Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors

Confrontational Behavior Modification

Meghan E. Herron, Frances S. Shofer, Ilana R. Reisner

Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 117, Issues 1–2, February 2009, Pages 47–54

Abstract

Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist many dog owners have attempted behavior modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include aversive training techniques which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. The purpose of this study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.

A 30-item survey of previous interventions was included in a behavioral questionnaire distributed to all dog owners making appointments at a referral behavior service over a 1-year period. For each intervention applied, owners were asked to indicate whether there was a positive, negative, or lack of effect on the dog's behavior, and whether aggressive behavior was seen in association with the method used. Owners were also asked to indicate the source of each recommendation. One-hundred-and-forty surveys were completed. The most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers”. Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43%), “growl at dog” (41%), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39%), “alpha roll” (31%), “stare at or stare [dog] down” (30%), “dominance down” (29%), and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26%) elicited an aggressive response from at least a quarter of the dogs on which they were attempted. Dogs presenting for aggression to familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to the confrontational techniques “alpha roll” and yelling “no” compared to dogs with other presenting complaints (P < 0.001). In conclusion, confrontational methods applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases. It is thus important for primary care veterinarians to advise owners about risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems.

Canine Aggression Toward Familiar People: A New Look at an Old Problem

Andrew U. Luescher, DVM, PhD, Ilana R. Reisner, DVM, PhD

Canine Aggression Toward Familiar People: A New Look at an Old Problem

Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, Volume 38, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1107–1130

Dogs that are aggressive toward their owners have long been regarded as being dominant. This article presents scientific evidence that does not support this claim. Based on this evidence, the authors present an alternative explanation for canine aggression toward owners and outline a treatment plan.

* This article is great, despite its vague abstract

An experimental study of the effects of play upon the dog–human relationship

Nicola J Rooney, John W.S Bradshaw

An experimental study of the effects of play upon the dog–human relationship

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 75, Issue 2, 3 January 2002, Pages 161–176

Abstract

It has often been suggested that intraspecific dominance relationships are established through play. By analogy, it is also claimed that the outcome of competitive games can affect dog–human relationships. This paper experimentally tests the latter idea. Fourteen Golden Retrievers were each subjected to two treatments; 20 sessions of a tug-of-war game with the experimenter which they were allowed to win, and 20 sessions which they lost. Their relationship with the experimenter was assessed, via a composite behavioural test, once at the outset and once after each treatment. Principal components analysis allowed the 52 behavioural measures to be combined into nine underlying factors. Confidence (the factor most closely corresponding to conventional dominance) was unaffected by the treatments. Dogs scored higher for obedient attentiveness after play treatments, irrespective of whether they won or lost, and demandingness scores increased with familiarity of the test person. The 10 most playful dogs scored significantly higher for playful attention seeking after winning than after losing. We conclude that, in this population, dominance dimensions of the dog–human relationship are unaffected by the outcome of repetitive tug-of-war games. However, we suggest that the effects of games may be modified by the presence of play signals, and when these signals are absent or misinterpreted the outcome of games may have more serious consequences. Games may also assume greater significance for a minority of “potentially dominant” dogs.