Dominance theory?

[redog]

crossposted -
Bristol University | News from the University | Dog behaviour and training

Using “dominance” to explain dog behaviour is old hat

Press release issued 21 May 2009

Paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research

A new study shows how the behaviour of dogs has been misunderstood for generations: in fact using misplaced ideas about dog behaviour and training is likely to cause rather than cure unwanted behaviour. The findings challenge many of the dominance related interpretations of behaviour and training techniques suggested by some TV dog trainers.

Contrary to popular belief, aggressive dogs are NOT trying to assert their dominance over their canine or human “pack”, according to research published by academics at the University of Bristol’s Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research.

The researchers spent six months studying dogs freely interacting at a Dogs Trust rehoming centre, and reanalysing data from studies of feral dogs, before concluding that individual relationships between dogs are learnt through experience rather than motivated by a desire to assert “dominance”.

The paper “Dominance in domestic dogs – useful construct or bad habit?” reveals that dogs are not motivated by maintaining their place in the pecking order of their pack, as many well-known dog trainers preach.

Far from being helpful, the academics say, training approaches aimed at “dominance reduction” vary from being worthless in treatment to being actually dangerous and likely to make behaviours worse.

Instructing owners to eat before their dog or go through doors first will not influence the dog’s overall perception of the relationship – merely teach them what to expect in these specific situations. Much worse, techniques such as pinning the dog to the floor, grabbing jowls, or blasting hooters at dogs will make dogs anxious, often about their owner, and potentially lead to an escalation of aggression.

Dr Rachel Casey, Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Bristol University, said: “The blanket assumption that every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs is frankly ridiculous. It hugely underestimates the complex communicative and learning abilities of dogs. It also leads to the use of coercive training techniques, which compromise welfare, and actually cause problem behaviours.

“In our referral clinic we very often see dogs which have learnt to show aggression to avoid anticipated punishment. Owners are often horrified when we explain that their dog is terrified of them, and is showing aggression because of the techniques they have used – but its not their fault when they have been advised to do so, for example by unqualified ‘behaviourists’ recommending such techniques.”

At Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, rehoming centre staff see the results of misguided dog training all the time. Veterinary Director Chris Laurence MBE, added: “We can tell when a dog comes in to us which has been subjected to the ‘dominance reduction technique’ so beloved of TV dog trainers. They can be very fearful, which can lead to aggression towards people.

“Sadly, many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack is counter-productive; you won’t get a better behaved dog, but you will either end up with a dog so fearful it has suppressed all its natural behaviours and will just do nothing, or one so aggressive it’s dangerous to be around.”

[George Bailey]

Fool-proof humane animal training, or ... ?

Animal training is complicated. There's no 'one-size-fits-all' training approach. Did I say complicated? Add to this a good dose of moral confusion (thanks to the media and some special interest groups). In the context of animal training, few terms are as emotionally charged as 'punishment' and 'abuse'; and few terms are as misapplied (intentionally or otherwise) as 'humane' and 'cruel'.

Professional dog trainer Lori Drouin was recently asked to explain her beliefs and values in this arena. The result is a superbly insightful article that applies equally well in the training of dogs, horses and, indeed, any animal:

" ... First of all, I value dogs for their humor, for their reflections of the social interactions that we seek and don't always find among other humans, for their many talents, humor, and their very real view of the world. However, I KNOW that they are animals, as are we all, but they as animals don't get quite the philosophical or religious or social welfare information given to them on a global level that we do as humans. They are models for us to prove that xenophobia is not a prejudicial choice, but a survival mechanism in the wild, and one that we as humans can speak about overcoming, but obviously don't succeed too well at it in all cases. But that's another list. They show us that aggression is sometimes just a conversation about fear or uncertainty; but if you're the one on the receiving end of it, you're not going to be happy about the message. So while I get all of that, and understand that in an ideal world kindness is the best way to engender reciprocal kindness from others, I find it necessary to sometimes accept that physical communication is also part and parcel of being a dog.

" My belief as a trainer is that I should be as gentle as any particular dog will allow me to be. But in order for that to succeed, I have to be very clear in my own mind about what I want to teach, or what sort of behavior is socially acceptable in every context I am going to put my dog in. And frankly, I think that a complete communication system involves a means of saying, "That is wrong, and you will stop it right now!" That is different from, "That is incorrect, try again." If you have a dog that requires that message, the message must be timely and obvious enough for the dog to perceive it, and it must be delivered with committment (sic) and no apology. Sometimes the means is physical.

" However, I am not in favor of abuse. What is the difference between punishment and abuse? Abuse is when the intensity of the message exceeds what is needed to stop a behavior. Abuse is when the efforts involve physical pain NOT for the purpose of stopping the designated "bad" behavior, but for the purpose of making the trainer feel better, or for the purpose of making the dog feel extreme fear for the trainer's personal empowerment. Sometimes punishment is needed for bad behaviors; but it stops as soon as the bad behavior stops, too, and then the dog should be taught how to behave instead right away when possible.

" I am concerned that some aspects of dog training are getting too remote. People know how to click and feed, but forget how to pet and play. People forget that dogs will mirror behavior and emotion, but you have to give them some emotion to mirror. If you don't, then your dog may sit to get a treat, but not because he's pleasing you, because he actually doesn't know that it pleases you. Reward withdrawal is an effective training tool, but sometimes the "bad" behavior has its own rewards, and your dog will not even know that you withdrew a reward. It would be helpful if he knew that certain words, voice tones, and postures were indicative of a need to change his current behavioral tack.

" Finally, I believe that if you're going to own a dog, or be its guardian if you prefer, you have to be willing to be decisive about what you want as a trainer, clear about it on the dog's level, consistent in your expectations, and open-minded about the means of communication you have available to use because not all dogs (or people) will interpret a particular medium and it message the same way.

" I think in the world of dog training, there are very few roads that haven't been walked by others before us in terms of methods and tools. But always the road is a new one with each dog, and even further changed by the being on the other end of the leash. There are certain training techiques (sic) that are widely used in competition obedience training that I have used, and hope never to use again because I've found another way that works for me on a lot of dogs; but I understand the techniques, I understand why they work on a host of dogs, and I do not criticize other trainers who use the tools or techniques when they achieve clarity and consistency and have very happy dogs who are confident in their interactions. Frankly, I've met some clicker trained dogs who were basket cases in a constant state of anxiety about what they should do next. But I do feel critical of trainers using ANY method who stubbornly adhere to an approach that patently isn't working on the particular dog at the particular moment, especially if it's an issue that is imminently dangerous, and if not stopped with alacrity would result in an unsafe outcome for either dog or human. There are no moral or ethical excuses for continuing a process that is frustrating and ineffective for the subjects at hand.

" I believe that professional trainers NEED to listen to the needs of the owners and embrace them first; then we need to assess the importance in each case of expediency. Some things can be shaped out given enough time, and are only mildly annoying to live with in the meantime, while other issues need resolution or extreme management right away. Then we look at what we can do that will make this all happen in a way that will improve life for both the client and the dog long term. Just because you know a slick and esoteric progression for teaching something doesn't mean it's the best approach for a real person who is NOT a professional trainer.

" I used to be a member of APDT, but I gave up the membership because the tone of communications about training approach became militantly exclusive in favor of pure positive training, and vehemently vitriolic about the awfulness of punishment. Well, I've seen some dogs that were greatly helped by one well-timed and executed correction after months of shaping and desensitization efforts excecuted (sic) with POOR timing had actually escalated the aggression displays. I decided the organization was no longer encouraging open communication and exchanges of experience, and decided not to support it anymore as a member. I appreciate the strides many of its members have made in developing positive strategies. But in the end, we train dogs. Dogs don't have a non-egocentric view of morals and ethics. They respond to their own desires until taught otherwise. Sometimes we have to react to that reality. ... “

Lori Drouin, February 2009

[Leon]

@Julie.

What you think about this part of the article.
“Sadly, many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack is counter-productive; you won’t get a better behaved dog, but you will either end up with a dog so fearful it has suppressed all its natural behaviours and will just do nothing, or one so aggressive it’s dangerous to be around.”

[George Bailey]

"Why have some not seen aggression with 1:1?"

The specific trigger is often failure to deliver an expected consequence.
Perhaps if one were always perfect in delivery, one would never see this
problem. In the Ramu case, a trainer flipped a fish to another trainer, instead
of to the whale. The receiving trainer is the one the whale went after.

Some may not have encountered this experience yet, or may not have recognized a
presenting problem as such.


"How big a problem is "rigid expectation"?"

Pretty big.

This is seen relatively frequently and it can have dire consequences. I saw it
frequently on a popular yahoo list where 1:1 was taught.


"What evidence is there that faulty technique is not at fault?"

Well, failure to deliver exactly correctly is perhaps a technique fault, but one
which we will all be guilty of, often due to events outside our control.

The people on the list with aggression problems were getting plenty of technique
counseling but not resolving their dangerous issues. If the problem was due to
incorrect technique, then some of the problems should have resolved with change
of technique.

As in Sea World's case, increase reinforcement variability and the problems
disappeared.




"But my animals don't react badly!"

How do you know? Do you monitor for signs of stress? I see a lot of video of
animals in shaping sessions that appear to exhibit frustration from some aspect
of the training.

It seems obvious that not ALL animals react to 1:1 with extreme. overt
aggression, or Sea World would have had ALL their orcas out of work. And, food
need not be involved for physically dangerous reactions to occur (example of
children with autism reacting to predicted change). And, there are certainly
other practices, or malpractices, which can increase the incidence of
aggression. I can think of several.

Further, animals which are not expressing aggression may be suppressing it, and
that is not good for anyone either. And other possible correlates with rigid
expectations, like tying up disease and bloat, can be fatal for the animal,
although not dangerous to the trainer.



Cheap safety insurance:

1:1 MAY be fine as long as the trainer always delivers. It may be only when the
trainer fails to deliver that the problems arise. But, no one can be sure to
always deliver. Better to program in some adaptability! I suspect it always
increases resentment, even when we don't see overt evidence. I note that Pryor
does not recommend 1:1 in the current "15 Tips".

New people can perhaps entirely avoid the problem by varying their
reinforcement, as I believe Sea World also teaches - at least until the skills
are in place to handle the possible problems. And, your suit of armour is
completed.



Why not?

I would like to hear the argument AGAINST varying reinforcers. On the Bridge
and Target list, we see no increase in the incidence of aggression as a result
of variable reinforcement. In fact, we see a lot of resolution of aggression,
and no increase for any reason. There are specific benefits to varying
reinforcement.

Copyright Kayce Cover, May 2009

[PullDawgPits]

Very well put, I am not a dog trainer, I would never claim to be but we do train dogs for weight pull and they are all different. I do know that you can't make blanket statements about how to train all dogs for weight pull.

I really understood what she is saying, I am a horse trainer and the whole tv/dvd training gurus have brainwashed so many people and many horses with great potential won't ever reach it b/c people are following a set of rules set forth by someone who hasn't even ever touched or seen their animal.

Stephanie

[George Bailey]

@Julie.

What you think about this part of the article.
“Sadly, many techniques used to teach a dog that his owner is leader of the pack is counter-productive; you won’t get a better behaved dog, but you will either end up with a dog so fearful it has suppressed all its natural behaviours and will just do nothing, or one so aggressive it’s dangerous to be around.”

Leon,

I believe in balanced training; it's what works for me and the dogs I train, show, and title. I also believe you can take a dog with a good temperament, abuse it, neglect it, disrespect it--- and you will still end up with a dog with a good temperament. Opposite also applies.

When you have an undesirable behavior, you have to stop it in the moment, not avoid it. A correction can be something so simple as time a dog out, remove it from the stressor, to giving a collar correction, depends on the individual dog, trainer, and situation.

My objection to most popular training methods is that I see dogs who are not taught that there are consequences, nor are they given the choice to accept responsibility for their actions. I see dogs who cannot hold a stay and dogs who are not used to being physically touched (not manhandled, just touched) and often resent it. Duration is hard to achieve when you have laid a single behavior to single reinforcement foundation, often resulting in interruption of behavior, reactivity, and overexcitement.

SATS Bridge and Target training focuses on cognizance, two way communication, and mutual respect, which negates luring or shaping, and is why I included Kayce's article.

I see little use in outlawing choices of equipment such as the Brits and the APDT have done; it's another taking away of our rights. I know many fine trainers who use remote training collars, I use several types of collars to insure safety, control, and leadership, all of us have happy, well adjusted dogs.

Julie K

[George Bailey]

Very well put, I am not a dog trainer, I would never claim to be but we do train dogs for weight pull and they are all different. I do know that you can't make blanket statements about how to train all dogs for weight pull.

I really understood what she is saying, I am a horse trainer and the whole tv/dvd training gurus have brainwashed so many people and many horses with great potential won't ever reach it b/c people are following a set of rules set forth by someone who hasn't even ever touched or seen their animal.

Stephanie


Especially in horses, you need to use both pressure on and pressure off. For safety's sake, they have to understand both.

Way too many people with no hands on and lots of theory giving advice.

Definition of expert: has published numerous articles and comes from a different location.

Julie K, beaver spec

[Leon]

Leon,

I believe in balanced training; it's what works for me and the dogs I train, show, and title. I also believe you can take a dog with a good temperament, abuse it, neglect it, disrespect it--- and you will still end up with a dog with a good temperament. Opposite also applies.

When you have an undesirable behavior, you have to stop it in the moment, not avoid it. A correction can be something so simple as time a dog out, remove it from the stressor, to giving a collar correction, depends on the individual dog, trainer, and situation.

My objection to most popular training methods is that I see dogs who are not taught that there are consequences, nor are they given the choice to accept responsibility for their actions. I see dogs who cannot hold a stay and dogs who are not used to being physically touched (not manhandled, just touched) and often resent it. Duration is hard to achieve when you have laid a single behavior to single reinforcement foundation, often resulting in interruption of behavior, reactivity, and overexcitement.

SATS Bridge and Target training focuses on cognizance, two way communication, and mutual respect, which negates luring or shaping, and is why I included Kayce's article.

I see little use in outlawing choices of equipment such as the Brits and the APDT have done; it's another taking away of our rights. I know many fine trainers who use remote training collars, I use several types of collars to insure safety, control, and leadership, all of us have happy, well adjusted dogs.

Julie K

Thanks Julie. Your always full of good info. :)

I am working with Czar right now. And still experimenting with what works best for him.

[redog]

I was dying to hear what you guys would think of this. and thanks Julie k for your input. your awesome

[ItsMe]

"Contrary to popular belief, aggressive dogs are NOT trying to assert their dominance over their canine or human “pack”, according to research published by academics at the University of Bristol’s Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research."

I think this sentence here lumps together these two very different behaviors alittle too casually. I also agree that training regimens are being diluted with all of this positive only reinforcement without addressing the negative. There is no way I can just ignore when my dog is doing something. If I allow that undesired behavior to cultivate, who knows what she might end up doing. Dogs are pack animals, this is known. As to whether or not they still operate under that in a domestic situations, probably hard to say. I am more inclined to think that they do, just from what I see on a daily basis. I guess the whole point of that study is to say we should only use positive reinforcement(?). At my house, when my dog starts to act up, my family will use their voices and try everything to stop the behavior, it doesn't work at this point, she will just keep doing whatever it is. Finally, I grab the leash and correct. I led her to her spot, make her sit and stay and bam, problem solved. And I know its working because the frequency of said behaviors has lessened and continues to lessen.