Inappropriate Aggressive Responses in Puppies
by Iain Macdonald
Introduction
Inappropriate or excessive aggressive displays in young puppies are
unfortunately on the increase. In today’s
climate with the current laws such displays can and do place the owners of such
dogs at a high risk of facing litigation and even criminal charges.
Aggressive responses in dogs are the result of an interplay between
the dogs innate potential (drives) and the dogs environment (what it has learnt
is acceptable or more importantly what works). Initially research considered
that the disposition of the pup and thus the behaviours it showed early were as
a direct result of the genetic potential of the parents. This is now known not
to be the case and the Author puts forward that the current increase in
aggressive displays seen in practice is at least in part due to the environment
in which the pups have been brought up in and/or the ownership style of the
owner or breeder. This observation is based on the Freudian defence mechanism
model and has proven itself in the practical treatment of aggressive disorders
in young stock repeatedly.
If the Authors hypothesis is correct then the treatment of such behaviours
should be far more successful than it would be if the causation was innate
(genetic), based on the premise that what has been learnt can be unlearnt and
that of what is truly innate in origin is extremely difficult if not impossible
to extinguish. This paper seeks to explain the author’s theory and to give
practical advice on how this condition can be treated as well as providing relevant
scientific references to support the Authors conclusions and actual case
histories of dogs treated by the author for this behavioural problem.
Aggressive Displays (causation)
The appearance of aggression in a pup as young as 5 weeks is
normal, if such aggression is excessive (towards its littermates) or is
directed towards humans it should be considered to be inappropriate. This
statement is as true for guarding or hunting breeds as it is for any other
breed. Even where the purpose is to produce working dogs an excessive
reactionary position is highly undesirable as it tends to produce unreliable
dogs which are often triggered by stimuli which are not consistent with their
training. In cases of excessive or inappropriate aggression it is considered by
the author to be a maladaptive usage of a normal defence mechanism (Freud) and
as a result is seen as evidence that the dog is emotionally disturbed and in
need of treatment.
Aggressive displays are triggered by the presence of negative
emotions such as fear; the reactivity of the individual to such stimulus is
used to evaluate the individual’s threshold for the triggering of an aggressive
display. Thresholds do have an innate position initially which the dog learns
to raise or lower based on its previous experiences. It is within this area
that treatment must be directed and in a greater majority of case’s where the
cause of the behaviour can be found. Many environmental influences will have
had an impact on the pup in this area by the time it leaves the sensitive
period known as the socialisation period (5 to 12 weeks, Scott and Fuller 1965
et al) and begins the juvenile developmental stage. Factors such as maternal
behaviours of the dam, aggressive behaviours displayed by the dam in the pup’s
presence, ownership style of the breeders, husbandry practices of the breeder,
peer interactions and amount of exposure to stressors all impact on the dogs
developing reactivity to negative emotions.
If a pup is produced by a dam which frequently directs aggressive
and uninhibited displays towards the pups a tendency to react aggressively is
as frequently seen in the resulting pups as is its polar opposite of an
excessively submissive pup. It is put forward by the author that such
aggressive displays are learned by the pup through the observation of the dam’s
behaviours. Such a phenomena is not new, many studies
involving monkeys have shown that observational learning of new behaviours
frequently occurs when a socially subordinate individual witnesses a socially
superior animal completing behaviours to achieve a specific result or reward.
Such learning is more likely to be utilised by the observer if such actions are
frequently seen. In the above instance a pup which has seen its dam
consistently drive humans away with an aggressive display is far more likely to
adopt such behaviours than a pup which has had a highly sociable dam. But such
displays need not be directed towards humans to achieve this result. If the pup
was to consistently see its dam using aggression to subdue or dominate its
littermates it is possible for the pup to apply this knowledge, subject to its
own innate potential in this area, into other areas when it is feeling a
negative emotion. This then can be used to bring into question the findings of
the work of Peters at the
It is not suggested here that innate quantities have no effect on
the aggressiveness of an individual, as they most obviously do but rather it is
suggested that the environmental factors which have been identified and proven
by scientific research to impact on this area of behaviour must also be
considered as being at least partially responsible for the occurrences of
inappropriate aggression. As such displays of aggression by the dam whilst with
the litter would continue to be passed on to the next generation through the
medium of observational learning and give the impression of being totally
innate in origin. The Swedish dog training centre in Solleftea,
Sweden did considerable research into maternal imprinting with dogs and found
that several behaviours were not genetically predetermined rather they were
imprinted by the dam. This was achieved by co coordinating several whelpings to occur at the same time and swapping the pups
at birth. It was found for instance that whining in pups is actually learnt by
observing the dam as bitches with a tendency to whine consistently produced
pups which also followed this behaviour regardless of whether such pups were
the bitches own or fostered. Wilsson of the
abovementioned facility in
It was considered by this research that the dominance submission
relationship had evolved by the time the pup was seven weeks of age. This
position was arrived at as it was the time that the number of uninhibited bites
and mouth threats from the dam to puppies wishing to suckle were observed to be
at their peek. Wilsson also noted that the way in
which the bitch treats her pups through the weaning phase had a profound impact
on the pup when it got older. He noted that bitches which used less aggressive
measures to get the puppy to submit, such as pawing, tended to have litters
where the social bonds within the litter was far stronger than those which had
a dam predisposed to use aggression to gain submission from the pups. In
further testing it was found that pups raised by an aggressive dam were also
far less social as adults with people. It was also found that these pups were
less inclined to engage in fetch games than were the pups which had less
aggressive dams. The lack of prey drives is indicative of a dog being in the
anxious state (see anxiety paper by the author). Such a finding, a noticeable
drop in drives and the suggestion that this is due to anxiety, would correlate
with the theories of Sigmund Freud on defence mechanisms, which this author
considers to be highly relevant in the treatment of aggressive disorders in
dogs.
Freud’s belief was that humans in the latency period (ages
The author theorises that the latency period described by Freud is comparable
to the dog’s socialisation period described by Scott and Fuller. Further more
that such defence mechanisms have wider implications. The engagement when the individual is
experiencing feelings of concern for their passive or dependant status or perceptions
thereof can be said to exist anytime the individual is interacting with someone
considered to be dominant as the very nature of a dominance submission
relationship as exists within dog packs requires the subordinate to adopt a
passive or submissive position. It as a result will also exist within
human/canine relationships as these to are based on
the dominance submissive premise. It could also be argued that a concern for an
individuals dependence or passivity would also exist when an individual feels
fear of a tangible object or situation and thus an over active defence
mechanism would engage an automatic and very rigid aggressive response. In
practice this theory has been found to be extremely advantageous when
addressing aggressive disorders in dogs.
When the theory of defence mechanisms is overlayed by the known
fact that dogs are capable of observational learning and later of classical
conditioning, a clear pattern can be seen. Pups can learn that feelings of dependence
fear or perceived weakness can be, at least temporarily, addressed by reacting
aggressively by copying the behaviours of social superiors, in this instance
the dam. It would be fair to say that the pups have the ability to either feel
such emotional responses to stimulus themselves (subject to their age) or to be
able to sense their dams distress, the pup can then, especially with repeated
performances, begin to establish a cause and effect relationship with the
appearance of the stimulus and the cause of their distress. It is also fair to
consider that if the pup is capable of establishing such a cause and effect
relationship they will also develop one with the aggressive display and the
reduction of the distressing feelings. The establishment of such cause and
effect relationships then moves the pup into a classical conditioning format
where by it can learn, and this is the key to the maladaptivity,
aggressive behaviours are rewarded with a reduction of the anxiety due to the
stimuli which caused the feelings, withdrawing. As the application of
aggression has been so successful in dealing temporarily with the negative
emotions pups are prone to repeat such behaviours when the mentioned feelings
are felt again. If through successive applications the same desired result is
achieved the pattern of behaviour begins to become established and hence
maladaptive. Pups of course can learn this defence mechanism without
observational learning from the dam being involved, interactions with
littermates or even human handlers can facilitate the same learning process,
but in practice the establishment of maladaptivity of
such behaviours is far slower and less resistant to extinction than it would
have been if the dam was highly social. This is considered to be due to the
sensitive developmental period in which the puppy dam interactions take place.
Prof Roger Abrantes in Denmark further
extends the concept of the dam offspring bond by suggesting that the submissive
like gestures shown by a pup when faced with the aggressive response of their
dam to demands which were in the past previously met is actually sub dominance
rather than submission. This would also be supported by the author to the point
where by the she is exercising only the necessary aggression level to attain
the desired result from the pup. A sub dominant stance would be seen as the
healthy reaction and a truly submissive response a reaction to excessive force.
In reality we do still see bitches as
did Wilson in his study which will continue the aggression after the pup has
clearly understood that its demands will not be met and has acknowledged the
superiority of the dam. It is in these cases where the actions of the dam can
and do contribute to aggressive disorders of the pups. It is not insinuated
here that all aggressive displays from the bitch towards her pups are likely to
lead to overly aggressive displays being completed by those pups in the future,
rather excessive aggressive reactions or reactivity to negative emotions on an
excessive scale (maladaptive defence mechanism) of the dam is frequently found
to have at least significantly contributed to the pup choosing to use an
aggressive display to resolve negative emotional feelings. The permanence of
such usage is still dependant on the pup’s choice being frequently successful in
the reduction of the pups feeling of negative emotions and not one which can be
directly attributed to the bitch.
The next most important naturally occurring influence in the
developing pup’s life is the interactions and relationships it has with its siblings.
These too can have a significant impact on the development of a maladaptive
defence mechanism. Play between littermates is vital for the correct physical,
social and emotional development of the pups. Research has clearly shown (Scott
and Fuller, et al) that if a pup is totally isolated from its own kind and that
of human contact for the first 12 weeks of its life that it becomes
developmentally retarded and anti social. This has later been shown to be able
to be reversed at least to a significant degree if the dog is gradually exposed
to social contact with other highly social dogs and humans but the emotional
damage appears to remain even though the behavioural responses from the now
adult dogs are very similar to those expressed by pups which have received
adequate socialisation.
With regards to the development of maladaptive aggressive
behaviours the impact of the littermates is seen mainly in the more dominant
dog but can also occur in the submissive dogs. The pups learn to inhibit their
biting in play so that they avoid the repercussions of an uninhibited bite.
This is the normal developmental process, a pup is bitten a bit hard in play
and reacts with real aggression and the game comes to a complete end. In a
maladaptive situation the aggression is still caused by the aforementioned
negative emotions. In the most dominant pups they may very well practice on
their subordinates (redirected aggression, another Freudian defence mechanism)
but frequently their foray into the use of reaction formation is directed
towards people. Unfortunately this is often totally misinterpreted as dominance
aggression a condition which noted psychologist Valerie O’Farrell in her work
with dogs and other authorities on the treatment of dog behavioural problems
have repeatedly stated is very difficult to cure. In a young pup of 26 weeks or
younger such a bleak prognosis is not the case if the consistency of the owners
can be assured. In other words cases of dominance aggression in the juvenile
stage, in the author’s opinion, should be considered to be more a maladaptive
defence mechanism than that of true dominance aggression.
There are several reasons for this. Under normal conditions no
juvenile will ever successfully hold the alpha position; they are simply not
emotionally mature enough to assume the mantle of such a position and as such
would be expected to develop dysfunctional behaviours as their own insecurities
about what they are conflicted with their reality. Again this leads to the
assumption that such a situation would fall with in the parameters of Freud’s
defence mechanisms. In a normal pack situation even the most dominant pup would
be brought into line by its social superiors and any serious leadership
challenge would not take place until the dog was fully matured. If a young pup
was subjected to a very permissive ownership style it may well seek to take on
the role of leader but dominance would not be its sole or even major
motivation, the need for the security of the pack and indeed its own self
preservation would be the greater mitigating factor. This again leads back to
the conclusion that such behaviours will stem from the pups need to reduce its
own negative emotional load via a defence mechanism. In the young and
especially the very young 8 to 16 weeks of age, aggressive behaviours are
usually the result of a high level of reactivity to fear or other negative
emotions. As explained previously reaction formation is used when an individual
feels concerned about its dependence or passivity, what could be more
disrupting to the dominant pup than the feeling that it is either passive or
dependant? A truly dominant pup would find such feelings highly uncomfortable
and react rapidly to reassert its dominant position. The dominant pup would
have also learnt that it can control others by using aggression, interactions
with its peers within the litter would have facilitated this even the
aforementioned play behaviours which are normal and healthy developmental
behaviours would have given the pup sufficient rewards for aggressive responses
for the pup to at least attempt an aggressive response if it felt its dominance
was threatened by an implied dependence or passivity. Again the permanence of
such behavioural responses is conditional upon the dog frequently gaining the
reward of the reduction in the emotional negativity it feels.
Submissive pups from the litter can also begin to
develop maladaptive aggressive behaviours as a result of peer interaction. If a
submissive pup learns through watching a social superior, in this case a more
dominant pup, that aggression can successfully bring about relief from negative
emotions and is rewarded by a reduction in its negative emotions from the
application of such behaviours when a peer interaction caused the subordinate
to feel such emotions then the pup could well consider that such a course of
action is a viable alternative to passive or sub dominant displays. If such
interactions continued to be successful it would be fair to assume that the pup
would also consider an aggressive response to be warranted with human canine
interactions whenever the presence of negative emotions was felt. Submissive
pups which are displaying these types of behaviours however are usually only
seen where the ownership style is passive. Without a passive owner the initial
tentative aggressive response would not be rewarded and the dog would be forced
to find other actions which would reduce its emotional pain. This is due to the
fact that for a pup to be submissive in type it must have been dominated by at
least one of its peers. It could be considered that the pup did try its
aggressive response and that such a behaviour only escalated the peer reaction,
it is for this reason that the submissive pup is reasonably easy to treat
aggressive disorders as they have already, thanks to learning from their peers
had to seek other alternatives to deal with their own negative emotional responses.
The breeders themselves also have a significant
impact on the developing pup. Modern husbandry practices have now made the pup’s
initial environment extremely comfortable and relatively stress free but the
downside to it is that the pup’s environment is less enriching. We know from
the experiments of Prof Fox in the seventies that lack of stressors in the pup’s
early developmental stages has a profound effect on the ability of the dog to
cope with stress later in its life and also has a direct effect on a number of
other areas of the dog’s mentality. Fogle in his book
“the dogs mind” put forward the premise that early stressors aid in the refinement
of the dogs adrenal response and that one of the functions of the adrenal
response is the emotional reactivity of the pup concerned. This particular area
is the one which this paper is concerned with. Pups need mild stressors to
occur right throughout their developmental period, the breeder’s job is to make
sure that such stressors are only strong enough for the pup to learn to cope
with their discomfort and not to set up a situation where by the pup ends up
totally stressed out. It is suggested that breeders which are not familiar with
the work of Fox which was published initially in 1971 and 1978 obtain a copy as
to try to fully explain the process of gradual introduction of stressors and
the results which have been achieved by the same would be well beyond the scope
of this paper. Other significant authors which have also covered the early
learning of pups in great detail are Dr Joel Dehasse
and Prof Andre Vandergeten both from
Other areas of the husbandry practices of the
breeder can and do have an impact on the pups reactivity to negative emotions
and the development of dysfunctional behavioural patterns. One of the most
common is how long the litter is kept together. It is frequently stated by
breeders which run pups together until sold that it is a natural way of doing
things and that in the wild pups do remain together, this is true but it fails
to consider the containment imposed on pups in the domestic situation. In every
litter some pups are more dominant than others and if the space provided for
the litter is insufficient for the more submissive pups to escape from the more
dominant ones emotional disturbances are likely to occur. This is more of a
concern with Terrier and Guarding breeds as they have higher innate drives in
the prey and defence areas. In best practices the gradual breaking up of
litters should take place as the most dominant pups are identified. Initially
splitting the litter after the weaning process, into two groups and separating
such groups only by a wire fence so as to still facilitate some social
interaction between the two groups is the best alternative. As the pups mature
further breaking up of the litter will occur as the more dominant dogs are
identified. In breeds with high drives the litter is usually housed
individually by the time they are between 8 and 16 weeks. Failure to consider
this will result in dogs which are at various stages of their emotional
development and will also tend to produce litters where the polar variance
swings from the extremely dominant to the highly submissive. This situation
cannot be seen as being in the best interests of the dog nor can it be condoned
as a healthy way to raise pups which will ultimately become members of our
modern society.
The ownership style of the breeders and later the
owners also has a profound effect. Studies conducted on human parents have
found that there are three particular styles of parenting. This information can
be transposed onto the dogs with regards to their human interactions. The three
styles identified are:
§
Authoritarian: Restrictive, impose
many rules, expect strict obedience, lack of explanation of actions and often
rely on force.
§
Authoritative: Flexible, allows
freedom, provides explanation of rules, still provide discipline, responsive to
the others needs and feelings, expect subordinate to comply with the rules and
will use some force together with reason to achieve the objective.
§
Permissive: few demands
encourage expression of feelings and impulses, rarely exert control.
To illustrate just how easily
this does transpose onto dog ownership consider the behavioural profiles of
children the research of Baumrind in 1977 found
matched each of the three parenting styles.
§
Authoritarian:
Conflicted-irritable, Fearful, apprehensive, moody, unhappy, easily annoyed,
passively hostile, vulnerable to stress, aimless, sulky and unfriendly.
§
Authoritative: Energetic-friendly,
self-reliant, self-controlled, cheerful and friendly, copes well with stress,
cooperative, curious, purposive, achievement-orientated.
§
Permissive: Impulse-aggressive,
rebellious, low in self reliance self control and self esteem, impulsive,
aggressive, domineering, aimless, low in achievement.
It is easy to see that according
to this research that the best alternative is the authoritative style with
regards to both children and dogs. With regards to the topic of this paper it
provides further evidence of the relevance of Freud’s defence mechanism theory.
The reader should note that permissive ownership styles produce aggressive and
domineering dogs, with regards to Freud’s theory it would be fair to say that
the noted low self reliance and self esteem, of in this case the dog, would be indicative of the mentioned concerns
for passivity and dependence which were previously identified and thus the
impulsive and aggressive tendencies of dogs owned by people who fall into the
permissive categories are really in essence manifestations of reaction
formation.
It should also be noted that the
previously mentioned work of Wilsson on highly
forceful bitches also corresponds with the research of Baumrind
on authoritarian parenting styles. Wilsson noted that
the pups produced from these bitches were less social and did less well in
fetch games. It would be a fair statement to say that this coincides with the
profiles of Baumrind in the Authoritarian category as
it is noted that such profiles include dogs which are unfriendly, passively
hostile and aimless. This is seen by the author as further proof of the impact
of environmental effects on the developing pup
Another issue of ownership style
which has frequently been mentioned in dog behavioural literature and in
practice is proven time and time again is the inconsistency of the owner to
adopt a particular style. Frequently this inconsistency is a problem all by
itself. Valerie O’Farrell makes mention of handler inconsistency in her work on
behavioural disorders. She makes specific mention of handler inconsistency in
the treatment of dominance aggression, the author of this paper agrees with her
totally on the fact that such inconsistency is a contributing factor but does
as previously explained cast doubts that the motivation is solely based on the
dogs desire to assume the lead position. More frequently the situation is one
where by the dog feels the need to assume a leadership role as the current
leader, in this case the handler, is acting in a manner which is inconsistent
with the dogs perceptions of what the pack needs to survive. Furthermore it is
considered that true dominance aggression is actually a very rare occurrence
and in most cases the dog perceives that it has little alternative than to
assume the lead position to insure its own survival. If the owner was able to
provide the dog with the security it requires in the pack context it is
doubtful that such a leadership challenge would ever have taken place.
Inconsistency is at its worst
when the owners swing from the polar extremes of Permissive to authoritarian.
Dogs are highly adaptable creatures but they cannot tolerate inconsistency of
what to expect from their pack leaders. This situation is innately anxiety
provoking which as has been explained is a major causation of aggressive responses
from dogs. Dogs have been known to accept any of the ownership styles mentioned
and still function at the highest levels of competition. This will only be the
case if the dogs innate potential (drives) is consistent with the ownership
style, that is to say that an omega type dog consistently kept under the
permissive style is unlikely to cause any major difficulties to the owners
(behavioural problem wise). If the permissive style is matched with an Alpha
dog there is likely to be problems and these problems will inturn be further
made worse if the handler swings from permissive to authoritarian when they
perceive the dog to have breached their rules. From the dogs point of view the
owner has suddenly become very unpredictable, at times they are allowed to do
things with no threat of punishment and yet at others with out any warning
brutal punishment is inflicted upon them for breaches of the rules which have
previously been unenforced. Unfortunately the
inconsistent handler is frequently seen in conformation competitions where by
the dog is placed in the role of either a substitute child or a vehicle in
which the owners can achieve a higher status. All too frequently dogs which
have been shown in conformation classes are presented for behavioural treatment
as a result of owners which swing from the permissive to authoritarian style.
An example would be a dog known to the author which was breed by a show kennel
but had significant working potential (high to extreme drives) which was not harnessed.
This dog perceived the owners permissive style as a fault in the structure of
the pack and set about trying to attain the lead position. The dominant advances
were met with corrections which can only be described as brutal in the extreme,
the dog was hit with sticks, polly
pipe or whatever else was at hand. After the dog had submitted to the superior
force it was cuddled like a baby. The problem here was that the owner took the
dogs misbehaviour as a personal insult and reacted out of rage. Such extreme
swings of ownership style have caused the dog to doubt what is likely to be the
reaction of the owner to any action it commences. This particular dog has now dispensed
with the preliminary warnings which are normally the prelude to aggression and
moves directly into full combat anytime it feels threatened. As a result its
show career has been indefinitely suspended and it is the authors opinion that
if it is pushed into the ring will eventually cause serious damage to someone,
most likely not the owner.
Inconsistency is virtually
impossible to correct if the owner will not recognise that they are the ones
which are at fault. Handlers must strive to be authoritative and consistent, by
all means the dog should be a friend and a joy to be around but it cannot be
anything other than a dog, after all that is what it is. Punishment when necessary
must be immediate upon the dog transgressing the rules as laid down by the handler;
it cannot be delayed for several minutes or hours and must be in keeping with
the rules being applied consistently. Punishment should never be brutal!! A dog
is controlled by the handlers head not their hands or feet. Brutality will only
erode the dog handler bond. Where ever possible the dog needs to be shown what
is the right action in that particular situation and then praised for it, such
an action should immediately follow the act of punishment. The dog must learn
what it is it should be doing. The ultimate punishment for a dog is not a
severe beating, it is banishment. This is easily facilitated by the use of a
kennel or crate in which the dog can be totally isolated from the rest of the
pack for a significant period. This conveys to the dog in no uncertain terms
that behaviour of that kind will not be tolerated and if such continues their
presence in the pack structure is no longer desired or likely to be continued.
Dogs are not solitary animals the thought of having to face the world and all
its dangers alone is a very sobering thought to a dog, one which they are
simply not equipped to handle the realities thereof.
Case Studies
Following are two genuine case
studies from the Authors files. In each of these cases the subject is a variety
of Belgian Shepherd. The author breeds, trains and competes with Belgians
shepherds and as a result is frequently sought by persons owning the breed when
they have a behavioural problem with their dogs. It is not in any way an
indication that this breed suffers behavioural disturbances of this kind more
than any other breed nor is in any way a slight at the breed in general.
Case 1
This case highlights a high
aggressive response from a very young pup (12 weeks) and the environmental
influences which combined with the dog’s innate predisposition to create such a
problem
Belgian Shepherd Laekenois male 16 weeks
old.
Known History
This dog was retained by his
breeder to the age of 12 weeks when he was sent to the author for treatment for
inappropriate aggressive responses. The dam does have a history of aggressive responses
and this male was identified as the alpha male puppy and only bested by the
alpha female pup of the litter. The entire litter was run on together until 5
weeks when the alpha male and alpha female was separated from the remainder of
the litter and their dam.
Observations
When first presented the dog was
reacting very aggressively whilst in its cage in the owners car. Significant
barking and growling, with very steady eye contact was observed. Upon release (on Lead) from the cage the dog continued to display
aggression but at a lesser intensity than had been shown whilst crated and in
the vehicle. The pup actively avoided contact with the author and whilst
still avoiding resumed aggressive overtures. After a period of about 30 minutes
the pup was lead away by the author where by the author sat on the ground and
began to pat the pup. The pup whilst still actively trying to avoid began urinating
and attempted to bite the author. After persisting for a few minutes the pup
settled and allowed the author to pat him without further complaint. At no time
did the author attempt to correct the dog or avoid his bites, the bites were
reasonably hard and did draw blood but the dog had made no attempt to bite and
hold. It was also noted that the dog largely did as it please with the owners
having great difficulty keeping him under control.
Discussions with the owners
revealed that this pup was very rough in his play and furthermore that they had
tried to redirect this roughness with other activities such as picking the pup
up and cuddling him. The owners had taken the pup out for socialisation and
habituation training and had not experienced any real avoidance although no one
had attempted to pat the dog on these outings either. The pup was required for
a function in a few days so it departed again with its owners to be returned in
about a week.
Information supplied by the
owner about the pup’s behaviour at the function was consistent with what had
occurred at the author’s residence. The dog had again reacted aggressively to
being touched by strangers and had bitten the owners in an attempt to avoid
such contact and had again urinated. Prior to being received in for treatment
the dog had to be vaccinated and again the same behavioural pattern was
observed when the pup was being examined by the Veterinarian.
After settling in for a period
of three days the pup was brought out onto the author’s training field where by
it immediately began to display aggression to all persons and most of the dogs
which were present. In this instance the level of aggression had risen
considerably where by the urination had ceased and the aggressive display now
included bared teeth and definite forward movement with intent to bite. This
described action was directed towards a person, the pup’s actions towards the
dogs were more in line with his previous displays. The author restrained the
pup without lifting him up and had several different people approach and pat
him, the pup accepted the patting without showing any emotion and continued to
remain still and be patted even after the author had released him. If the
patting ceased, however, the pup would immediately begin avoidance; if the
patting was recommenced, again aggression and threatening behaviour was used
until the dog was restrained whereby again he would assume his stationary
position.
Other environmental influences
did not cause an aggressive response; the pup was introduced to various pieces
of agility equipment which he learnt to complete very quickly without any major
avoidance, and such actions were completed in a very happy and joyful manner.
The pup also began basic obedience, again with great success and great
enthusiasm. Introductions to other dogs and the author’s resident dogs were
completed with no aggression being displayed by the pup. Loud noises, trucks,
livestock and a multitude of other fear provoking environmental influences were
introduced into the pup’s life and after some minor avoidance all were accepted
readily with no displays of aggression at all. The pup was noted however to
treat the author more as a peer than a superior in the initial stages of
treatment and would frequently try to illicite a rough form of play by seizing
the authors foot or leg.
Diagnosis
Dysfunctional defence mechanism
(reaction formation)
Contributing factors
Dominant pup (innate
predisposition)
Early weaning without the dam
teaching the pup the sub dominance required for social interactions.
Observational learning from dam
(aggression directed towards strangers)
Reinforced by successful use of
aggression with peers
Further reinforced by
highly permissive ownership style of breeders and consistent rewarding of
aggression with tactile praise (unintentional).
Treatment
Initially the pup needed to be
taught to be subdominant (as described by Prof Abrantes).
This was accomplished with the use of stern vocal corrections and threatening
body posturing from the handler. As soon as the pup had displayed a willingness
to accept the superiority of the handler the pup was rewarded with prey play, competitive
ball games where by the pup was encouraged to retrieve the ball and return to
the handler to engage in a tug of war game. This allowed for further control exercises
to be taught as the pup was frequently allowed to win but did also have to
release the ball when commanded by the handler and then the whole process of
retrieval began again. Such play was frequently interrupted with basic
obedience exercises such as sitting and dropping. The pup readily learnt to
obey the commands and that a reward of play would immediately follow. Such sessions
were conducted two or three times per day. Once this was accomplished the
author made use of two adult bitches, one an omega type and the other the Alpha
bitch. These bitches were used separately with the puppy during its liberty
access to a 100 acre paddock. The omega bitch was used initially. The pup had
no trouble eliciting a game from this bitch who would
happily play with the pup and encourage it to play for the entire 45 minute
session. This was repeated several times and towards the end of each session
the omega bitch would signal to the pup that she had had enough by rolling him
over and keeping him down until he stopped trying to illicit a game.
When the alpha bitch was
introduced she displayed the ritualised aggressive behaviour expected by a dog
of her standing within the pack to the overt play demands of the pup. The
display was purely visual and audible at no time did the bitch attempt to take
the action further and she would not have been used in the treatment program if
the author had considered that such an action was likely. The pup clearly
understood the warnings given by the bitch and adopted the subdominant position
mentioned by Abrantes, that is to say that the pup
clearly let the bitch know that it had understood but did not find it necessary
to adopt a position of total submission.
Such interactions also gave the
pup the opportunity to watch obviously superior dogs obeying the author’s
directives which facilitated observational learning. Such directives were of
course very simple as the dogs were not being involved in a specific training
session rather one of exercise and relaxation. But this
having been said calls to return to the author or to move away are frequently
used. These the pup followed the bitches’ actions initially rather than
the specific command but it was noted in training sessions conducted after
these initial sessions that the pup had a very good understanding of what those
commands meant.
The pup was also taught some
basic agility being introduced to the Walk, see saw and A
frame. None of which posed a major problem to the dog and it was noted that the
dog’s prey drives on exiting from each piece of equipment were still high and
the pup readily engaged in either competitive play or retrieval games. This
would suggest that the pup did not experience anxiety whilst negotiating the
obstacles. The lack of reaction from such a young pup to the see saw is seen by
the author as further proof of the diagnosis. The see saw is an anxiety
provoking pieces of equipment and for a pup so young not to react to suddenly
having its footing drop out from under it clearly demonstrates that the pups
only real concern at this stage of its life is with social type interactions.
Obedience training was commenced
slightly after the initial agility work. The pup was highly active and used to
getting its own way, stationary exercises were taught first with the sit
followed by the drop thoroughly taught prior to attempting to teach the dog to
heel. Both were initially taught using verbal commands and hand signals
rewarded by food on successful completion. Initially the dog only had to adopt
the position and then it was instantly released. The same verbal correction
(no) was used whenever the dog failed to instantly respond to the command,
where by the command would be repeated and the dog would assume the desired
position and was immediately rewarded. No lead corrections were used and the
dog was initially guided into position rather than forced. The comprehension of
the commands was very good with the dog rapidly being moved from simply
adopting the position to being required to hold the position for a period of
time. This switch from rewarding the action to rewarding the dog’s concentration
proved to be an easy transition. The dog was then began on basic heeling work
with frequent halts requiring either a sit or a drop position as directed by
the author. The lead was used in heeling exercises to guide the dog back into
position but corrections were still avoided, the primary correction remained
the verbal command of no. Sessions were kept very short no more than 5min at
any one time and were always concluded with a retrieval/competitive game of at
least twice the training duration.
One week after his display of
aggression at the training class the dog was again brought onto the training
field when a class was in attendance. Whilst there was still an aggressive
response the level of aggression was noticeably lower. After a few minutes of
patting other people were invited to walk away with the dog on lead and engage
the dog in a retrieval game. This produced the desired result of the pup
enjoying the social contact of strangers and became actively involved. After a
brief period of this the pup was taken on the group liberty exercise in the 100
acre paddock. The dog interacted well with the other dogs with no aggression,
apart from expected puppy play, with the other dogs and then also elicited
interaction with some of the human handlers. The next week the pup did not
display aggression at all and was happy to interact with the people, some of
which had not seen the pup before. The retrieval games were continued with
people taking the dog away from the author to play with the pup. At this stage
the pup was handed back to the breeders to see how he would react when they
were handling him and left with them without assistance for 30 or so minutes.
The pup did not revert back to his aggressive state but did clearly demonstrate
a total lack of obedience to any request made of him. As soon as the author
took up the lead and gave the dog a verbal correction he quite happily accepted
the superior position of the handler and returned to the behaviours seen
previously, calm and focused disposition.
Conclusion
When treating a problem in a
young pup it is important that the trainer does have access to people who will
not react to the pups aggressive advances, this can be painful but the idea is
that the pup must not receive any reward for its aggression. Punishment from
either the handler or the stranger can and does frequently become a negative re
enforcer and thus highly counter productive. Such an approach obviously could
not be taken with a more mature dog or people would have been hurt.
This pup still has a long way to
go before it is expected that his behaviour will remain consistently
appropriate, but it does illustrate the rapid rate which aggression in the very
young can be addressed with consistent and supportive handling. It is doubtful
that this dog should be handled by anyone other than a dominant authoritative
handler. This dog is going to be run on at the author’s residence for the next
nine months in which time his trialling career will be commenced and with the
abilities and attitude he has thus far displayed it is expected that such a
career will be highly competitive. Any future handler will need to be mindful
of the fact that this dog does have a low threshold for a defence reaction,
lead corrections, physical punishment and anything else which would erode the
dog handler bond must be avoided or it is expected that the dog will again
begin to display aggressive responses towards people.
Also worthy of noting was the
fact that this dog was bred to compete in the conformation ring. When the
breeders first contacted the author about the problem they could not understand
where such innate potential had come from as he was show stock right through
his pedigree. Whilst this is true it should be noted by breeders that
Case 2
This is a case of a now mature
bitch having been presented for treatment after many attempts by various
trainers to rectify the problem. This bitch as is later described showed
significant aggression from the time the owner picked her up at 8 weeks of age.
Belgian Shepherd Groenendael Bitch
17mths.
Known History
The dog was purchased at 8 weeks
by the owner. It is known that the litter had to be weaned early from their dam
due to a high level of uninhibited maternal aggression displayed as early as 3
weeks of age. The owner had noted the bitch’s tendency for aggression very
early and had taken the pup to socialisation classes where the pup hid under a
chair and displayed significant aggression to anyone apart from the owner which
approached her. The owner also attended several different training schools prior
to bringing the bitch in for treatment all of which had advocated the use of
corrective force to attempt to lessen the dog’s aggressive responses. The bitch
displayed aggression frequently to people who came into her house and was
considered to be unreliable in most other situations involving social
interaction with humans. Further more the bitch had to be muzzled to be
examined by a Veterinarian. The owner had had limited experience with handling
dogs and tended to be permissive in ownership style but adored the dog.
Observations
When the bitch was presented for
treatment she adopted an aloof and quite standoffish attitude. It was very
clear from the onset that the bitch had little idea of who was in control of
her pack and found basic exercises boring and irrelevant. A decision was made
at the onset that the handler was to complete all the work without the trainer
handling the dog at all. This was primarily to allow the handler herself to
gain the confidence that she could in fact control her dog as the handler had
by this stage lost all confidence in the dog’s ability to behave in a socially
acceptable manner and was very concerned about someone being hurt by the dog.
The trust between the handler and the dog was so eroded by this stage that a
muzzle was taken almost everywhere the dog went and at any indication of
aggression the dog was either removed from the situation or the muzzle was
applied and the dog kept on a short lead.
The bitch had extreme prey
drives and would retrieve object at any time and any where. This provided the
initial key to begin the control exercises and to make training a rewarding and
interesting experience for the dog. The dog also displayed a very low defence
threshold where by it took very little in the way of stimulus to engage the dog
defensively. The dog was highly reactive to loud noises, traffic noises but
especially humans. In short the bitch was quite fearful.
It was found out from the owner
that the bitch had always displayed such fearful responses right from the time
she was purchased and that regardless of how often the owner had tried to take
her out there had been no lessening in these responses (failed systematic
desensitisation). As was expected the bitch raised her defence threshold whilst
engaged in prey play such as retrieval games or tug of war games and as a
result became far less reactive to fearful stimulus.
Diagnosis
Maladaptive defence mechanism
(reaction formation)
Contributing factors
Abusive maternal behaviours
Observational learning of
aggressive behaviours from the dam
Early weaning from the dam prior
to the development of social behaviours including sub dominance
Beta dog assuming an Alpha
position
Reinforced by a permissive
ownership style
Further reinforced by unintendedly
reinforcement from the handler of aggressive reaction (removal equals reduction
in emotions felt)
Further reinforced with consistent
success in reduction of the negative emotions by being aggressive towards humans,
i.e. Aggressive response made the people go away or at least leave her alone
Handler’s concern over the dog’s
reaction to situations increased the dog’s likelihood of feeling negative
emotional responses from fear provoking stimulus.
Treatment
The dog was not dangerous,
definitely socially unacceptable but not psychotic. She displayed the attitude
of if you leave me alone I won’t bother you. Initially treatment had to consist
of the handler being able to exert control over the dog. This was approached by
teaching basic obedience exercises and using prey play as a reward for concentration.
The bitch very quickly worked out that if she kept focused on the handler that
a fun game would follow. Initially the prey response was very low key, but as
the bitch relaxed and her anxious state lessened the prey response was very high.
Obviously as we were dealing with a mature dog the desire was to not elicit and
aggressive response from the bitch as unless the dog was on lead such a
response was likely to be self rewarding.
Corrections were kept to a
minimum of only vocal corrections and the withholding of play. This was done to
ensure that negative reinforcement of the fearful state was not accomplished.
The dog rapidly learnt that the word “no” meant she was doing something wrong
and that the game she expected would not be forthcoming until she performed the
task correctly. New exercises were gradually introduced over a period of time.
Each new exercise was taught by clearly showing the dog what was expected and
providing constant vocal support with the motivation of her toy always being
kept in sight. This worked very well and the dog progressed to more advanced exercises
faster than was first thought possible.
The handler took to the training
exceptionally well and was so consistent about the application of the training
principals and her need to control the dog and practice the work that a
definite improvement was seen each and every week.
Punishment was discussed at
great length and until the handler felt more secure in her abilities to control
the bitch aggressive reaction provoking situations were best avoided. After 5
weeks of therapy the handler was encouraged to begin to introduce the bitch
gradually into the situations which had previously provoked an aggressive
response. Punishment which was applied for any breach had to be of a non
forceful type and yet had to convince the bitch there were other alternatives
to aggression. It was decided to initially use vocal corrections and ritualised
body positioning, if this did not accomplish the desired response banishment
was to be implemented for a period of several hours. The dog also needed to
have its good behaviour rewarded and this was again facilitated through the use
of prey play.
Handler control and the
dog/handler communications had improved so much that there was already a
lessening of the dog’s aggressive reactivity; on the occasions where the dog
did react aggressively all but one case was controlled by the usage of vocal
corrections. In the single case where vocal corrections did not work the dog
was banished to a crate in the garage for a period of 4 hours. On release the
dog was immediately invited to engage the handler in prey play and then allowed
to return back inside the house. This approach had a profound effect on the
bitch, it served to show her in a very distinct and non threatening manner that
she was not in control of the pack and her unwarranted aggressive out bursts
would not be tolerated.
Conclusion
The total time it took to treat
this adult was 8 weeks. In that time the handler had assumed the role of social
superior and had provided her beta dog with the level of security she needed
for her own emotional wellbeing. This security by itself reduced the dog’s
negative emotional load considerably.
In this case treatment was
effected by training the owner rather than the dog. The dog was simply not
innately equipped to handle an Alpha position; by the owner clearly
communicating their dominance it allowed the dog to use its own cognitive
abilities to learn that it was not responsible for the security of the pack.
The small amount of punishment required to facilitate this change of social
position clearly demonstrates that the dog was not innately dominant and was
simply unequipped to handle the responsibilities of pack leadership.
The dog went from being socially
unacceptable to a happy member of the family relatively quickly once it had
reasoned that it was no longer in charge. Her general behaviour improved to the
degree where when she was presented to her Veterinarian for x rays after the
treatment program had concluded, she was able to be left unmuzzled and the
Veterinarian reported no incidents of aggression and even remarked that the dog
had displayed affection towards the veterinarian and their staff whilst
recovering from the anaesthetic.
It should also be noted that
there was no reduction in appropriate aggressive displays from the bitch, she
still barked aggressively when visitors arrived but on command from her owner
would settle down and welcome visitors to the house, even going as far to be
able to engage in play with visitors and their children.
Summary of treatments
This paper seeks to explain that
aggressive responses from dogs do have a learnt component. Such learning begins
very early in the dog’s life and continues right throughout its lifespan. Most
cases of inappropriate aggression are caused through the aggressive displays
frequently being rewarded by the reduction of negative emotions the dog was
experiencing prior to the aggressive response. Such negative emotions engage
the dog’s innate defence potential and the reaction occurs. The severity of the
dogs reaction is again a combination of the dogs innate potential in defence
and the amount of success it has had previously in reducing its negative
emotional load by using aggressive responses.
If a dog of High to extreme innate
defence potential has previously had consistent success in reducing the
negative emotional state by using aggression, a single incidence of this
reaction not working is likely to lead to an increase in the aggressive
response; such incidences must be consistently unrewarding to lessen the
aggressive response. This is one of the reasons why the use of force in trying
to curb aggressive responses is so ineffective. Such an approach may well work
on dogs which have lower innate potential in this area but it is still not the
best practices and does not lead to total extinction of the aggressive
response, rather the dog learns to not use aggression in situations where it
can be physically corrected. Treatment especially with dogs of high to extreme
innate potential is more successful the earlier in the dog’s life that it is
commenced. A bite from a puppy of 8 to 12 weeks is not overly painful or likely
to damage the average human adult as such the handler can continue with the
action which the pup has found distressing until the pup itself decides that
aggression in this case is ineffective and seeks other means of reducing its
negative emotional status. The author is not advocating that all bites from
pups should be treated as trivial; rather when the dog is reacting aggressively
as a result of its feelings of negative emotions, the occurrence of such
displays will be lessened if the dog does not achieve the desired result. This
situation is different from that of a pup playing too roughly, this they need
to be corrected for and this is again only mimicking the behaviour of any
canine social superior they may have. This approach cannot be considered if the
dog reacting to stimuli is mature; to attempt this form of treatment would
result in severe injuries to the handler. Force, on the other hand, will only
increase the dog’s feelings of negative emotions as this is the opposite to the
emotional needs of the dog it can hardly be considered to be a practical
alternative. In the case of mature dogs, until handler control is thoroughly
learnt by the dog, aggression provoking situation must be avoided so as not to
reward aggressive responses. Only when the handler has proven that they are
capable of controlling the dog regardless of the emotional status of the dog
can aggression provoking situation be attempted.
In saying this, the author still
acknowledges that at times force may be required but it is always the last
resort. In the author’s opinion force should only be used when the handler
themself is threatened by the dog and the dog fails to respond with submission
to ritualised displays of dominance and threat. In such a case the handler has
little option but to use force to subdue the dog. In these cases the force
should immediately stop as soon as the dog has shown submission and the handler
should continue with ritualised displays to allow the dog to display its
submission without further risk of harm. Ritualised displays are displays both
bodily and facially which the handler uses to mimic dominant/threatening
displays of a dog such as direct eye contact, rigid and erect body positioning,
growling vocalisation, forward movement directly into the dog and others. But
force is the most overused weapon in the handlers
arsenal; clear and concise communication with support when a dog is unsure of
what it is being asked to do is a far better alternative.
Consistency in handling is a
must when treating a dog known to react aggressively; if the rewards for
aggressive responses are not stopped totally, the reaction will continue to be
used by the dog. This is put forward as the reason why aggressive reactivity
has proven so difficult in the past to treat. Handlers simply do not
consistently apply the treatments and as such the dog still receives intermittent
rewards, which has been proven in the operant conditioning profile to actually
make the reaction more resistant to extinction. This is put forward as the
primary reason why so many of the authorities around the world on canine
behaviour consider that cases of aggression in dogs are so difficult to treat permanently.
It has been found that behaviours which receive initially consistent
reinforcement and then latter only intermittent reinforcement are the most
resistant to extinction. Aggressive responses are one of those behaviours which
frequently receive intermittent reinforcement as at time handlers do want their
dogs to react aggressively. The handler needs to clearly define when aggression
from the dog is appropriate and when it is not. This is how Police dogs are
still capable of social interaction, they are taught when they are to be
aggressive and when they are not and any incidence of inappropriate aggression
is rapidly stopped by their social superior (handler)
Finally the case studies in this
paper clearly show that an applied and consistent effort to teach the dog other
means of overcoming negative emotions rather than aggression can rehabilitate
dogs which have learnt that such measures are successful. The key is to have
the owner work consistently to rectify the problem and whilst genetics does
play a part in both the reactivity potential and the degree of aggression
displayed it is by no means totally a genetic problem.
Copyright
2002 Iain MacDonald, rrenroc@bigpond.com.au. All
rights reserved by the author.
Return Home