Mar 10 2010

Woof Wednesday With Angela Adams - What Lies Beneath: Behind The Behaviour

Posted by Kevin Myers at 12:00 AM
13 comments - Categories: Behavior | Dogs | Training | Woof Wednesday

Daschund Puppy & Books First of all I’d like to thank Kevin for inviting me to write a guest blog, and for being such a nice guy to collaborate with. So thank you Kevin.

Kevin and I decided that a good topic for a post is what really drives behaviour in dogs, and this is also a discussion I find myself having on a daily basis during the course of my work as a trainer and canine behaviour counsellor. Unfortunately all too often new clients hold the default assumption that dogs behave badly because they are dominant and seeking to attain alpha status.

Contrary to popular belief there is nothing sinister going on. So let’s take a look at what dominance is, why it is detrimental to apply it to dog behaviour, and what really is behind the behaviour of our canine companions.

Dominance defined: In ethology (the study of animal behaviour), dominance is defined as a relationship between individuals belonging to the same species (conspecifics), that is established in order to prioritise access to scarce resources, for example food, the opposite sex. Such a relationship cannot exist until one animal consistently defers to another.

Modern qualified behaviourists and trainers take issue with applying the dominance model to the dog for many reasons a few being:

Dominance theory originated from early studies of unrelated captive wolves. These studies were inaccurate and misleading because the wolves were unrelated and not in their natural environment. Studies of related wild wolves in their natural environment show a family group consisting of parents and their offspring, where the relationships are based on cooperation, with the parents guiding and teaching their young.
The dog is not a wolf; it is related to the wolf in the same way that humans are related to the chimp. Although dogs maintain some behavioural qualities of wolves and other canids, thousands of years of domestication, selective breeding, and coevolution with humans has greatly altered and shaped their behaviour.
For the past 14,000 years feral dogs have evolved as scavengers, and although sociable their existence has been semi-solitary. Where relationships are formed the associations are loose, unstructured, and changeable; members frequently come and go, a quality not seen in wolf packs. A certain degree of cooperation confers mutual benefit with fellow canines allowing for access to communal resources and shared mates. These transient relationships are based on cooperation not dominance, and the evanescent nature of these groups requires no leader or alpha. Furthermore any aggression would likely result in the perpetrator being ostracised from the group.

The dangers of the dominance model: This concept is erroneously used and sadly leads to the application of aversive tools and techniques, with the sole purpose of intimidating a dog to submit with the objective of stopping unwanted behaviours. The application of aversive techniques in training gives rise to a very serious issue of safety, for both the dog and the owner. Such techniques can push a dog into self preservation mode, “fight” or “flight” because it feels threatened or unsafe. Just as importantly such methods can potentially harm a dog’s physical and emotional/psychological well being, through pain, anxiety, frustration, fear, and high levels of stress. The fallout can result in a dog that is withdrawn, subdued, or shutdown (not “calm submissive”); because it has given up, as nothing it does works for the better. Or the result is displays of aggression because of frustration, fear, or anxiety, in this way aggression functions as a tool to create distance, make the bad thing go away or stop. However if this also fails, if we keep pushing a dog’s self preservation button, or the dog’s temperament is such that it is not able to cope with sustained frustration, anxiety, and high levels of stress, then all that is left is active aggression; a bite.

Motivation drives behaviour: All behaviour is driven by motivation, humans, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents, horses. There is always some function, some purpose, a motivation to behaviour(s). Although there could be any number of reasons a dog may present with problem behaviour, here we will consider motivation in relation to the following categories:

Social attention and interaction: Dogs are a sociable species, we have all heard the term “It’s just attention seeking behaviour” applied to humans, but owners will often overlook this very simple explanation as a cause for many common problems behaviours. Let’s take a look at a very typical scenario. Consider this, Fido your 10 week old pup is bored, he has been used to attention and interaction on demand with his littermates. You are doing chores and Fido bounds over to you and nips your ankle, you say “No!” attention, you gently push Fido away interaction, and as you do so you look at him directly making eye contact attention. From Fido’s point of view this works, and each time this scenario is repeated, this behaviour is strengthened, and by the time Fido is 5 months this has escalated to serious problem behaviour.

Tangibles: Like humans dogs have needs, wants, preferences, and desires for certain things such as food, activities, toys, and objects etc., which provide motivation for behaviour. It is not bad for dogs to want these things it is perfectly normal. However it is all too easy for dogs to learn to display inappropriate or undesired actions to attain these things, and this is when problem behaviours can arise.

Distance, survival, escape, and/or avoidance: Many dogs are at a disadvantage because important factors such as genetics, imprinting, habituation, and socialisation, which play a vital role in shaping dogs temperament, were lacking. Such dogs are likely to develop a nervous, reactive, anxious, shy, and/or fearful disposition, coupled with poor social skills. Therefore many of these dogs will not cope well with certain everyday situations and events. They will be motivated to create distance, escape, or avoid the situation, and in extreme cases they will be quick to switch to “fight/flight” response when faced with their fears. It is important to stress that punitive training can also put dogs at a disadvantage. Fear aggression is one of the most common problem behaviours in this category. Whatever the nature of the issue, treatment should be management, remedial habituation and socialisation and training. Under no circumstances should aversive training techniques be applied. (See above: The dangers of the dominance model).

Sensory and intrinsic motivation: Various behaviours are internally rewarding, or self-reinforcing. Such behaviours are not dependent on external consequences, what is happening on the inside is important. For example, when left alone Fido barks excessively, he barks because he is bored and possibly also anxious. Barking is a sensory, self-reinforcing behaviour for Fido because it relieves him of boredom and stress, and makes him feel better. Excessive barking is annoying and distressing to the owner; however, for the dog the behaviour serves the function of helping it cope with boredom or anxiety. The behaviour of excessive barking has been adopted by Fido because it functions as a coping strategy. To help resolve this type of problem behaviour we first need to change the way Fido feels when left alone, and provide enrichment to keep Fido mentally stimulated, effectively we are changing/removing the motivators.

This should make it clear that attributing dominance to problem behaviours completely disregards the true nature of behaviour; all behaviour is driven by motivation, it has a function. Canine behaviour is as simple as it is complex; that is, certain behaviours may appear to be complex, but there is normally a simple explanation. We just need to figure out two aspects; motivation and reinforcement.

For more about Angela, you can visit her website at http://www.fun4fido.co.uk/. You can find Angela on Twitter at http://twitter.com/fun4fido, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/fun4fido/63862277241, and on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/fun4fido.

For more reading on animal behaviour, Angela reccommends the following:

Share|

Comments

calmassertive wrote on 03/10/10 1:28 AM

The author seems to think that by not including Cesar Millan's actual name in this drivel that no one will instantly recognize it for what it is, that being just another tired attempt at Cesar bashing. The pseudo-intellectual fog is visible, so to speak, after just 3 sentences. It's bad enough that authors like this one continue to rehash this tedious nonsense, but for these people to hold their readers' intelligence in such contempt as to resort to churning out such a thinly-veiled charade as this is just plain insulting. Do you think by going to such transparent great length to not mention the name of your obvious target that readers will somehow ignore their common sense and embrace your ridiculous contentions? Such shallow attempts to pull the wool over readers' eyes are patently offensive, bordering on juvenile. Too bad such a good grasp of the language gets wasted on such a poor understanding of the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calmassertive,

So in your opinion anyone that has a problem with the dominance model of behavior in domestic dogs is personally attacking Cesar Milan? Do you also mean to say that anyone that questions anything that Cesar does is insulting the public at large?

What I find juvenile is that you never use a valid e-mail address with your comments and that you decry and even insult people that have any opinions that differ with your personal guru Cesar Milan. I have included comments you have made on my blog before and I have blocked some of your comments because they border on personal attacks that have no merit to the original discussions. If you find fault with this article and disagree with Angela; then why not offer your views on why you think the dominance model is proper when addressing behavior in dogs?

Kevin

Angela Adams wrote on 03/10/10 10:09 AM

Hi calmassertive,

Thanks for your comment. Your assumption is wrong; the article is not a personal attack on Cesar Millan. I understand why you may see it this way, because Millan does apply the dominance model, however there are countless other canine professionals in the world (a big place), who are not in the media, who also use this model, and have done so long before Millan arrived on the scene.

The point of the article is to show that dog behaviour is driven by motivation not dominance. To determine the cause of a problem behaviour a "functional analysis" is carried out, this is psychology, it is not pseudo-intellectual fog. (It's also a branch of mathematics, but I digress). In this article I have given a brief explanation of the key motivators that would typically be looked at when carrying out a functional analysis.

When writing the article I set about a framework; what is dominance, why it's detrimental to apply it to dogs, and to explain how motivation drives behaviour.

I think the article opens up valid points for consideration.

Angela

calmassertive wrote on 03/10/10 3:52 PM

Kevin, I already told you, to protect against receiving junk mail, I don't publish my address. I also don't include my phone number or where I live, for the same reason. I don't consider this the least bit unreasonable.

The reason I don't go line-for-line thru the article is that there are so Many lines that are so patently absurd that it would take all day to refute each one in turn. The key disagreement is that you and your guest author feel that dogs aren't pack animals, that they don't seek to establish and live within a social hierarchy, that people should just let dogs do what they want when they want to whomever or whatever they want for as long as they want, and people like myself think that's nonsensical.

I can't speak to How you manage to not see what the rest of us consider obvious. Maybe people who believe as you do don't have much personal experience, relying on academics who themselves have not much personal experience, but I know in My case I have Lots of experience, and when National Geographic lets us share in Cesar's experience it just serves to make conclusions reached as a result of those personal observations that much more solid.

Have you not seen a dog put other dogs down, just for the exercise? Have you not seen a dog herd other dogs into an area and hold them there, just for the exercise? Dogs lacking leadership from people end up establishing a hierarchy amongst themselves to fill the vacuum. The vernacular is full of phrases recognizing this fact, like "pecking order" in the case of birds, "pack leader" and "top dog" in the case of dogs, "front man" in the case of a rock band, etc. Once established it's maintained by simple glances, lip movements, and other subtle gestures that the untrained eye doesn't catch.

Angela is big on 'motivation', so I'll just say that what motivates dogs or Any animal is obviously what that animal thinks will Work to get what it Wants. Simple. If your dog pulls you down the street and it works, then it will continue to do it. If barking at you to feed it or open the door for it works, then that is what it will continue to do.

Now here is a key point. Dogs are good at making Generalizations. If pulling you works, if barking at you works, then they Generalize that you are not the one in charge, that They are, since a pack leader would never put up with such disrespectful treatment. People's appeasement of Fluffy turns Fluffy results in Fluffy feeling the need to take over, to dominate if you will, because nature abhors a vacuum. The dog Generalizes this deserved lack of respect and feels free to put its mouth where it wants, claim ownership of everything it wants, and generally just act as the Dominant one amongst Submissive others. Recognizing this role reversal as unnatural and reversing it back to its proper order of human on top and dog on bottom, so to speak, is the key to getting the dog to give up many behaviors the owners claim to dislike.

Being Dominant is not the same as being cruel or aggressive, but it can involve physical touch to get the point across. Dogs are natural followers, much more relaxed to let their leader deal with all the stresses of the world, while they just kick back and relax. People who don't assume the dominant role in their dog's life condemn their dog to needless stress when having to fill that role on its own. The dogs become anxious, nervous, tense, etc, with all the pressure such responsibility entails. They are much happier when their owner fairly does that job for them.

No one claims that Dominance is the root of All evil, but failing to recognize that it is the root of Some evil just doesn't match the facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

calmassertive,

In the interest of fairness, I have posted your comments but I disagree with much of what you say. I will come back to it and add my comments, when I have the time. I suspect Angela will respond as well.

Kevin

Rod@GoPetFriendly wrote on 03/10/10 7:34 PM

I have to admit, Cesar Milan immediately came to mind when I started reading the article. Even though, as Angel points out, it's a big world out there - Cesar is the trainer who is most closely associated with dominance theory/training because of his show.

However, it is irrelevant whether Cesar's name is mentioned or not. There is an alternative theory to behavior that Angela is suggesting. Personally, my wife and I like it and live it with our dogs. AND we still watch The Dog Whisperer because Cesar does offer some great tips and observations that don't stem from dominance theory.

It's a healthy debate. Kudos to Kevin for posting Calmassertive's comment and responding as he did. As for the commenter, you've proven you're assertive ... maybe you could strive for the calm part. When you react so stridently to an alternative position (without offering any research that supports yours), you've already lost.

Lorie Huston wrote on 03/10/10 11:28 PM

Kudos, Kevin and Angela, for a well-written and informative article. I agree completely with everything you said.

I find it unfortunate that there are people who are so narrow-minded that they are unwilling to even consider that there may be a method different than the one to which they subscribe that might work just as well (or, dare I say, even better). Fortunately for the canine population, the positive approach to dog training is beginning to become more mainstream and will continue to grow in popularity as the success rate becomes more widely known and the science backing these techniques becomes more widely accepted within the general public. Many dog trainers who previously used more aggressive dominance-based forms of training are crossing over to positive training methods and are obtaining positive results with their canine pupils.

There is a misconception that is perpetuated by people who do not fully understand these methods that positive dog training involves only giving pets rewards. As far as this statement goes, it is correct. What these people fail to explain (or understand?) is that positive dog training is not only rewarding good behavior whenever it occurs. It also involves replacing unwanted or undesirable behaviors with desirable behaviors. Despite assertions to the contrary, undesirable behaviors are not overlooked with positive methods of training. However, the methods used to correct mistakes is much different than that used with more aggressive, dominance-based training methods. People opposing positive training methods would have us believe that dogs trained with these methods are unruly and uncontrollable because of a lack of discipline, when in fact this is far from the truth.

In my opinion, positive reward-based training methods provide a humane and safe method of training a dog or a puppy while also providing an unequaled opportunity for a pet owner to bond with their dog or puppy. Reward-based training methods can be practiced by anyone, unlike punitive methods that require flawless timing every time the behavior occurs, which is impossible for almost all pet owners and most dog trainers to obtain. Punitive measures can also, as Angela correctly notes in her article, make fearful or anxious dogs even more fearful or anxious, even pushing them to the point of violent action. Positive training will help the same dog become more confident and less fearful.

And, BTW Kevin, the email and name I provided were both real. I have nothing to hide :-)

Angela Adams wrote on 03/11/10 2:57 AM

Hi calmassertive

Thank you again for your comment. If you don't mind I will address some of the point you made:

[calmassertive said] The key disagreement is that you and your guest author feel that dogs aren't pack animals, that they don't seek to establish and live within a social hierarchy, that people should just let dogs do what they want when they want to whomever or whatever they want for as long as they want, and people like myself think that's nonsensical.

[my response] The view that dogs are not pack animals is not just mine and Kevin’s, it is also the view of many reputable, qualified canine behaviourists, trainers, veterinarians, and welfare organisations worldwide. This view is based on modern scientific studies. If you are so interested in canine behaviour then you might consider taking the time to read through this site http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

Where in my article does it state that people should just let dogs do what they want, when they want, etc? This is another one of your incorrect assumptions! Reward based training simply means that positive reinforcement and positive actions are applied to teach dogs what works and what doesn’t work, rather than using corrections. It is important to understand that positive does not mean permissive. Dogs want stuff, we show them how to get it, getting stuff, food, a walk, play, attention, etc., is contingent on desirable behaviour. Ignore the bad, (also make sure the bad doesn’t work for the dog), and reward the good.

[calmassertive said] Dogs lacking leadership from people end up establishing a hierarchy amongst themselves to fill the vacuum.

[my response] Dogs lacking training from people will inadvertently learn through experience (associations and consequences), that inappropriate behaviour (in human terms) works to get what they want. Dogs simply do what works to get what they want; you yourself stated this in your comment. So when Rover jumps up and repeatedly gets attention for it (even negative attention i.e. yelling no, is attention), in Rover’s mind this works, the jumping up behaviour is reinforced, and therefore continues. This scenario applies to so many behaviours that are labelled as dominant. The dog is not being dominant; it has simply been inadvertently reinforced for undesired behaviour.

[calmassertive said] Angela is big on 'motivation', so I'll just say that what motivates dogs or Any animal is obviously what that animal thinks will Work to get what it Wants. Simple. If your dog pulls you down the street and it works, then it will continue to do it. If barking at you to feed it or open the door for it works, then that is what it will continue to do.

[my response] Yes, I agree, and will go back to my previous point. Dogs want stuff; we show them how to get it. So we show them pulling doesn’t work, but a loose leash does. We show them that barking for food doesn’t work, but sitting quietly does work. Simple. We don’t need to dominate them to teach them this, and they don’t need to submit to learn this. Training is team work, it should build a strong bond and a relationship based on trust and cooperation for mutual benefit.

[calmassertive said] Now here is a key point. Dogs are good at making Generalizations. If pulling you works, if barking at you works, then they Generalize that you are not the one in charge, that They are, since a pack leader would never put up with such disrespectful treatment.

[my response] Eh? Dogs are good at making generalisations. Well this is incorrect, if dogs were good at making generalisation then all we would need to do it train them at home indoors, and they would generalise all they have learnt to any other location. Dogs learn by cues associated with particular situations, signals, and locations. This means that if you only practice in one place, in the house/garden for instance, the dog will associate compliance to trained behaviours with that particular location. When you change the location, you have to re-train the behaviour again in that (and every) new location. As time goes on, the dog will learn more quickly every time a new place is added.

You use the word dominant like it’s a personality trait, it’s not, as I state in the article.

In ethology (the study of animal behaviour), dominance is defined as a relationship between individuals belonging to the same species (conspecifics), that is established in order to prioritise access to scarce resources, for example food, the opposite sex. Such a relationship cannot exist until one animal consistently defers to another.

To live in a dominance hierarchy, and to base your behaviour towards others on who has which rank, you have to be able to do quite a bit of abstract thinking. You’d have to have a map of the social structure in your head, in which you are comparing various ranks with each other and assigning these ranks to yourself and others. Canines don’t have large frontal lobes in the brain that would enable them to think in such abstract terms.

Angela

Kevin Myers wrote on 03/11/10 10:37 AM

calmassertive,

I am not going to address the same points that Angela made. But I will add one thing about not leaving a valid e-mail address. I understand that you don't want to have your inbox cluttered up with spam. However, you can (as many others have) get another e-mail account on a service like Google or Yahoo that you use specifically for leaving comments. There are many website that won't even allow you to post unless you leave a valid e-mail address that can be verified. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

Melinda Hertel wrote on 03/11/10 6:26 PM

I have two comments. First, thank you, Angela, for stating that dogs are not wolves. My first real look at dog training/behavior was when I read Cesar Milan's first book. And as I have read more and more from other trainers and behaviorists, I began to think to myself, "Why do we compare dogs to wolves in the first place?" We don't seem to compare cats to tigers and lions. Is it because cats are easier to control than dogs that we don't feel this need to delve deep into the tiger psyche to figure them out? Dogs are NOT wolves. It's that simple. Yes, they have some similar characteristics, but their evolutionary track has been completely different. My degree is in cultural anthropology, and I studied the origins of farming and domestication. Domesticated animals, while similar, are also very different from their ancestors. It makes me also question the notion of feeding a dog its "ancestral diet". They are not their ancestors. Anyway, that's another topic.

My second comment is that as a dog owner (I'm afraid to say "Mom" in case I'm accused of being too emotional with regards to my dogs), I have never personally felt that my dogs are trying to dominate me. They either want to play or want food or need me to let them out to go potty. I believe we should discipline them--and by discipline I mean teach--so that they can continue to co-exist with us. But I see them more like children who just need to be guided. If we humans weren't in the picture, training would be unnecessary. My one dog is leash-aggressive--my fault for not socializing him properly as a puppy to function in a world that involves being leashed and unable to interact as he feels comfortable. So now, I'm working with him to associate other dogs with treats and attention from me rather than his leash and confinement. I just don't see this as dominant behavior. It's not that black and white.

Thank you for your article. I am learning a lot from people such as you.

Melinda

calmassertive wrote on 03/11/10 7:11 PM

My, aren't we all so civil today... :)

But to the points at hand: Angela, as I said, we disagree on whether dogs think in terms of packs. I'm dumbfounded that there could be disagreement on such a basic point, but there it is, and we really can't get much further until one of us (certainly not goint to be me) sees the proverbial light.

The other disagreement is the 2-quadrant versus 4-quadrant approach to training. When I read people like yourself saying that they should Ignore unwanted behavior it, too, leaves me utterly dumbfounded. When my dog eats your baby I'll be sure to give it a cookie when on its own it tires of ripping the infant to shreds. Could you recommend a good cookie flavor -- I want to make sure I give the dog a really good treat to reward it for stopping. Sheesh... It's exactly this approach that has my neighbor's dog barking for 2 hours straight until the fellow finally relents. Meanwhile when he's gone in the afternoon all I have to do is say SHHH thru the fence and the dog quiets immediately. The dog just wants to follow Someone's lead, Anyone, even a neighbor thru the fence. It is starving for someone to let it know what is ok to do and what is not ok to do. It jumps at the chance to
stop what it's doing when told to stop, just as it jumps at the chance to Do something when told to Do something. It's the Same Thing to the dog. It's basic Skinner 101. The dog is not offended when I say SHHH, it's Happy, it's Proud that it understands what I mean and can comply.

Dr. Huston, on the other hand, argues elsewhere in a different blog that if a dog becomes assertive in the face of a leadership vacuum created by its owners that the dog's excitement, mouthing, etc are good cause for euthanasia. The September 2007 AVSAB newsletter describes such a case, where the vet who follows the same rewards-only approach to training advised the owners to Kill their 14-month-old labradoodle, rather than rehome or (in my view) properly train it, and the President of the AVSAB and several other board members chimed in with their enthusiastic agreement. Followers of Cesar's way, the 4-quadrant way, recoil in horror at this advise, doubly so because it comes from actual licensed veterinarians. Sadly, medical expertise does not correlate with psychological expertise. Were it to do so, psychiatry would not be a separate human medical specialty.

This turn-your-back-and-ignore nonsense has caused more dogs to die than any corrective tug on the leash or touch to the side. You wrote that positive is not permissive, and this is true. But you are not an advocate of the Positive, you are an advocate of the Reward. You decry Positive Punishment, which by definition is Not permissive, and then you limit yourself to Positive Reward, which again by definition Is permissive. It's this fear of hurting the dog's 'feelings' or some such nonsense that prevents people from taking the necessary corrective action when unwanted behaviors occur.

I guarantee that the clicker-school whale trainer in Florida would still be alive today had she had in her bag of tools a Positive Punishment device. I don't hear any of the other trainers arguing that they should have given the whale a nice big fish after it stopped killing that poor lady, to reward it for stopping the unwanted behavior. The whale had no respect for that very very expert expert trainer, and when the time came, that was all she wrote. People who use all 4 operant-conditioning quadrants have no such problem because the dog knows that The Human Knows, and the dog respects the human for its fair and proper application of that knowledge. My neighbor's dogs have no respect for him whatsoever, barking at him to open the door, barking at him to feed them Now, Now, Faster, chewing up the furniture in his backyard, etc. To his dogs he and his fellow 'ignorers' are nothing but the butler.

Lastly, Kevin, in addition to not wanting spam to fill my email box, I thought that the whole point of having a Blog was to have a Public dialog. On this point of contention regarding Cesar and Dominance I asked you previously to pick an episode, point to where he says Dominance! and you say Not! and let's discuss the actual details of the dog's behavior. A week later I still haven't seen a response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calmassertive,

Your comments are spiteful and absurd to say the least. With apologies to the people whom you are insulting here, I cannot think of a better way to make my point about you then to post them. You seem to think that we should spend hour upon hour debating you when it's clear that all you want to do is engage in argument for sport.

You have left hateful comments with me before under several different bogus e-mail addresses and without ever leaving your name and expect me to publish and respond to them at a schedule that you dictate? There is nothing stopping you from creating your own blog and posting your opinions as you see fit. If you do I hope the people that comment on your website do it in a much more respectful, thoughtful, and adult manner than you seem capable of.

Kevin

Angela Adams wrote on 03/13/10 4:10 PM

Calmassertive,

Your comments build a clear picture of how you feel about dogs, well not only dogs but animals in general. You seem to think they lack emotion, and behave “badly” when their natural instincts take over. You completely disregard the impact human behaviour has on canine behaviour, and in particular how often a human’s behaviour can be an attribute to canine aggression, frustration, fear etc. You’d rather take the lazy approach and just label it dominance; the dog is misbehaving because it thinks it is “alpha” or is trying to be “alpha” and therefore the end justifies the means. This approach is sadly misguided and doesn’t take into account other authentic factors influencing behaviour, the dog’s history, or learning theory.

"All animals and people have the same core emotion systems in the brain." [Temple Grandin - Animals Make Us Human]. Grandin states the core emotions are: seeking, rage, fear, panic - as well as three sophisticated ones: lust (sex drive), care and play. In [Marc Bekoff’s The Emotional Lives of Animals] the author proposes that animals display 6 common emotions; anger, happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, and surprise. My point here again is that dominance dismisses these factors. It is important that we understand canine behaviour and emotions; this enables us to observe and recognise early signs and predictors of stress, frustration, fear etc. In recognising these early signs we are better able to prevent problem behaviours from developing, and just as importantly prevent injury.

The incidents you mention are of course very sad. The comments you make with regards to these incidents leaves me with no doubt that you know very little about canine/animal behaviour, evolution, habituation/socialisation, learning theory, and canine cognition/emotions, as well as the canine human relationship, and how humans can greatly affect canine behaviour.

In relation to your personal anecdote the neighbours barking dog. I have an alternative explanation. The dog barks not because it is starving for leadership, but because it is starving for interaction, human contact, any contact... “Bark, bark, bark...” is somebody out there? You respond with a “shhh!” Dog stops barking because its need has temporarily been met. Which is what I have tried to address in my article... what is the motivation behind the behaviour? It’s certainly not dominance!

Angela

calmassertive wrote on 03/14/10 7:05 AM

Hi Angela -

Trading differing conclusions based on different experiences is just going to lead us to perpetual disagreement. We each base our analyses on what we individually bring to the table, and having come from different tables, having reached very different conclusions, we aren't going to be able to bring our paths together unless we create a common starting ground. Maybe my neighbor example can help.

There are 3 dogs. You claim they are starving for interaction, but they interact with each Other all day and night. They are always together with one or both owners except for 3 or 4 hours on weekday afternoons when they are in the back yard by themselves, quietly waiting for their owner to return. You say they are starving for human contact, but they have more than enough of that.

What these dogs do thirty times a day is they jerk these poor owners around by getting them to open the door to let one or more of them out. But no dog needs to go out 20 times a day. Half a minute later whichever one(s) went out then bark to be let back in, running back and forth between two doors getting louder and more ferocious until the owner capitulates. First one did it, but the others quickly learned by example and now they all do it. When the owner tried on occasion to 'ignore' the behavior all he did was make the dogs angrier at their owner for having the unbridled gall to not follow their orders. These normally-docile dogs sounded like they wanted to kill somebody for over 2 hours until the owner opened the door for them. Having tried the flawed 'ignore-it' approach and having seen it go down in flames the people now open the door after only a few seconds of barking, having correctly convinced themselves after many attempts that the dogs will bark for hours nonstop otherwise.

In their mind these dogs own their house, they own the yard, they own the owners. They have these people trained perfectly. More than that, though, the dogs tell them to let them out not because they Need to go out so often or at such odd hours day&night but rather as a dominance Ritual. Even as 10-month-old puppies they instinctively know this ritual.

Often the dogs will repeat this ritual a mere 10 minutes later, and again a half-hour later. The owners open the door to let the dog out, then open the door when the dog orders them to let it back in. It's pathetic, really -- I feel sorry for these people, but more than that, as a fellow human being, I feel embarrassed for them.

This instinctive ritual is what a dominant dog does to other dogs in a Pack of dogs to reinforce its position as pack leader and the others' position as follower. One dog puts the other dogs on their side to demonstrate their submission. It herds them into a corner to demonstrate their submission. It snaps at them if they try to access something they 'own', like 'their' food or 'their' favorite toy.

A related example presented itself on TV today, on the latest Victoria Stilwell show. Two little papillons yap at people when the people get up to leave. Victoria's typically-incorrect analysis is that the dogs are afraid. Yet the dogs move Forward, Chasing the people as they yap at them. These dogs aren't the least bit afraid, they are Dominant -- they are saying Get Back Here, I Didn't Give You Permission To Leave Yet. Stilwell's backwards advice to Ignore this dominant behavior condemns these owners to the same upside-down relationship with their dogs as my neighbors have with theirs.

Angela wrote on 03/15/10 12:05 PM

Calmassertive

I’m amazed that you attribute dominance to ALL this behaviour. As my article stated the true definition of dominance describes a ‘quality’ of a relationship between members of the same species and this relationship is established in order to prioritise access to scare resources. Furthermore this relationship cannot be established until one animal consistently defers to another.

I don’t know about you but I don’t consider access to the yard a scarce resource, nor do I consider visitors leaving a scarce resource!

Without having the owners fill out a detailed questionnaire, without a phone conversation with the owners, and then a one-2-one consultation, further questions and first hand observation of the behaviour, I can only propose possible options as causes.

I haven’t seen the Stillwell episode you mention, so all I can say is dogs bark for many reasons but the main motivators are: to get attention, to alert, defensive barking (make scary thing go away), frustration, boredom, excitement. So why do the dogs bark when visitors leave? My guess would be a combination of attention, frustration, excitement. For me it would also be very important to observe the human interaction, what do the owners/visitors do in this scenario, how do the react, what steps do they take in an attempt to stop the dogs barking? It is very likely the humans’ behaviour is in some way attributing to the barking.

With regards to your neighbours dogs and what you label as some kind of dominance ritual, this is again down to lack of training (also physical/mental stimulation = frustration). As you know dogs do what works and as you say the owners relent. Why should the dogs change their behaviour if it works for them? Dogs learn in two main ways, by association and by consequence, this daily repertoire of behaviours you describe has been learned by association and consequence, and possible also imitation. (Monkey see monkey do).

When behaviours that once worked no longer work, i.e they are ignored, or reinforcement is withheld, the subject goes through a learning process called extinction burst. You may or may not be familiar with this; in any case I’ve provided a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_%28psychology%29

A 100% patience, persistence, and consistency is required during this process. This is a primary reason why many owners don’t follow through with a behaviour modification program, because they find it difficult getting over this initial hurdle. The behaviour always gets worse before it gets better, and often the subject will try many learned inappropriate behaviours, before offering something new and desired.

What is likely happening with your neighbours is that by ignoring and then relenting, they have put the dogs on a variable ratio of reinforcement, which has the effect of making the behaviours stronger. Variable schedules produce higher rates of responding and greater resistance to extinction.

http://www.fun4fido.co.uk/blog/2009/6/4/variable-ratio-reinforcement.html

It’s interesting to note that you don’t mention any form of exercise or mental stimulation the dogs may or may not get. Mooching around in a yard is not appropriate exercise; a yard is simply a large kennel! Do they get taken on long daily walks; do the owners play mentally stimulating games with them, do the owners provide them with enrichment toys? I won’t ask if the owners train them because I already know the answer to this. If these aspects are lacking then I’m hardly surprised the dogs yo-yo in and out of the yard. They are bored, they want interaction and play, and not just with each other, with their humans too.

A brief personal story: Earlier this year we had an unusual amount of snowfall in the UK, for a couple of days I wasn’t able to take my dog on his usual daily walk. I did play more in-door games, and train some new tricks, but he missed his walks. He asked to go out to the garden much more than usual. But here’s the interesting thing, as soon as he’d gone out he’d come back in, why? Because he wanted my company out there, he wanted to play, even though he had the neighbours Staffie to play with, he wanted my company too. I must be fun I guess I can shape snowballs, and throw them. Most dogs are sociable, and very human oriented, they seek to build and maintain a bond with us through play/interaction.

As for the dog that barks when the owners are away in the afternoons, this is very common, especially when the owners are around most of the time. Even though this dog has the company of the other dogs, it is human company that the dog misses, perhaps because of an over attachment to one or both of the owners.

I guess the only thing we will agree on is that dogs need what you would call a leader, but leadership is not dominance, leadership is influence. I also see it as my responsibility to be a guardian, a protector, a teacher, and to make sure that I provide for my dog’s physical and emotional needs. In an ideal world, this is how it should be for all dogs.

Angela

Dino Dogan wrote on 04/12/10 6:06 PM

Its the language that gets us into trouble. The term "dominance", alpha dog, etc creates different constructs in different people's minds. I wrote about this problem a while back http://dogandogs.com/alpha-dog-alpha-wolf-alpha-male-alpha-what

The dog (or wolf) for that matter didnt change its behavior, only our interpretation changed.

Search Archives

Woof Wednesday With Angela Adams - What Lies Beneath: Behind The Behaviour

Comments

Write your comment

Search Archives

Favorite Links

Blog Stars

Monthly Archives

Tag Cloud

Categories