 2 means, along with the totals
from conditions 1 and 3, were subsequently used during data analysis.

2.5. Analyses of data

Social Behaviour data (Solitary, Dolphin–Dolphin, Dolphin–Human) and Behavioural

Event data (Play, Swimming, Motor Movements, Orienting, Sexual, Aggressive, Resting,
and Miscellaneous behaviours) were examined in relation to Observation Session (First,
Second) and Dolphin Interaction Season Condition (1–3) using repeated measures, three-
way ANOVA. These analyses were conducted with the SPSS 10.0 for Windows statistical
package. Where appropriate, all pair-wise comparisons were made using Tukey tests. A
violation of the sphericity assumption may have been committed and statistical power may
have been gravely reduced by using only three subjects in these analyses. However, given
the paucity of possible subjects and the importance of the dolphin welfare issue, normal
distribution of the data was assumed and power was considered when interpreting the
results.

3. Results

3.1. Analyses of data

Repeated measures ANOVA did not reveal any significant three-way interactions
between the frequencies of Social Behaviours (Solitary, Dolphin–Dolphin, and Dolphin–
Human behaviours), Observation Sessions (First versus Second), and Dolphin Interaction
Season Conditions (1 versus 2 versus 3). When considering the Behavioural Event
 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374 369

Table 2
Total number of incidences of Aggressive, Resting, Sexual, and Miscellaneous behaviours observed that were
executed by the three subjects during the entire 6 month duration of the study during Sub-Observation Periods
Behaviours Observation Session May June July August September October
Sexual First 6 2 0 0 1 3
Second 28 1 1 0 2 5
Aggressive First 1 3 4 7 4 1
Second 1 1 1 2 3 1
Resting First 12 12 21 16 21 27
Second 8 10 19 16 21 20
Miscellaneous First 8 2 2 4 0 0
Second 2 5 4 1 0 0

categories, the total number of incidences of Sexual, Aggressive, Resting, and

Miscellaneous behaviours each month was so low that it was not possible to conduct
statistical analyses on these behaviours. Table 2 lists the frequency of these behaviours.
However, the monthly frequencies of the remaining Behavioural Event categories were
sufficient for analysis. As with the Social Behaviours, no three-way interactions were
found between the frequencies of Behavioural Event categories (Play, Swimming, Motor
Movements, and Orienting behaviours), Observation Sessions (First versus Second), and
Dolphin Interaction Season Conditions (1 versus 2 versus 3). However, a two-way
interaction was revealed and will be discussed in the following sections.

3.2. Comparison of behavioural frequencies between the First and Second

Observation Sessions

No significant two-way interactions were found between the frequencies of Social

Behaviours (Solitary, Dolphin–Dolphin, and Dolphin–Human behaviours) and Observa-
tion Sessions (First versus Second). The data on which these analyses were based are
presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Average frequencies of the Solitary, Dolphin–Dolphin, and Dolphin–Human behaviours displayed by the three
subjects during each Observation Session in each of the three conditions
Behaviours Observation Session Condition
One Two Three
Solitary First 105.7 132.8 141.0
Second 117.3 141.7 145.3
Dolphin–Dolphin First 63.7 72.7 95.0
Second 47.7 56.7 90.0
Dolphin–Human First 87.0 67.7 60.0
Second 87.0 70.0 55.3
Frequencies are reported in terms of total number of incidents observed during Sub-Observation Periods per
month. Condition 2 data are an average of the totals obtained in June, July, August, and September.
370 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

Table 4
Average frequencies of Motor Movements, Play, Orienting, and Swimming behaviours displayed by the three
subjects during each Observation Session in each of the three conditions
Behaviours Observation Session Condition
One Two Three
Play First 61.0 55.7 45.0
Second 95.3 84.0 72.3
Swimming First 85.7 108.7 71.3
Second 79.7 103.7 86.3
Motor Movements First 18.0 46.7 88.7
Second 20.3 41.3 75.7
Orienting First 39.0 54.3 74.3
Second 30.7 51.7 63.3
Frequencies are reported in terms of total number of incidents observed during Sub-Observation Periods per
month. Condition 2 data are an average of the totals obtained in June, July, August, and September.

A significant two-way interaction between the frequencies of Behavioural Events (Play,

Swimming, Motor Movements, and Orienting behaviours) and the time of the Observation
Sessions (First versus Second) was found using repeated measures ANOVA ( F 3,6 = 13.2,
p < 0.01). This significant F ratio was followed-up with tests of simple effects and Tukey
tests. When the data were averaged across the three Dolphin Interaction Season Conditions
(Pre-Dolphin Interaction Season, Dolphin Interaction Season, and Post-Dolphin
Interaction Season), only Play behaviours exhibited a significant difference between
the First and Second Observation Sessions, such that Play behaviours occurred more
frequently during the Second Observation Sessions. Tables 4 and 5 display these data.

3.3. Comparison of behavioural frequencies between the Dolphin Interaction Season

Conditions

No significant two-way interactions were found between the frequencies of Social

Behaviours (Solitary, Dolphin–Dolphin, and Dolphin–Human behaviours), or the
frequencies of Behavioural Events (Play, Swimming, Motor Movements, and Orienting
behaviours), and Dolphin Interaction Season Conditions (Pre-Dolphin Interaction Season,
Dolphin Interaction Season, and Post-Dolphin Interaction Season). The lack of statistically
significant differences reflects that fact that the frequencies of Social Behaviours and

Table 5
Average frequencies of Motor Movements, Play, Orienting, and Swimming behaviours displayed by the three
subjects during the First and Second Observation Sessions averaged across the three conditions of the study
Observation Session Behaviours
Play Swimming Motor Movements Orienting
First 53.9 55.9 51.1 88.6
Second 83.9 48.7 47.3 88.1
Frequencies are reported in terms of total number of incidents observed during Sub-Observation Periods per
month. Condition 2 data are an average of the totals obtained in June, July, August, and September.
 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374 371

Behavioural Events observed during condition 2 (Dolphin Interaction Season) were

statistically equivalent to those obtained during conditions 1 and 3 (Pre-Dolphin
Interaction Season, Post-Dolphin Interaction Season). Furthermore, the frequencies of
Social Behaviours and Behavioural Events were statistically equivalent during the First
and Third Dolphin Interaction Season Conditions (Pre-Dolphin Interaction Season, Post-
Dolphin Interaction Season). These data are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

4. Discussion

4.1. General discussion

It has been suggested that changes in behaviour may implicate jeopardized animal well-
being (Morton and Griffiths, 1985; Duffus and Dearden, 1990; Frohoff, 2000).
Furthermore, compromised well-being is more likely when more than one aspect of
the behavioural repertoire is altered, regardless of whether such changes are short or long-
term (Morton and Griffiths, 1985).
There was statistical uniformity found in the frequencies of all three Social Behaviour
categories, and three of the four Behavioural Event categories analyzed from both
Observation Sessions, as well as across the three conditions of this study. These findings
indicate that the welfare of the participating dolphins was not jeopardized by partaking in
Dolphin Interaction Programs. However, it should be noted that it is possible that
differences between the group means were not detected by the repeated measures ANOVAs
due to the limited statistical power created by using only three subjects.
The observed increase in Play behaviours following Dolphin Interaction Programs is
additional evidence that participation in these programs did not negatively impact the
dolphins’ well-being. Both wild and captive dolphins have been known to spontaneously
engage in extensive play activities (McBride and Hebb, 1948; Brown and Norris, 1956;
Bel’kovich, 1991; Kuczaj and Trone, 2001). Moreover, play activities are associated with
psychological well-being in zoological animals (Markowitz, 1982) and creativity and
emotional stability in humans (Brown, 1998). Therefore, the increase in Play behaviours
during the Second Observation Sessions suggests that participating in these programs did
not adversely compromise the welfare of the participating dolphins. However, it should not
be concluded that participation in Dolphin Interaction Programs facilitated Play
behaviours, since the observed increases occurred during all three conditions.
Results from this investigation further suggest that the dolphins did not perceive human
contact aversively, as has been suggested by Dolphin Interaction Program opponents
(Cochrane and Callen, 1992; Frohoff, 2003b). The dolphins in this study continued to
voluntarily engage in activities with humans, even after partaking in Dolphin Interaction
Programs daily for 4 months.
The notion of ‘‘assimilation tendency’’ (Hediger, 1964) may partially explain why captive
dolphins voluntarily interact with humans (Frohoff, 2000). ‘‘Assimilation tendency’’ refers to
situations where other species treat humans as conspecifics (Hediger, 1964). Observations of
wild dolphins have revealed that some relationships among dolphins may endure many years,
while other associations are brief, single incidents (Connor et al., 2000). Trainers and other
372 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

dolphins that share the same pool may constitute the stable aspect of the captive dolphins’
social life, while the human participants of Dolphin Interaction Programs, as well as park
visitors, may be more transient beings. Thus, humans may satisfy both the ‘‘fission’’ and the
‘‘fusion’’ roles that are characteristic of the social lives of dolphins.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that animal welfare may be improved when animals
are provided with ways to control their own environments (Markowitz, 1982; Hughes and
Duncan, 1988). Captive dolphins that have the opportunity to voluntarily interact with park
visitors may be better able to direct and satiate the ‘‘fission–fusion’’ aspect of their nature
by allowing humans to fulfill conspecific roles.
Although the frequency of Aggressive behaviours was so low that statistical analyses
were not conducted (Table 2), the observed rate did not differ greatly from those reported in
another study of captive dolphins. Samuels and Gifford (1997) stated that between 0.35 and
1.6 agnostic behaviours were observed per hour among a group of bottlenose dolphins at
the Brookfield Zoo. The wide variation of these rates was attributed to the gender of the
dolphins involved in the agnostic behaviour. Similarly, the rate of aggression in the present
study was 1.28 agnostic incidences per hour. Thus, the subjects of this study did not exhibit
more Aggressive behaviour than the dolphins that only participated in public
performances, suggesting that participation in Dolphin Interaction Programs does not
result in more aggression than partaking in public demonstrations.
The notion that partaking in Dolphin Interaction Programs does not compromise the
well-being of the participating dolphins is in agreement with the conclusions drawn by
Kyngdon et al. (2003). These researchers investigated behavioural changes exhibited by
captive common dolphins before, during, and following public swims that were not
conducted under trainer control. Levels of Aggressive, Submissive, and Play behaviours
observed preceding and following a swim program remained statistically the same.
However, compared to levels observed prior to swim sessions, touching and abrupt
behaviours increased following these swim session. Nevertheless, these authors concluded
that participation in dolphin swim programs did not seem to compromise the welfare of the
participating common dolphins.
Finally, the possibility that Dolphin Interaction Programs are not detrimental to the
well-being of the participating dolphins is also in agreement with available physiological
data. Specifically, increases in stress have been associated with elevated levels of hormones
such as cortisol, aldosterone, and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) (Morton and
Griffiths, 1985; Dold et al., 2000; Fair and Becker, 2000; Schmitt et al., 2002). Dold et al.
(2000) found that the levels of circulating cortisol and aldosterone are not significantly
different between dolphins that partake in interaction programs and dolphins that
participate in public demonstrations. Furthermore, Schmitt et al. (2002) reported that levels
of cortisol, aldosterone, and ACTH in the blood collected from beluga whales during and
following beluga interaction programs was not significantly different from levels collected
at other random times.

4.2. Generalizations

The results of this study are based on dolphins participating in one trainer-controlled
Dolphin Interaction Program per day. Moreover, these Dolphin Interaction Programs rarely
 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374 373

occurred during the 8 months outside the Dolphin Interaction Season. Further research is
needed to ascertain the effects of participating in multiple Dolphin Interaction Programs
each day, year-round, as well as the effects of participating in Dolphin Interaction
Programs that are conducted both under trainer control and not under trainer control.
Finally, a larger subject pool would provide more robust statistical analyses.

5. Conclusions

Behavioural data were collected over a 6-month period, with Dolphin Interaction
Programs occurring daily during the central 4 months. Observations were conducted before
and after Dolphin Interaction Programs during the central 4 months, and at corresponding
times during the first and last months. These data were analyzed to determine if
participation in Dolphin Interaction Programs changed various aspects of dolphin
behaviour, and to speculate how these changes might have affected dolphin welfare.
Only Play behaviours displayed short-term changes, with Play behaviour being more
frequent during the Second Observation Session during all three conditions of the study.
The increased levels of Play behaviours following Dolphin Interaction Programs were
indicative of robust psychological health. No long-term changes in the frequencies of the
Social Behaviours or Behavioural Events were observed across the three conditions of this
study. This lack of observed changes suggested that engaging in Dolphin Interaction
Programs was not detrimental to the participating dolphins. Moreover, voluntary
interactions with humans outside of Dolphin Interaction Programs further suggested that
these programs did not jeopardize the welfare of the participating dolphins. The results
from this study are in agreement with the behavioural findings of Kyngdon et al. (2003),
and the physiological results of Dold et al. (2000) and Schmitt et al. (2002). However, these
conclusions should be accepted with caution, given the low statistical power resulting from
using only three subjects. Furthermore, these results only should be generalized to
situations where dolphins only partake in one Dolphin Interaction Program per day.

Acknowledgements

This study was partially funded by a grant from the Institute of Marine Mammal Studies.
The helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers are appreciated.

References

Altmann, J., 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 227–267.
Bel’kovich, V.M., 1991. Herd structure, hunting, and play: bottlenose dolphins in the Black Sea. In: Pryor, K.,
Norris, K.S. (Eds.), Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles. University of California Press, Los Angeles,
California, pp. 17–78.
Brown, S., 1998. Play as an organizing principle: clinical evidence and personal observations. In: Bekoff, M.,
Byers, J.A. (Eds.), Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press, United Kingdom, pp. 243–259.
374 M. Trone et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93 (2005) 363–374

Brown, D.H., Norris, K.S., 1956. Observations of captive and wild cetaceans. J. Mammal. 37 (3), 311–326.
Cochrane, A., Callen, K., 1992. Dolphins and their Power to Heal. Healing Arts Press, Vermont.
Connor, R.C., Wells, R.S., Mann, J., Read, A.J., 2000. The bottlenose dolphin. In: Mann, J., Connor, R.C., Tyack,
P.L., Whitehead, H. (Eds.), Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 91–126.
Dold, C.D., Sweeney, J., Reidarson, T., McBain, J., Monfort, S., 2000. Circulating levels of cortisol and
aldosterone in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): a comparative look at display
animals. In: Proceedings of the AAZV/IAAAM Joint Conference. p. 494.
Duffus, D.A., Dearden, P., 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biol.
Conserv. 53, 213–231.
Fair, P.A., Becker, P.R., 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Stress Recovery 7, 335–
354.
Frohoff, T.G., 2000. Behavioral indicators of stress in Odontocetes during interactions with humans: a preliminary
review and discussion. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/52/WW2:1–20.
Frohoff, T., 2003a. Interacting with captive dolphins. In: Frohoff, T., Peterson, B. (Eds.), Between Species:
Celebrating the Dolphin–Human Bond. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, pp. 331–334.
Frohoff, T., 2003b. The kindred wild. In: Frohoff, T., Peterson, B. (Eds.), Between Species: Celebrating the
Dolphin–Human Bond. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California, pp. 56–71.
Hediger, H., 1964. Wild Animals in Captivity. Dover Publications, New York.
Hughes, B.O., Duncan, I.J.H., 1988. The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare.
Anim. Behav. 36, 1696–1707.
Kirtland, J., Stringer, S., 1995. Ocean or zoological habitat: the dolphins’ choice. Soundings 20 (2), 5–6, 19–20.
Kyngdon, D.J., Minot, E.O., Stafford, K.J., 2003. Behavioural responses of captive common dolphins Delphinus
delphis to a ‘Swim-with-Dolphin’ programme. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 81, 13–170.
Kuczaj II, S.A., Trone, M., 2001. Why do dolphins and whales make their play more difficult? Genet. Epistemol.
29, 57.
Markowitz, H., 1982. Behavioural Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
McBride, A.F., Hebb, D.O., 1948. Behavior of the captive bottle-nose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. J. Comp.
Psychol. 41, 111–123.
Morton, D.B., Griffiths, P.H.M., 1985. Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in
experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Vet. Rec. 116, 431–436.
Samuels, A., Gifford, T., 1997. A quantitative assessment of dominance relations among bottlenose dolphins. Mar.
Mammal Sci. 13 (1), 70–99.
Samuels, A., Spradlin, T.R., 1995. Quantitative behavioural study of bottlenose dolphins in swim-with-dolphin
programs in the United States. Mar. Mammal Sci. 11 (4), 520–544.
Schmitt, T.L., Dunn, J.L., St. Aubin, D.J., 2002. Physiologic stress response of long-term captive belugas,
Delphinapterus leucas, to routine blood collection, out-of-water physical examination, and wading-contact
programs. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Aquatic Animal Medicine, vol. 33. pp. 52–53.
Zilber, M., 7–12 November 1998. Open 24 hours. In: Proceedings of the International Marine Animal Trainers
Association 26th Annual Conference, Algarve, Portugal.