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.

Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability

Training methods and owner-dog interactions

Nicola Jane Rooney, Sarah Cowan

Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 132, Issues 3–4, July 2011, Pages 169–177

Abstract

The methods by which owners train their pet dogs range widely, with some exclusively using rewards, and others using a combination, or only punishment-based methods. This paper examines links between the way in which owners reported to have trained their dogs and observations of the dogs’ subsequent behaviour. It also explores associations between behaviour of owner and dog when tested in their own home. A total of 53 owners were surveyed about their preferred methods for training each of seven common tasks, and were each filmed interacting with their dog in a series of standardised scenarios. Dogs owned by subjects who reported using a higher proportion of punishment were less likely to interact with a stranger, and those dogs whose owners favoured physical punishment tended to be less playful. However, dogs whose owners reported using more rewards tended to perform better in a novel training task. Ability at this novel task was also higher in dogs belonging to owners who were seen to be more playful and who employed a patient approach to training. This study shows clear links between a dog's current behaviour and its owner's reported training history as well as the owner's present behaviour. High levels of punishment may thus have adverse effects upon a dog's behaviour whilst reward based training may improve a dog's subsequent ability to learn.

Disambiguating the “guilty look”: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour

Alexandra Horowitz

Disambiguating the “guilty look”: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour

Behavioural Processes, Volume 81, Issue 3, July 2009, Pages 447–452

Abstract

Anthropomorphisms are regularly used by owners in describing their dogs. Of interest is whether attributions of understanding and emotions to dogs are sound, or are unwarranted applications of human psychological terms to non-humans. One attribution commonly made to dogs is that the “guilty look” shows that dogs feel guilt at doing a disallowed action. In the current study, this anthropomorphism is empirically tested. The behaviours of 14 domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were videotaped over a series of trials and analyzed for elements that correspond to an owner-identified “guilty look.” Trials varied the opportunity for dogs to disobey an owner's command not to eat a desirable treat while the owner was out of the room, and varied the owners’ knowledge of what their dogs did in their absence. The results revealed no difference in behaviours associated with the guilty look. By contrast, more such behaviours were seen in trials when owners scolded their dogs. The effect of scolding was more pronounced when the dogs were obedient, not disobedient. These results indicate that a better description of the so-called guilty look is that it is a response to owner cues, rather than that it shows an appreciation of a misdeed.

Influence of delayed timing of owners' actions on the behaviors of their dogs, Canis familiaris

Mariko Yamamoto, Takefumi Kikusui, PhD, Mitsuaki Ohta, PhD

Influence of delayed timing of owners' actions on the behaviors of their dogs, Canis familiaris

Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 11–18

Abstract

This study examined the influence of delayed actions from the owner, including commands, reinforcement, and punishment, on already-learned behaviors in 10 dogs. The delay times were set to 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.27, and 0.13 seconds (s). Responses to commands with a delay (Delayed) were compared with those that were not delayed (Nondelayed). The results indicated that appropriate responses to commands decreased in 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 s delayed conditions. As delay time increased, response to commands decreased. The numbers of commands used by handlers to make their dogs obey was significantly increased with a 2.0 and 1.0 second delay compared to the nondelayed trials. The time required for dogs to obey the commands was significantly increased in 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 s delayed conditions compared to those of the nondelayed trials. There were no significant differences between the 0.27 s, 0.13 s, and the nondelayed condition. These results suggest that timing is an important factor affecting a dog's behavior not only while learning new things, but also in the production of learned desirable behaviors that could occur during everyday interactions.

A comparison of dog owners' claims about their pets' guilt with evidence from dog behavior

Damon Horowitz, Alexandra Horowitz

A comparison of dog owners' claims about their pets' guilt with evidence from dog behavior

Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, March–April 2009, Pages 104

ABSTRACT

New research on the social cognition of the domestic dog has established the dog's skill at interpreting communicative behavior of humans. By contrast, human interpretations of dog behavior rely heavily on anthropomorphisms, claims generally unverified by scientific research. The current research aims to examine behavior associated with one claim dog owners make of their dogs: “guilt” at doing a behavior that has been disallowed.

Previous research asking owners what they believed their dogs “know” found “disallowance” (disobedient acts) as the most frequent response. This study looks at dogs' behavior after doing or not doing a disallowed act, and after being scolded or greeted. We hypothesized that the data will match a model that suggests that dogs are responding to human behavior, but not a model suggesting dogs know a disallowed act is “wrong.”

Dogs and their owners participated in 5 videotaped trials each in the owners’ homes. Only dogs who obeyed commands of “sit,” “stay,” and “no” were used. Using owner report and prior behavioral descriptions of “guilt,” 8 guilt-related behaviors (GRBs) were isolated: avoiding eye contact, rolling over, low wag, ears back, head down, licking, retreat, and paw-up. In each trial, the owner showed the dog a treat, forbade eating it, and left the room. The owner returned in 30 seconds, was told whether the dog ate the treat, and was asked to act normally to greet or chastise the dog, as appropriate. To test the hypothesis that GRBs do not appear exclusively to doing a disallowed act, the trials varied the availability of the treat: a confederate removed the treat; let it be; or gave it to the dog. To test the hypothesis that GRBs are a response to owner chastising behavior, the trials varied the owners' knowledge of the dog's disobedience: guilty, owner knows; guilty, owner misinformed; not guilty, owner knows; not guilty, owner misinformed.

In every trial in which the treat was available, the dogs disobeyed and ate the treat. Rate of GRBs in all trials was scored. Preliminary analysis found no difference in the number of GRBs between disobedient and non-disobedient trials. By contrast, more GRBs were seen in trials when the owner scolded the dog, whether the dog had disobeyed or not. Confederate permission of the treat resulted in more GRBs than confederate removal of the treat.

In the context of a disallowed treat, dogs’ GRBs corresponded to the human's scolding of the dog, following discovery of the disallowed act or the belief that the act had occurred. GRBs were not more common when the dog did a disallowed act than when it had not. GRBs are similar to behaviors indicating fear and submission. In this study, dogs’ behavior was associated with the human, not the disallowed act or object, perhaps in fearful anticipation of punishment or scolding by the owner.