Dominance in dogs: Is this REALLY a source of behavior problems?

1. Dominance in dogs:Is this REALLY a source of behavior problems? Yes, no or maybe?

2. Blackwell, et al., 2008 • Behavior problems = • Widespread • Most common cause of dogs abandoned, relinquished to shelters and euthanized • Behavior problems = behaviors that are • Problematic • Undesirable • Often include anxiety for the dog!

3. Genetics or Learning? • Is this genetics? • Widely accepted that certain breeds have more undesirable behaviors • Even specific undesirable behaviors • Is this due to poor socialization? • Dogs have good visual/auditory awareness • Dogs are highly social • Dogs can learn easily • Could these behaviors be due to improper training/inappropriate training or lack of training? • Low knowledge of dog behavior? • Data are mixed! Support all of the above

4. Data DO suggest that • Training reduces or eliminates problematic and undesirable behavior • Dogs that attend obedience classes with their owners are reported to have fewer problem behaviors • Positive only programs reveal further reductions • Mixed programs in between • Aversive programs do not reduce, but may increase problem behavior

5. The study • Used a convenience sample: • People out walking their dogs • People visiting a vet clinic in the UK • Completed a survey that asked about • Demographic info • Type of trianing with the dog • Age at first training • Location (home or center) • Type of training: • Puppy socialization, agility, obedience, manners, etc. • Method of training • Positive, punishment or mixed

6. The study • Survey asked about 36 behaviors that commonly perceived to be problematic or undesirable. • Rated on a scale of 0 (never) to 4 (frequently) • Tried to phrase behaviors positively: • Does your dog not come back when called on a walk? • Does your dog chew or destroy items when you are out of the house? • If answered yes to item, asked if it was considered a problem

7. Results • 192/250 questionaires returned • 67% female respondents • Age of owner 20-60; most within 41-60 age group • 71% of dogs lived with 2 or more adults • 43% lived in home with NO children • Number of dogs in household ranged from 1-5 • 38% in 2 dog house • 6.8% with 2 other dogs • 2% lived with 3 other dogs • 2% lived with 4 or more dogs • 52% in single dog homes • 15% of owners were first time owners

8. Results • Dogs ranged in age from 1 to 15 years old • Median = 5 years • Male to female ration = 52% to 48% • 58% of males neutered • 65% of females spayed • Only 19% of dogs were reported to be mix breeds • All UKKC/AKC dog groups were represented • Gun dogs = 35% • Pastoral breeds: 18% • Terriers: 12% • Hounds: 8% • Toy breeds: 3% • Utility breeds: 2% • 71% of dogs acquired as puppies (>3 mos) • 72% acquired from breeder • 20% from shelter • 2% bred dog themselves • 6% obtained dog from other sources

9. How analyzed Survey: • Categorized training into 3 categories: • Positive reinforcement • Negative reinforcement • Positive punishment

10. Undesirable behavior categorization: • Temperament vs. behavioral strategy • Aggression, avoidance, attention seeking • Presence or absence of any behavioral response within specific contexts or targets • Being left alone • Reaction to other dogs • Control score: • Noncompliance behavior • Goal-directed behavior

11. Training Classes • 88% received some form of training • 58% trained at home • General obedience attended by 40% • Puppy socialization class: 27% • Agility or flyball: 12% • 5% of dogs taken to handling or showing classes • Type of training: • 16% used positive only • 12% used combo of positive reinforcment/negative reinforcement • 32% positive reinforcement/positive reinforcement • 40% used combo of all • 72% of owners used some form of positive punishment

13. Undesirable Behaviors • Mean number of potentially undesirable behaviors per dog: 11.3 • Range of 0-29 • 3 dogs reported to have no problem behavior

14. Undesirable Behavior • Three categories of behavior problems: • Mean aggression score: 0.22 • Mean fear/avoidance score: 0.27 • Mean control score: 0.43 • 34% of dogs showed problem behavior during separation • 15% showed problem behavior to other dogs within a household • 80% showed inappropriate response to unfamiliar people • 13% undesirable response when told off

15. How many problems reported by owners • 76% of owners reported their dog had at least one problematic behavior • Most common behaviors not necessarily most problematic • Only 18% of owners had sought help for problem behavior: sought help the most for: • control problems • Aggression to unfamiliar dogs • Aggression to unfamiliar people • Jumping up • Who did they ask for advice: • 32% a vet • 9% a vet tech/nurse • 26% an animal behaviorist • 47% a dog trainer • 9% a relative or friend • Also reported asking rescue shelters, breeders and books

16. Relationship between training classes attended and occurrence of problem behavior • Attendance at any type of training class did NOT significantly affect total number of undesirable behaviors exhibited by a dog • Attendance in puppy socialization associated with reduction in reaction to other dogs outside the home • Association with informal home training and increased aggression • No relation between control problems and attending classes

17. Relationship between training methods and occurrence of undesirable behaviors • Significant relationship between categories of training methods and total number of problem behaviors, including • Attention seeking • Fear/avoidance • Aggression • Positive only training methods correlated with fewest behavior problems • Highest attention-seeking scores found to correlate with combination of positive reinforcement/negative reinforcement • Highest mean avoidance found in combo methods • Highest mean aggression: combo of punishment with positive reinforcement • Control problems, separation problems, compulsive behaviors and undesirable response to family members not correlated with training • Aggression score significantly higher in dogs when owners used any form of punishment • Also showed more aggression to other people/dogs outside of home • More likely to show aggression when told off

18. Other influences • Age of dog: • Younger dogs show more behavior problems • Attention seeking behavior higher in younger animals • NOT Fear/avoidance • Breed of Dog: No significant effect • Sex of dog: no significant effect • Origin of dog: breeder dogs showed significantly fewer problem behaviors than dogs from rescue • Particularly separation anxiety • Also no relationship between problem behaviors and • Previous experience of owners • Number of children in household, except for separation issues • No kids = more separation anxiety • Stealing food related to more kids

19. So, do you agree or disagree? • Do you think this sample reflects the typical dog owner population? • Do you agree with the training correlations? • Why few/no correlation with age, sex, breed, etc.? • What other factors may account for this? • Genetics? • Other interaction/social factors?

20. Bradshaw, et al. Dominance: does it matter?

21. What is dominance? • Dominance: • Character trait of an individual dog • Top of hierarchy • Other dogs defer to this dog • Eats first, gets treats first, gets person first • Achieve high rank in any inter or intra species grouping • Dog training programs often suggest that HUMAN must be the dominant “alpha”

22. Scientific definition • “an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favor of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate” (Drews, 1993)

24. So what is the problem • Is dominance a trait or a process? • What is a “dominant” dog? • Have prior access to resources • Pecking order • Absence of aggression vs. presence of display signals that threaten aggression • Is it temporary or continuous? • Does it change depending on the group? • Does it only apply to PAIRS of animals or the whole group? • Are the animals aware of the hierarchy, or is it merely a mechanism for humans to describe the pack?

25. Wolves and dominance • Often assumed have a strict hierarchy • Also assume dog = wolf • These assumptions often wrong • Several problems with early studies: • Wolf pack = unrelated animals not natural pack • Typical hierarchy may not really be typical • Lockwood (1979): general hierarchy • But: aggression not related to dominance!

26. Wolves and dominance • Data suggest that there is a mated pair that is typically most dominant • But these 2 are cohesive and leaders • Not aggressive • More aggression among lower status vying for attention from higher pair

27. Feral Dogs • Probably best conspecific • Van Kerkhove (2005): review of feral (domestic) dogs • Pack structure very loose and evolving • Rarely involves cooperative structure or co-parenting • Pal et al (1998, 1999, 2003, 2005) • Feral dogs in West Bengal • More coherent social groupings • But: consist mostly of RELATED dogs (kin!) • Little aggression • Breeding was relatively constant, not controlled by status

28. What do wild dog/wolf studies show? • More dominance hierarchies if related • Little aggression: very subtle signaling instead • More aggression during breeding season • Males most aggressive when females in estrus • Females most aggressive when raising pups • Aggression is not as deadly as with wolves • Wild dog packs did not show “wolf-like” dominance, but much more individualized

29. Bottom line: • Domestication radically changed social behavior of dogs • When have opportunity to interact and breed freely • Do NOT form exclusive kin-based groupings • Do not follow wolf-pack social system • Mating is competitive • Less sophisticated sociality than wolf • Submissive behavior used to defuse conflicts rather than used for group cohesion • Pair bonding is retained • Will share territories with family members/ocassional outsiders.

30. Neutered Dogs • Does neutering change things? • Bradshaw, et al (unpublished data): examined group of unrelated but permanent neutered dogs • Examined group interactions for dominant behavior: • Competitive behavior: confident or submissive • Examined dyads • No clear cut hierarchy • Instead seemed to be hierarchy between PAIRS • Did not vary by age, weight, length of time in group

31. Bradshaw, et al, con’t • Did not show wolf pyramidal hierarchy but less structured hierarchy: • Were 8 insiders • Were 3 hermits • Rest were outsiders • 8 insiders did not have clear hierarchy but interacted mostly with one another • Outsiders interacted more often with insiders than other outsiders, but did not “win”

32. Resource Holding Potential (RHP) model • Separate physical fighting ability (RHP) from likelihood of competing in given set of circumstances • Not require any kind of prior relationship between competitors • Typically seen in territorial disputes or first encounters • Outcome of disputes depend on subject value of resource to the individual competitors

33. Resource Holding Potential (RHP) model • RHP does not explain dog behavior, though • Domestic dogs do not attend to size, age, etc. • Depends on upbringing and experience • Also depends on how humans interact with the dog • VERY interesting for us as trainers • What is the take home message?

34. How to pick the Best Guide Dog • What makes a good guide dog: • Obedient • Good at problem solving • Good temperament • Easily trained • Physically able for task • On task most of time • Lack of fearfulness

35. Temperament testing, etc. • Temperament tests • Determine lack of anxiety/fear • Better with older dogs • Serpell and Hsu: C-BARQ • Physical measurements: • Laterality: motor lateralization tests • Lefties and ambidextrous dogs more likely to show fear • Cortisol studies support this • Some say coat color, so the authors will examine this

36. Study: • Subjects: 105 trainee dogs from guide dog program • Tests: • Temperament test: • Social contact test • Passive test • Chase test • Noise test • Distraction test • Sudden appearance test • Lateralization tests: • Tape test (tape on nose) • Kong test • Salivary cortisol test • Put dogs into pass or fail group depending on status at time of testing • Tested dogs when they failed out • Tested dogs when they completed training • Different ages for all of this

37. Results: • Stepwise regression analysis • Eliminate non-significant factors each time • Test 1: 3 factors found: • Latency to drop in passive test: shorter latency to drop = more likely guide dog • Latency to rest: greater latency to rest = more likely guide dog • Occurrence of jumping (dog distraction test): absence of jumping = more likely guide dog

38. Results: • Test 2: 3 factors found: • Laterality index from tape test : higher LI = more likely guide dog • Rate at which both paws used in Kong Test: lower rate of both paws = more likely guide dog • Pulling on lead during dog distraction test: lack of pulling = more likely guide dog • Test 3: 2 factors: • Both paws on Kong test • Dogs color • Covaried with: other factors

39. What does this mean? • Must make sure that temperament tests DO predict behavioral traits • What was best predictor? Passing guide dog training! • But: laterality and lack of fearfulness also seemed important • Need to determine if laterality and fearfulness covary: could laterality PREDICT fearfulness • Brain functions may be related • May be that dogs with less laterality are showing more bilateral processing • Age was critical factor: these behavioral traits do not seem fully developed before 14 mos, and 20 mos is even better. • Why is THIS important?

40. What does all of this mean for us? • “Dominance” is ever changing • Depends on circumstances • Dominant dog in one situation does not mean dog will be dominant in another • Multidog houses are not “families” from a dog’s point of view- and this is important • Fear and laterality predict trainability (for guide dogs, at least): must determine if these go together and WHY they go together • Is fearfulness an innate trait or a learned trait? • Is it the old diathesis stress model: genetic predisposition, then environmental interaction?