The Many Faces of Resource Guarding

One of my AutumnGold instructors recently completed a set of in-home lessons with a couple and their young Vizsla. The dog, Sadie, had completed our puppy class last summer and her owners were interested in working on in-home manners. One of the behaviors that Amanda, the instructor, included was target training “go to your mat and down/stay”. We use several approaches to teach this at AutumnGold, one of which employs a remote treat-delivery device such as a Manners Minder or Pet Tudor (see “Manners Minder and Me” for details).

Ally and Treat & Train 2

TEACHING ALLY “TABLE’ USING A MANNERS MINDER

The owners were interested a remote trainer, so Amanda borrowed our device so that they could try it for a few weeks. Sadie responded beautifully and rapidly, but unfortunately, just as rapidly developed another behavior – resource guarding.  She learned to stay on her bed and enjoyed the random delivery of treats, but when her owners approached, Sadie began to freeze over the Manners Minder, growling if they came too close.

Oops.

Prior to the start of the lessons, Sadie’s owners had not identified resource guarding as a problem. However, during their first meeting, Amanda noticed that Sadie stiffened slightly after she gave her a stuffed Kong. This was quickly diffused by teaching Sadie to “make a trade” and Amanda saw no other signs during that lesson. When questioned further, the owners did say that they sometimes saw similar body postures when Sadie was approached while eating. Amanda talked with them about the body language signs of resource guarding and cautioned them to watch for similar signs (or an escalation) after introducing the Manners Minder to Sadie. And sure enough…..there it was.

Amanda is a skilled trainer and quickly intervened with a behavior modification program to prevent and treat Sadie’s resource guarding. However, what Amanda and I found interesting about this episode was that the owners had not previously mentioned a specific problem with resource guarding to Amanda. Granted this is a young dog, the initial guarding behavior was subtle and there was no bite history. Still, we wondered, was this because the owners had not been consciously aware of Sadie’s stiffening body posture previously or that they had noticed it but were not sure that it implied a problem?

Identifying resource guarding: Most dog owners think of resource guarding as overt aggression (and certainly that is how it manifests at its most severe). Additionally, rather than being viewed as a general pattern of behavior, owners typically report the specific items that are guarded;  i.e. “she is not good around her food bowl” or “he does not like being approached when he is chewing on his favorite bone“. However, there can be several more nuanced signs that suggest a dog may be highly invested in toys, a food bowl or a resting spot. These include becoming “still”  (stiffening/freezing), abruptly changing body position to block access, hiding or running away, or rapidly ingesting food (or a stolen item) when approached. It is these more subtle signs that may be unnoticed or misconstrued, and that in some cases might be precursors of later aggression.

foodbowlguarding3

NOT THE ONLY FACE OF RESOURCE GUARDING

Do we notice other signs? The question of how much attention dog owners generally pay to the other faces of resource guarding was recently examined by a team of researchers at the University of Guelph in Canada.

The Study: They asked a group of almost 1500 dog owners to view short video clips that portrayed dogs who were approached near their food bowl or when chewing on a rawhide chew toy. For each clip, participants were asked to classify the behavior that they viewed into one of these five categories: Aggression (snaps, bites or attempts to bite); Threat (freezing, stiff or tense body posture, hard stare or growl); Avoidance (moves head away and actively avoids removal of item, runs away with item); Rapid Ingestion (increases speed of ingestion, gulps at food rapidly); or No Resource Guarding (relaxed, loose, wiggly body posture).  Each of the behavior categories had been previously validated by a team of behavior experts.

Results: Several interesting findings were reported:

  • Perhaps not surprisingly, the participants, all dog owners, were highly capable of correctly identifying overt aggressive behavior associated with resource guarding. They were similarly adept at knowing when a dog was relaxed and friendly and showed no signs of guarding behavior.
  • Conversely, owners were less likely to correctly identify the more subtle signs of resource guarding such as avoidance, rapid ingestion and even threatening behaviors (freezing and staring).
  • When the three types of non-aggressive behaviors were compared, owners were better able to recognize threatening behavior than they were to recognize avoidance or rapid ingestion. The authors speculated that owners are more sensitive to behaviors that they think of as being potentially threatening than those that appear to be benign, such as running away or eating rapidly.

Take Away for Dog Folks

At AutumnGold, our potential clients complete a four-page behavior profile form for their dog prior to being admitted into class. The form includes questions about their dog’s behavior during mealtime, around their food bowl, with toys and when resting. It is not unusual to receive profiles that report  dogs who run away or avoid interactions with high-value toys, or who becoming still/stiff when approached while eating or resting in a favorite spot. We always respond to these applications with a phone consultation. In some cases the avoidance behavior is simply a (learned) game of “catch me if you can” or the avoidance that the owner reports is just an untrained dog who has not been taught to come when called. However, is some cases, we identify these behaviors as a form of resource guarding and are able to intervene and provide early guidance.

The results of this research suggest that many owners perceive the more subtle forms of resource guarding as being harmless or inconsequential, or they do not notice them at all. For professional trainers, this information encourages us to better understand the perspectives of clients and to proactively teach owners to identify and understand some of the more subtle body language signs in their dogs before they develop into aggressive responses.

As for Sadie, she learned to go to her mat reliably using clicker training and polished up her “sit for greeting” behavior to control her very exuberant personality with visitors. Amanda also provided Sadie’s people with a set of canine body posture handouts and discussed the implications of stillness, freezing and avoidance behaviors in dogs. Sadie’s owners were highly interested in this information and rapidly became talented “dog behavior sleuths” with their girl, recognizing situations in which Sadie felt compelled to guard and managing her life to avoid or prevent those settings. Her owners also regularly practice “make a trade” and “give” with Sadie for all types of items (not just those that are high-value) so that she learns to happily give up toys and other items without becoming stressed or defensive.

All-in-all a happy outcome, with everyone benefiting from this type of research and its application to evidence-based training!

Cited Study: Jacobs JA, Pearl DL, Coe JB, Widowski TM, Niel L. Ability of owners to identify resource guarding behavior in the domestic dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2017; In Press.

If Sit Doesn’t Matter, What Does?

My last Science Dog blog. “When Sit Doesn’t Mean S*it” reviewed a series of studies showing that training shelter dogs to sit on command is not as predictive of future adoption as was once assumed. Those results should not be interpreted as an argument against the benefits of training programs, but rather as evidence that there may be other factors involving shelter dogs, potential adopters and the shelter environment that may be more important to consider when looking at adoption rates and how to increase them.

Following the “sit” studies, Alexandra Protopopova and her research team set out to discover what, if anything, about dog-human visits might consistently predict adoption outcomes for dogs. They asked the question: “If sit doesn’t matter, what does?”.

What Matters: The researchers first studied 250 out-of-kennel visits between adoptable dogs and potential adopters at a municipal shelter in Florida (1). After selecting a dog to meet, shelter visitors interacted with dogs in either a small outdoor area, a larger, grassy outdoor area or a small indoor room. Multiple factors were examined during the interactions, including the dog’s appearance/breed/age, the dog’s behavior, and the visiting environment.  Results: Overall, three factors stood out as significant predictors of an individual dog’s likelihood of adoption following these visits. These were:

  1. Willingness to play: A negative relationship was found between not playing and adoption. Those dogs who ignored play initiation by visitors were less likely to be adopted than those who did not ignore the adopter’s invitation to play. The converse of this is that dogs who wanted to play with the potential adopters were more likely to be adopted after the interaction.
  2. Lying close: Dogs who voluntarily laid down close to the human visitor were much more likely to be adopted than those who did not. (14 times as likely, in fact!)
  3. Visiting space: Visits that took place in the small, outdoor area were more likely to lead to successful adoptions than were those that occurred in the large, enclosed grass area or in the indoor room.

lying-at-feet tug-of-war-with-person  LYING AT FEET AND ENGAGING IN PLAY ARE SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS OF ADOPTION

What to do with this information? Here is where things get really cool. The researchers used the results from this study to design a simple program that could be used by shelters to improve adoption rates (2). And then, they tested the program to see if it  actually worked.  Science at its best.

Here is what they did:

Structured Interactions: The study included two experiments. In the first experiment, the researchers developed a play/toy preference assessment test and then used it to test the play preferences of 20 dogs. The dogs were retested several times over a period of three weeks to validate the accuracy of the tool. The second  experiment used a modified version of the play preferences assessment to identify the toy preferences of a larger group of dogs at the shelter. Following their play preference testing, the dogs were assigned to two groups: (1) A structured interaction group in which potential adopters interacted with the dog with his/her preferred toy and then engaged in petting while an experimenter encouraged (lured) the dog to lie quietly at the visitors feet or (2) A control group in which the dog’s play preferences were not revealed and whose interactions with the potential adopter were unstructured. (Details of the play preference test and the structure interactions format are included in the paper).  Data were collected on a total of 160 dog-adopter interactions.

Results: In the first experiment, play preference as measured by toy selection (tennis ball, nylon squeaky toy, cotton plush toy or flannel rope toy) was validated. This means that dogs who showed a preferred toy during the initial, short assessment continued to show the same preference when retested multiple times. However, it is significant to note that about one-third of the dogs (35 %) were not interested in playing with toys at all. (This is a point that the experimenters return to and address later). The import of this test lies more in the observation that simply asking dogs what type of toy that they preferred was helpful during future interactions, as found in the results of the second experiment. When the Structured Interaction group was compared with the Control group, striking differences emerged:

  1. Dogs in the structured interactions group (offered their preferred toy, encouraged to lie down at the visitor’s feet) spent less time ignoring the visitor’s invitations to play and more time in close proximity to the visitor.
  2. Dogs  in the structured interactions group were also significantly more likely (2.5 times more likely, in fact!) to be adopted than were the control dogs.
  3. The duration of the interactions did not differ between the two groups, suggesting that using structured interactions did not take additional staff or volunteer time than traditional visits. In addition, results of a post-interaction questionnaire revealed that the visitors did not find the format of the structured interaction to be intrusive or to interfere with their ability to visit with the dog.

good-science2

Take Away for Dog Folks

There are numerous ways in which this new information may be used to help shelter dogs. The initial set of studies showed that contrary to popular belief, teaching a dog to sit does not increase his or her chance for adoption (though it very well may have other benefits). Additionally, while multiple studies have shown that a dog’s appearance is one of the strongest factors that people use when initially selecting a dog (even though people tend to deny this when asked), appearance was not found to be important during subsequent out-of-kennel visits. Rather, during the actual visit with the dog, potential adopters react more to the dog’s play behavior and tendency to stay in close proximity (lying at feet) when making their adoption decision.

Let’s first look at play behavior: The use of the play preference test in this study is in-line with our increasing understanding of the welfare and emotional health benefits seen when we allow dogs to demonstrate their preferences and even better, to have a choice. This has become a bit of a buzz-word among trainers, but hyperbole and anecdotes aside, there is really nothing not to love about a shelter dog being allowed to choose his or her favorite toy and then carrying that toy into meet-and-greet areas for play with a new visitor.

Of course, nothing will be 100 percent effective or helpful. One of the caveats of the toy preference work was the finding that not all of the dogs in the shelter were interested in playing with toys. (I am sure this is not news to shelter staff). Of the dogs tested in the 2016 study,  only about 2/3 could be easily enticed to play with a toy, regardless of the toy type. This finding is consistent with previous shelter dog studies that reported that only a minority of dogs played with toys and that object-play is often of very short duration. This may occur because of the stress of the shelter environment, an individual dog’s previous history (i.e. never having had toys or opportunities to learn to play) or a combination of factors.

For those of us who live with toy (and play) maniacs, this might be surprising to learn.

chip-with-toys

LIKE ALL OF MY DOGS, CHIPPY LOVES HIS TOYS

Still, it is very helpful information. Knowing that dogs who willingly play with visitors are more often adopted and that a substantial number of shelter dogs may be reluctant to play with toys can lead shelters to develop their own innovative programs to encourage play behaviors in dogs. This may include different types of toys such as food puzzles or encouraging more “people-oriented” types of play (more about this in the next blog piece).

Second, lying in proximity:  In the structured interactions group, the researchers placed the dog on lead and then used a food lure to encourage the dog to stay close and/or to lie down near the visitor. While one could argue that this behavior was not voluntary and might not reflect a truly calm dog, helping a dog to focus on relaxing and to enjoy petting would allow the visitor to experience the dog while he or she is calm and quiet in a setting that is often not conducive to calm behavior in shelter dogs. In addition, this type of relaxation training is common in many dog training programs (including my own) and can be used as a way to classically condition dogs to remain calm and enjoy handling and petting. For shelters with training programs, this information suggests that training dogs to “lie at feet in a natural environment” might be an especially important exercise to emphasize.

Last, what I personally love best about this research is that it shows science working in the very best way that it can work – first to discover new knowledge, second to create a new approach or program from that knowledge, and third to test (and in this case confirm) the validity of the new program. In my view, a win-win for everyone involved – dogs, adopters and shelter professionals.

Cited References:

  1. Protopopova A, Wynne CDL. Adopter-dog interactions at the shelter: Behavioral and contextual predictors of adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science , 2014; 157:109 – 116.
  2. Protopopova A, Brandifino M, Wynne CDL. Preference assessments and structured potential adopter-dog interactions increase adoptions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science , 2016;176:87-95.

 

 

When Sit Doesn’t Mean S*it.

Science killed another myth today.

This one has been around for a while and is almost universally accepted by shelter staff, rescue folks and dog trainers alike (including me). This is the belief that I am talking about:

Shelter dogs who have been trained to sit on command are viewed more positively by potential adopters and are more likely to be adopted into homes.” 

Makes perfect sense, of course. The “sit” command is usually one of the first things that owners teach to their new dog and is used by many trainers as the alternate behavior to reinforce not jumping up. As such, “sit” appears to have become the universal barometer for good dog behavior.

Sit Ubu

It has also become an informal litmus test for measuring shelter dog adoptability. The assumption that responding to a sit command enhances a dog’s prospects for adoption has become so commonplace that it has led to the development of shelter programs that train adoptable dogs to sit (among other commands). The goals of these programs are to increase adoption rates for the dogs who are so trained.

While there is absolutely nothing not to like about shelter programs that increase dogs’ interactions with people and introduce (positive) training, the assumption that they rest upon, that obedience training increases adoptability, has not been clearly demonstrated. Intuitively, I think most dog professionals (including myself) have believed that it does.

However, what does the science say?

Going to try science

Recently Alexandra Protopopova of Texas Tech University (and formerly of the University of Florida) and Clive Wynne of the University of Arizona teamed up to study the relationship between dogs’ morphology (appearance), their in-kennel behavior, and their length of stay in the shelter prior to adoption. Here is what they found:

It’s more about misbehaving: A group of 289 dogs living at a county animal shelter in Florida were videotaped for one minute daily throughout their stay (1). The one-minute time frame was selected because prior research has shown that potential adopters view a dog for only 20 to 70 seconds before moving on to the next dog. Videotaping took place as one or two visitors, behaving either passively (not interacting with the dog) or actively (interacting with the dog) visited the front of the kennel. Behaviors were classified using a validated ethogram composed of 41 standardized actions. The number of days that the dog remained at the shelter prior to adoption was used as a measure of adoptability. Results: Independently of appearance, several behaviors were significantly correlated with longer shelter stays (decreased adoptability). These included leaning passively on the kennel wall without interacting with the observer (+ 30 days), facing away from the observer  (+ 15 days), and frequent movement of shifting back and forth (pacing/stereotypies) (+ 24 days). Conversely, neither sitting for greeting nor showing eye contact influenced how long a dog was at the shelter prior to adoption.

These results suggest that kennel behaviors that reflect fear or a lack of sociability are more predictive of a dog’s likelihood for adoption than are trained behaviors such as sitting to greet or offering eye contact. 

science to the rescue

Protopopova and Wynne then did what all good dog researchers do. They ran a follow-up pair of experiments to find out how best to reduce the behaviors in kenneled dogs that were shown to contribute to increased shelter stays (2).

Experiment 1: The first experiment was a pilot study to determine the effectiveness of response-dependent and response-independent treat delivery as methods to reduce the undesirable kennel behaviors identified previously. Twenty-four shelter dogs were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups, (1) Response-independent group; the appearance of a person was paired with a treat, regardless of the dog’s behavior; (2) Response-dependent group; the experimenter Differentially Reinforced “Other” [DRO] behaviors that were incompatible with the unwanted behaviors; (3) Control; no treat delivery. Exp. 1 Results: Interestingly, they found that both treat delivery methods reduced undesirable behaviors in the kenneled dogs, with no statistical difference found between the two methods. (The control dogs continued to show undesirable behaviors).

Experiment 2:  Their second experiment tested the effectiveness of the response-independent method on the entire kennel of shelter dogs. Different sections of the kennel area were used as the treatment group (visitor to kennel predicts treat) and control group (visitor does not predict treat). Between 56 and 70 dogs were enrolled each day of the 14-day experiment period. Exp. 2 Results: More than 40 percent of the shelter population regularly engaged in undesirable kennel behaviors at the start of the study. Within a few days, simply pairing the appearance of a visitor with treat delivery led to…..wait for it……a 68 % reduction in undesirable behaviors in the group of dogs as a whole.

Trainers and shelter staff everywhere should be excited about these results. While DRO is a technique that many trainers regularly use (a common example is teaching a dog to offer “sit” for greeting as an alternate behavior to jumping up), its use in a shelter environment is labor-intensive and not always feasible. However, simply pairing the appearance of a staff person with treat delivery, without requiring the treat to be contingent on the dog’s behavior is a rapid and simple technique that can be easily incorporated into daily shelter routines.

Does Sit Matter? Recently, a graduate student at Emporia State University in Kansas tested potential adopters’ inclination to adopt a dog based upon whether or not the dog sat on command (3). Her study asked a group of 79 college students to interact with a dog who they believed to be available for adoption at a local shelter. Participants were randomly assigned to a dog and then either visited with the dog as he/she sat in response to a handler’s command or interacted with the dog naturally, with no commands given to the dog. Participants then completed a questionnaire regarding their interest in adopting the dog. Results: A person’s willingness to adopt the dog that they visited with was not influenced by whether or not the dog sat on command. Similar to Protopopova’s study, sitting on command was not related to potential adoption success.

Bottom line, while responding to a sit command is a great behavior to have in our dogs, sit may not mean (much) in terms of helping shelter dogs who are looking for their forever homes.

Chip Cooper Vinny Ally Aunt Betty Pond

SITS ARE GREAT, BUT EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THEY DO NOT ENHANCE ADOPTION RATES

Take Away for Dog Folks

Sad as it may seem, when it comes to a dog’s behavior, potential adopters appear to be more concerned with avoiding dogs who demonstrate behaviors that they don’t like rather than seeking dogs who show behaviors that they do like (such as responding to sit). The good news in this story is that the behaviors that people generally avoid (and which may signal a lack of sociability on the dog’s part), were demonstrated to be reduced in a substantial number of dogs without the need for a detailed and labor-intensive training program. This is classical conditioning at its best folks. Pair the approach of a visitor with yummy treats (visitor predicts treat) and over time, the appearance of a person flips the dog’s emotional response from apathy/distraction/fear to happiness, joy and interaction. The fact that the researchers improved in-kennel behaviors that were related to poor adoption rates in almost 70 percent of dogs using a simple, non-contingent procedure of food delivery is an enormously important bit of evidence. And it is evidence that can and should be used to encourage shelters everywhere to invest in treat pouches, arm their workers with a pouchful of yummy goodness and get going.

Don’t get me wrong. I personally think that training shelter dogs is a great thing. Shelter programs that teach dogs to sit, down, and walk nicely on lead are to be commended for their work and certainly should continue. However, the current science suggests that this type of training may not be as essential as we once believed and that it may not influence adoption rates. Paying more attention to reducing unwanted kennel behaviors is not only simpler, but it may be more effective as an approach to reducing shelter stays and helping dogs to be adopted into forever homes.

Cited Studies:

  1. Protopopova A, Mehrkam LR, Boggess MM, Wynne CDL. In-kennel behavior predicts length of stay in shelter dogs. PLOS One; 2014; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114319.
  2. Protopopova A, Wynne CDL. Improving in-kennel presentation of shelter dogs through response-dependent and response-independent treat delivery. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2015; 48:1-12.
  3. Hajek V. The Effect of Watching a Large or Small Pseudo Shelter Dog Sit on Command on College Students’ Self-rated Willingness to Adopt. Master’s Thesis, Emporium University, 53 pp. 2016.

“Only Have Eyes for You: Exploring Canine Research with The Science Dog” – Kindle Edition Now Available!

The Kindle edition of Only Have Eyes for You: Exploring Canine Research with The Science Dog” is now available! Click on the image below for more information and to order.

Book description:  In her second Science Dog book, Linda Case tackles commonly held beliefs about canine nutrition, pet foods, behavior, social cognition and training. Each of the book’s 32 chapters explores a current issue that is of interest to dog owners and pet professionals and presents the scientific evidence that supports or refutes commonly held claims and beliefs. Learn about pet food ingredients and research showing that what is on the label may not always be in the food, about measures of food quality (and what consumers may not know about the foods that they buy), and about the safety and digestibility of popular dog treats and chews. Other chapters review new information regarding how dogs communicate, factors that help or inhibit a dog’s ability to learn, and the effectiveness of different types of training. Find out if dogs are capable of “knowing what someone else knows”, if they feel empathy for their friends, if they bark for no reason, and if they are capable of feeling guilt following a misdeed. Learn more about breed stereotyping, factors that influence our perceptions of dogs, and which canine characteristics most influence our attraction to particular dogs. This newest Science Dog book has something for everyone who works with and trains dogs, as well as for those who simply love dogs and enjoy learning more about our canine best friends.

                                                                             ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

coversnip

Manners Minder and Me

In the previous essay, “Doggie See, Doggie Do?”  I discussed research showing that dogs may be capable of learning new tasks simply by observing another dog being trained. I mentioned that when I work with my own dogs, I rotate among them by training each dog to perform a down/stay on the pause tables located on the side of our training floor.

Ally Learns High Five on her Platform

 CHIP AND COOPER WAIT THEIR TURNS TO TRAIN

In our family, Chippy and Cooper are the most recent in a long line of Case dogs who have learned to “wait their turn” on their platform bed. Admittedly, this is not an easy behavior to teach seeing that my dogs love to train and ultimately view their time on the platform as the “down-stays of doom“.

The approach to training this is pretty simple. I first teach a solid down-stay on the platform with no distractions, and then shape time and distance separately using click/treat. Getting a solid down/stay on the platform is the easy part……the difficulty lies in getting that stay to hold while another dog is out on the floor, having all of the fun. Until recently, I accomplished this by returning to the platform frequently with a click/treat for staying, gradually lengthening the time interval between +R. If the dog frequently jumped off of the platform, I would lower my criteria or put the dog in the x-pen and return to the task at another time.

Enter Alice (aka Alice Bo-Balice), our newest family member.

Ally Coop Chip on Table

CHIPPY, COOPER AND ALLY

With Ally, I decided to change things up a bit and use a remote training device for this task. There are several commercial versions of these available, and I used a “Manners Minder” (now called “Treat & Train”). This device was initially created by the late Dr. Sophia Yin and it functions by providing remote +R in the form of small dry or semi-moist treats. Delivery can be controlled either manually with a handheld control or via an automatic and adjustable reinforcement program. A tone precedes treat delivery and is used as a conditioned reinforcer.

Manners Minder

The Questions: I know that I can teach this behavior to Ally using the same +R approach that I have used in the past with our other dogs. However, I wondered whether training a down/stay on a platform might be more efficient using a remote trainer. As I see it, there could be both benefits and potential disadvantages to these devices:

Potential Advantages:

  •  The remote trainer is a large and physically obvious cue that can be paired with the target area (bed) and which becomes a conditioned reinforcer  (i.e. its presence consistently predicts the arrival of a primary reinforcer in the form of  treats).  This is an advantage in that it quickly signaled to Ally that the bed was “the place to be” whenever the Manners Minder was placed there.
Ally and Treat & Train 2

ALLY AND HER MANNERS MINDER

  • Provides +R remotely that is associated with a particular target (bed) and is disassociated from the trainer (me). [Note: I consider this property both an advantage and a disadvantage – see below].
  • Use of a very precise intermittent reinforcement schedule (I used variable intervals, called the “down stay” setting with the device, but there are several available settings)

Potential disadvantages:

  • Dependency on the presence of the device: I suspect that Ally’s down/stay may, at least initially,  break down when I attempt to remove the device and +R her down/stay in its absence.
  • Device malfunction (this happens relatively frequently, when treats get stuck in the mechanism), leading to poor timing and frustration for the dog.
  • Provides +R that is disassociated from the trainer: One of the best things about training dogs, in my view, is that it enhances communication with our dogs and strengthens the bonds that we have with them. Removing the trainer (me) from this equation therefore removes a number of opportunities for positive interaction and bond-building with Ally.

What does the Science say? To date, there are two published studies of the effectiveness of remote training devices for teaching targeted down/stays with dogs. The first of these was conducted by Dr. Sophia Yin and published in 2008 and the second, using a similar device, was conducted by a group of researchers from Budapest, Hungary in 2016 (1,2). Let’s see what they have reported:

Study 1:  This study was conducted in two phases, each using dogs who had a history of problem behaviors at the door (rushing, barking). In the first phase, six dogs were trained by an experienced dog trainer in a laboratory setting to move to a platform bed and offer a down/stay using the Manners Minder. In the second phase, the same training protocol was used with a group of 15 dogs who were trained in their homes by their owner. A control group of 6 dogs received no training at all. Results: All six dogs who were trained in the laboratory setting successfully learned to maintain a down/stay on a bed for a period of 1 minute, when trained using the remote trainer. In phase 2, although the average amount of training time was longer, all of the owners successfully trained their dogs to complete a down/stay on a targeted bed when visitors came to the door and also reported significant decreases in problem behaviors associated with greeting at the door. (Note: The study protocol did not include removing the device from the targeted bed).

Study 2: The researchers in this study asked whether dissociating the trainer from the +R by using a remote delivery device would influence dogs’ responses to a known command. The study design manipulated how +R was delivered to dogs while owners asked their dogs to “sit” and to “down”. One group of owners directly reinforced their dog with a food treat while the second group reinforced using a remote delivery device that was located next to the dog. After the practice session, the dog’s response to the owner’s commands was measured with the owner either standing next to the dog, 10 feet away, or hidden behind a screen. Results: All of the dog responded well to both types of positive reinforcement. Performance rate during the test phase (no +R given) was similar for the two groups when the handler was standing close. However, when the owner moved away or was out of sight, dogs who had been reinforced with the remote device performed better than dogs who had been reinforced directly by their owner. Performance declined in both groups, but it declined less in the group that had been reinforced with the device. An important note is that while the handler moved away from the dogs, the device did not. Rather, it remained where it had been during training, immediately next to the dog. (This is equivalent to the device remaining on the bed or platform in targeted training).  Therefore, a significant difference between the two groups was that the “opportunity for reinforcement” as represented by the device itself was still very much in evidence to dogs who had been previously trained with it, but the handler was not.  (One is left to wonder again, what would be the results if the device had been moved as well?).

Ally’s Training: So, here is where we are with our little gal’s training. Ally has rapidly learned to offer a down/stay on her pause table when the Manners Minder is present. She can maintain a down/stay for 10 minutes or more when I am training another dog, using a relatively “thin” intermittent and variable interval +R schedule programmed on the device (30 seconds or more). The caveat is that she is successful with this provided the training that I am doing with the other dog is not something that is highly motivating to her, such as retrieving or Nosework. Conversely, when training those activities with Cooper or Chippy, I reduce the schedule to ~ 10 seconds and she can (usually) maintain her stay. Since Ally is just 10 months old, is a very high energy field Golden, and literally lives to retrieve, I consider this to be a great success and would say that at this level, I am very pleased with her progress and with the Manners Minder approach.

Ally and Treat & Train 3

ALLY OFFERING DOWN/STAY WITH THE MANNERS MINDER

Next Steps: My goal with Ally is the same as with my other dogs – to have a reliable down/stay on the pause table while she is not currently being trained. Because I interchange dogs often during training sessions, I would like to remove the device altogether and have a solid stay that is “Manners Minder-Free“. To accomplish this, I must shift Ally’s focus for her +R away from the device and back to me (the source of click/treat). I am gradually reducing the frequency of +R from the device by increasing its interval, and then stepping in to +R in the breaks.

Reinforcing Ally

POSITIVELY REINFORCING ALLY’S DOWN/STAY WITH CLICK/TREAT

The results of the 2016 study predict that Ally may have some reduction in response when I move further away from her. However, it also predicts that keeping the device present will mitigate those mistakes. Therefore the big question continues to be one that the research has not yet addressed: “What will happen if/when I remove the device itself?”

Bye-Bye Manners Minder:  Some trainers who use these devices solve this issue by not having it in the first place – they don’t remove the device. They keep it on the dog’s bed or other targeted area and simply modify the intermittent schedule of +R that it delivers. Okay, well, call me a purist, but I would like to teach Ally to offer a solid down/stay without an enormous cue sitting there like a new-age,  belching, vending machine. Maybe I want my cake and to eat it too….but, like her brothers, I would like Ally to have the opportunity to watch training and get some of those demonstrated observational learning benefits that we recently learned about.

And, here it comes……there is something else that has been niggling at me about this device………

soapbox

UP ON MY BOX AGAIN

Is it a down/stay or is it an obsession? I have noticed a clear difference between training Ally to stay using the Manners Minder and my experiences training my other dogs using a more traditional click/treat approach. First, before Device Lovers out there start sputtering and spamming, I totally get that this device works. It actually works almost too well. Ally is less than a year old and I have a steady, if rather frenetic, platform stay with her. However, I have to question whether this stay reflects Ally having an understanding of “I maintain a down/stay on my table until it is my turn to train” versus a more insidious reflection of; “I am obsessed with this little machine that occasionally and somewhat unpredictably burps out a treat at me“.

There are definitely signs of the latter. When Ally sees the device, she gets excited and immediately books it for the pause table. When it beeps, she fixates on the tray with an intensity that borders on that of, well, an addict (hello dopamine). The tiny little treat arrives and she is back at it, staring, staring, hoping to hear that next beep.

We all know that look.

Staring At Phone

In addition to these signs of device obsession, Ally also shows varying degrees of frustration. She becomes conflicted between staring at the device (a look I am starting to loathe) and watching one of her brothers engage in something fun on the training floor. Certainly, my dogs all show some frustration (barking, excitement) when they observe another dog retrieving or finding a scent at Nosework. But this is different in some crucial way because Ally rapidly and frantically vacillates between staring at the device and trying to keep up with what is going on around her.

Bottom Line: My opinion and these experiences are not meant to disparage the use of remote food dispensing devices in dog training. I value the rapid response that Ally has shown to using the Manners Minder to train her pause table stay. However, I do worry about the obsessive nature of her response and I question how things will go when we begin to remove the dispenser from the table. I also wonder if what appears to be a down/stay when we describe it using observable behaviors may in actuality be something else – an obsession with a technology and the absence of learning. Whether this intense focus is something that I can segue into a device-free down/stay that is reinforced and maintained with click/treat with Ally remains to be seen. It also remains to be studied or reported in the research, something that I hope will be remedied in the near future!

Happy training and stay tuned! 

Cited Studies:

  1.  Yin S, Fernandez EJ, Pagan S, Richardson SL, Snyder G. Efficacy of a remote-controlled, positive-reinforcement, dog-training system for modifying problem behaviors exhibited when people arrive at the door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008; 113:123-138.
  2. Gerencser L, Kosztolanyi A, Delanoeije J, Mikosii A. The effect of reward-handler dissociation on dogs’ obedience performance in different conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2016; 174:103-110.

 

 

.

 

Be a Citizen (Canine) Scientist!

Love dogs and interested in helping scientists to learn more about their behavior? If so, this study is for you! Graduate student Mie Kikuchi and Professor Daniel Mills of the University of Lincoln are conducting a survey study that examines cultural perceptions of canine aggression. Click the photo below to be a citizen scientist and participate in their study. (Note: The survey is quite detailed, so it is best to set aside at least 20 minutes to complete it).

dogs-708354_1920

NEW STUDY: Exploring cultural influences on the perception of human-directed aggressive behaviour in dogs

And please, feel welcome to share this link far-and-wide. The purpose of this study is to compare cultures, so the more participants, the stronger (and more interesting) will be the data! Enjoy!

Collect the Data

 

And Your Little Dog Too……

Little dogs often get a bad rap. People who dislike small dogs say that are yappy, hyper-excitable, nippy (reactive), untrained, and often spoiled (whatever that means) . Indeed, it appears that  even the Wicked Witch of the West had it in for the wee ones.

Ill get you my prettySo, are any of these beliefs true? Are little dogs truly as bratty as some would have us believe? And, if indeed small dogs are found to exhibit more than their share of bad behaviors, are these inherent traits that come along with the miniaturized body type or does the owner shoulder some of the responsibility for junior’s transgressions?

Harley Puppy

WHO YOU CALLIN’ LITTLE?

Once again, we turn to science for some answers.

Background: When surveyed, owners of small and toy breed dogs have indeed been found to rate their dogs as more excitable, disobedient, impulsive, and in some cases, more likely to bite, when compared with owners of large dogs (1-4). Factors that may contribute to the reported differences between small and large dogs could originate with the dog, with the owner, or via idiosyncracies of the relationship between the two.  In 2010, a group of researchers at the Austrian University of Veterinary Medicine decided to study these factors (5).

The Study: This was a large study. The authors surveyed almost 1300 dog owners in urban and suburban areas who were living with one or more companion dogs. The questionnaire collected information about owner and dog demographics, history of ownership, daily activities, dog care/training practices, and owner perceptions of their dog’s behavior and response to commands. For this study, dogs were classified as “small” if they were reported to weigh less than 20 kg (~44 lb) and large if they weighed 20 kg or more. Following collection of the completed surveys, the researchers used a statistical technique called Principle Component Analysis (PCA) to identify correlated groups of questions that suggest common underlying factors or themes. Three dog trait factors were identified: Obedience, Aggression/excitability, and Anxiety/fearfulness. Two primary owner factors that were found were Consistency and Training Methods, and the most important owner/dog relationship factor was Shared Activities.

Results: When the small and large groups of dogs were compared, several statistically significant differences were found:

  • The dogs: Small dogs were reported by their owners to be significantly less obedient and significantly more excitable, anxious/fearful, and aggressive than were large dogs. These results confirm those reported by other researchers.
  • The cause? However, contrary to many popular stereotypes about little dogs, it appears that the owners (not the dogs) were an important influencing factor in the expression of these undesirable behaviors……Dorothy, Take Note.
Dorothy and Toto

WHO, ME?

  •  The Owners: The owners of the small dogs were found to be less likely to train their dogs, less likely to play with their dogs, and were also less consistent in their interactions with their dogs.
  • Correlation: Moreover, significant positive correlations were found between frequency of play and interaction, owner  consistency, and better obedience in the small dogs. While not evidence of causation, these correlations do suggest that it is the owners who have more to do with the reputation of little dogs than the dogs themselves.
  • Training methods: This was the first study to compare the types of training methods used by owners of small and large dogs. No glaring differences were found, but small dog owners were found to use punishment (+P) less frequently than large dog owners. However, one should NOT use this result as evidence that “small dogs need to be punished more frequently”, because the study also found that the frequent use of punishment during training was strongly correlated with an increase in aggressive behavior and excitability in both small and large dogs. Interestingly, greater reliance upon punishment during training was also associated with greater anxiety/fear in the small dogs, but not in the large dogs.
  • Study strengths: Two definite strengths of this study were the number of dog owners that were interviewed and the detailed information that was collected. The large number of questions in the survey allowed the use of a statistical method (PCA) that identifies emerging concepts and that can enhance the reliability of results.
  • Study limitations: Limitations are those observed for all volunteer survey studies. A self-selection bias is expected to occur, since people who are more interested in dog-related topics and therefore probably more committed to their dogs are more likely to respond. Second, results reflect owner perceptions rather than objectively measured behavior. Although owner bias must be considered, it is also true that owners know their dog best and that a researcher would be able to obtain only a short snap-shot of each dog’s behavior and habits. Direct observation by researchers would also indisputably reduce the number of owner/dog pairs that could be included in a study of this type – consider the logistics of attempting to interview and observe almost 1300 owner/dog pairs!
  • Small and large dog categories: A final note regards the size categories that were used in this study. Dividing the dogs into two groups of less than 40 lbs (small dogs) and greater than 40 lbs (large dogs), may have missed some of the idiosyncratic dog and owner characteristics that are commonly reported in toy breed dogs, those of the 10 lbs or less variety. I would have found it interesting if results for toy breed dogs, those that conveniently fit on laps and who are often carried rather than walked, had been reported and compared with larger dogs.

Take Away for Dog Folks: 

  • For trainers and behaviorists: This study confirms what many of you already suspect – that small dogs are not inherently little jerks, but rather it is their owners’ inclination to tolerate undesirable behaviors and disinclination to spend time training and exercising their dogs that have lead to Toto’s nefarious reputation (Bad Dorothy). Keep on fighting the good fight – promoting fair, consistent, +R-based training to owners of all dogs, including the wee ones.
  • For owners of the little guys: As with certain other aspects of life, size does not matter. Little dogs, just like their big-boned cousins, require regular training and consistency and they thrive on daily exercise and play. And as this research shows, your dog is less likely to become fearful, anxious, or show aggression when trained using methods that emphasize positive reinforcement than when trained using methods that emphasize punishment.  Get out regularly with your Toto to train, walk and play with him. Oh, and avoid the witch. Rumor has it that she doesn’t like little dogs.

References:

  1. Bennett PC, Rohlf VI, Owner-companion dog interactions: Relationship between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007; 102:65-84.
  2. Guy NC, Luescher US, Dohoo SE, et al.  A case series of biting dogs: characteristics of the dogs, their behaviour, and their victims. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001;74:43-57.
  3. Kobelt AJ, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, ColemanCG. A survey of dog ownership in suburban Australia—conditions and behaviour problems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 200382:137-148.
  4. Vas J, Topal J, Pech E, Miklosi A. measuring attention deficit and activity in dogs: A new application and validation of a human ADHD questionnaire. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007; 103:105-117.
  5. Arhant C, Bubna-Littitz H, Bartels A, Futschik A, Troxler J. Behaviour of small and larger dogs; Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behavior and level of engagement in activities with the dog. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2010; 123:131-142.