Modal Theory:
Relationship between Emotional
Status and the Cognitive & Learning
Abilities of Domestic Canines
Introduction
by Iain
Macdonald
Contents:
Modal Theory
Training Applications
The
Modal theory is a theoretical framework, which seeks to explain the extent to
which canine behaviour, cognition, and learning are influenced by emotional
status. It puts forward the concept that the emotional reactivity causes a
prioritization of environmental events/information. Such a prioritization
ensures the dog treats all information with regards to relevance according to
its emotional status at the time. This adaptive mechanism of information
processing is vital for the survival of the dog in its natural state and is a
powerful tool to be used in training the domestic canine.
A
mode is an operational frame of mind the dog works in. This operational
frame of mind will prioritize items/events in the dog's mind relevant to the
mode in which the dog is currently operating. This mode is also easily
described as an emotional state of mind. A mode does not lessen the
cognitive abilities of the dog; rather it prioritizes the information to assist
the cognitive functioning of the dog. Modes are often termed as drives in dog
training literature but this implies an instinctive/automatic reactionary
process that fails to fully encompass the workings of the dogs mind whilst in
this state. Such terminology also makes it very difficult to quantify between
innate potential and emotional responsiveness. It is often argued in scientific
circles that true instincts are very rare and can be best described as chains
of behaviours that we do not yet fully understand. There are three major modes
the dog works in: defence, prey and
social. The primary reason for all three modes of behaviour is to ensure
the survival of the individual.
Frequently
mentioned in this article is the term drive, this refers to the innate
reactivity potential of the dog in each of the three operational modes.
This does not imply that the threshold is innate, it is a learned response, but
frequently high or extreme drive dogs do have a low threshold. This innate potential
can be impacted upon in critical periods of the pup's development. This impact
can be positive or negative. A breeder which encourages retrieval in their pups
when young (early as 4 weeks) will tend to produce high drive dogs, provided
that a balance is reached in this building so as not to bore the dog, whereby
the impact will be negative and the dogs innate drive will be lowered. A
breeder who does not encourage such activities in the dog will tend to produce
dogs of lower drive.
This
impact on the innate potential of the dog is again basically a
survival-orientated mechanism. If the dog has inborn potential but this is not
encouraged by its environment it will tend to be lost or impeded as the drive
is not required, or at least not in its upper levels for the dogs survival.
This is the natural adaptively of the dog coming into play. Interesting to note
is that early Swedish research pointed to the fact that high prey drives or at
least a high retrieval drive was indicative of a highly trainable dog. This is
supported by this theory as well except it is not the fact that a dog has a
high drive which makes it a trainable dog per say, rather it is the ease in
which the dog can be rewarded without confusion we see as the contributing
factor. Either way, highly driven dogs are certainly more easily trained than
less driven counterparts.
As
stated high drives can be very desirable in a training sense. Indicators of
high drives are as follows:
- Prey: retrieval,
chasing, possessiveness, etc.
- Social: strong bonding,
separation anxiety, etc.
- Defence: aggression,
high reactivity to threatening stimuli, protectiveness.
It should also be noted that whilst most working
competitions now are consistently won by dogs which have drives which can be
described as extreme and such drives are highly desirable in top level sport
and working dogs, such dogs would not make good family pets. There is a
fine line between extreme drives and neurotic behaviours and as such, an
extremely driven dog, which does not have outlets for its innate drives, can
easily become neurotic. Extremely driven dogs have almost a pathological
need to work in that mode; a fanatical retriever that will physically
attack a wall to get a toy is an example. This dog would not make a good pet
and most breeders would consider it has poor temperament. This is not the case,
the dog has an extreme drive and needs to work in this particular mode,
training can modify it but such a dog is exactly what the Customs service
considers to be a good candidate. A detection dog must operate at this extreme
level or it will be less effective. This dog is quite stable when given an
outlet for its innate needs; in fact, it is a willing worker, which is capable
of cognitive processes while working far beyond those of less driven dogs. Neurotic
behaviours will occur as its innate potential is ignored and other
environmental factors attempt to over modify the animals behaviour causing the
dog to internalize its need for outlet in the particular mode.
In the case of mature dogs drives which have
appeared to be non-existent can be built on but at no time will the mature dog
ever regain the maximum potential it had as a pup if it is not encouraged
through its critical periods. We can teach a dog to fetch but we cannot make an
extremely driven dog from him if he wasn't born that way. The handler’s ability
also plays a considerable role, if the handler is able to provide support for
the less driven dog prior to the dog losing motivation the dog can be carried
along to perform at levels which are actually higher than its innate potential.
Such environmental factors make it very difficult to describe drives with any
degree of accuracy and makes assessment that much more difficult.
Drives should not ever be seen as a negative part of
a dog but should definitely be considered when choosing a dog. Most people are
unable to successfully handle an extremely driven dog without significant
professional assistance. This would be the major reason why world-class working
kennels are very particular where their pups are being homed. In the wrong
hands, their world-class dog becomes a public nuisance. In this example, the
fault lies not with the dog but with the handler’s failure to: (1) be able to
handle the dog, and (2) choose a dog which suits his or her own needs and
abilities. A versatile dog will not necessarily be extremely driven; in fact,
extreme drive if not backed by excellent handling skills and a balanced
training program will frequently work against the dog. A highly driven but balanced
dog should be the aim of all kennels apart from those, which specifically
specialize in producing dogs designed to work in specialized areas.
A
modal threshold is the level of stimulation of the innate drive required by
the dog to switch into the most appropriate mode, emotive state, so as to best
react to the current situation. These thresholds or triggers are always
self-regulated. As trainers, we cannot externally force a dog to adopt a
particular threshold to suit our needs. However, through conditioning that
involves withholding of the appropriate reward (the dogs desired behaviour); we
can teach the dog to regulate its own threshold to suit our needs. In scent
work, we require a low prey threshold (we want the dog to switch to prey mode
rapidly) but in obedience, we require a far higher threshold to maintain
control during heeling (we want the dog to resist the switch to prey until it
has completed exactly what it is we want). In bite work, we require different
thresholds for different exercises. Guarding an object requires a far higher
threshold (resist the trigger) of defence than a face attack does (rapidly
trigger).
Thresholds
are activated or triggered at the emotional level of the dog. Each of the three
modes has a particular emotive state that will immediately switch the dog over
to the most appropriate mode for the current situation. These emotional
states and their triggering emotions are: defence - fear, social - security,
and prey - excitement. Of particular importance when assessing the
integrity of this information is to understand that during the domestication
process we have altered the dog significantly from its wild ancestors by
encouraging and selectively breeding for individuals which retain many infantile
behaviours throughout their lifespan. This has significantly impacted upon the
dog in the prey mode, as such instead of the true emotive response of hunger a
state of excitement/playfulness is now the trigger.
This
alteration through domestication is understandable when a person realizes that
it is largely through the medium of play that a wild dog learns its hunting
skills (such behaviours are not as once thought, instinctive). It would then
stand to reason that if we have retained the infantile state to a large degree
that the dog which has no real needs to hunt its own food would retain the
infantile trigger for such behaviour throughout its life. It is also fair to
say that dogs with extreme drives in the prey area will tend also to be
triggered by the more traditional hunting triggers. This can lead to owners
having greater degrees of difficulty in controlling such extreme drive dogs and
is why such dogs should not really be considered good candidate for family
pets.
In
prey mode the dog will give a greater priority to events which are relevant to
that mode such as rapid sideways movement, the desire to chase, etc. It
should be again noted that a mode does not affect the cognitive abilities of
the dog; rather, it prioritizes what is happening in the dog's environment with
relation to the mode it is in. A dog in prey mode will still use its cognitive
abilities to think its way through events to best achieve the result it desires
(i.e., the raising and lowering of the threshold or trigger for a desired behaviour).
A dog will voluntarily control the desire to chase a prey object until it in
itself is reasonably sure that the chances of this chase being successful are
relatively high. Failure to do so would impact on the viability of survival for
the individual. This internal control is a learned feature based on the
particular experiences of the individual in question. The classic example of
this mode in the wild state is the rapid escape of a rabbit as it bursts for
cover will trigger a response in the dog to chase. In a training sense, the
throwing of the object is what we use to lead a dog into retrieval exercises,
be they for formal training or play. This rapid movement is triggering the
dog's emotional response in exactly the same way as the fleeing rabbit.
Social
mode is the most common mode in which a dog will operate. In this mode, the
emphasis is placed on the dogs pack. Dogs have an innate need to belong to a
pack, domestication has not altered this requirement rather it has incorporated
humans into the dogs view of its pack. All control exerted by the handler is
achieved through social mode. Such control is achieved by the handler acting as
a superior of the dog's own pack and making a request of a subordinate. The
dog's compliance to such a request is attained by the dog acknowledging the
handler's social superiority. The dog's innate need for the security of its
position in a pack is the trigger for this mode.
Defence
mode is always responsible for aggression, unless such aggression is of
psychotic nature. All forms of aggression are triggered
by a fear of something; this fear need not be directly attributed to the
recipient of the aggression personally. Fear can be felt if the dog’s position
in the pack is threatened, a member of the pack is threatened, the packs
territory is threatened, etc. As fear is such a black word in the dog world,
this must be heavily stressed. A dominant dog for example will switch from
social to defence anytime it feels that its position in the pack is under
threat. It is not necessarily scared of the transgressor more it is fearful of
the loss of station. Interestingly to note is that nearly all forms of
non-psychotic aggression noted by canine research derive from a switch from
social mode to defence mode. The exception being predatory aggression
required for the acquisition of food. However, fear is also involved
here, as the dog will be fearful of not being able to eat. It could also be
argued that the social concerns of the pack also play a part in this as well
but as yet this still remains very unclear. With this in mind, it brings the
practice of training bite work from a prey basis into question as the ideal
model of education for this activity. Surely an approach from a social mode
would be more relative to the dog and would give an increased aggressive
response and yet improve the control level of the dog in call off exercises.
Modal Theory Training Applications
To
consider the impact of this theory on how we approach the training of the dog
we should consider what mode the dog must be in to comply with what we have
asked of it. We then must also accept as fact that since the purpose of the
mode is to priorities events relative to the dog’s needs it would be impossible
for the dog to operate in two modes simultaneously. As a result, we can
theorize that a dog is able to rapidly switch from one mode to another and back
again as is required to best priorities the situation, relative to its
emotional state to obtain the highest degree of success for the activity the
dog is engaged in.
An
example of this would be that handler control is achieved through the social
mode. A handler is using its higher position in the hierarchy to control the
subordinate dog. As the required action will impact on the dogs security with
in the pack (its acceptance, position, etc) the dog will switch from either
prey or defence to the social mode to comply as the priority in this mode will
give issues relative to the dogs security within its social system greater
importance than the other two modes would. It should be noted very clearly that
in this area, force could have a very negative effect. If the dog reacts
through fear, he is not in social mode; he is in defence. Whilst the dog may
comply out of fear of retribution, it has not necessarily accepted the higher
position of the handler. This is why force is not a valid way to ensure
domination of a dog.
A
practical example of a switch to social mode triggered by issues of security is
the call off from attack. A dog chasing a fleeing decoy is in prey mode as it
nears the decoy it switches to defence mode to attack, when the handler calls
it off it must switch back to social mode to comply with the wishes of its
superior for the same reasons stated above. Fear of the handler has nothing to
do with it and could not be used to obtain the result at best what you would
get would be a dog which will bite and then let go only if the handler was
close enough to intervene. This again is not the dog acknowledging a higher
authority rather the dog giving way to superior force (avoidance).
Prey
mode is responsible for play in the domesticated dog for reasons explained
above. All play regardless of which mode the participants were in initially
is carried out in prey mode. In play within a social setting, the play bow
and other actions elicit a prey response from the recipient. There is also some
research currently underway which suggests that the production of hormones also
have a part to play through the sense of smell. These actions trigger the
emotive response so that the recipient is able to undertake the correct behavioural
response. Failure to respond to such a trigger could engage the defence trigger
and a fight would result. This mode is the primary mode within which we will
reward our dogs for correct completion of exercises, as the dog cannot feel
anxiety whilst in this mode. Prey mode is still also triggered by food.
This is the last remnant of true prey mode left from the domestication process.
For some individuals this part of prey is a lot stronger than the desire to
chase. I'd still speculate however, given that our dogs are well fed, that the
enjoyment from food used in training is still based on the excitement of the
dog pleasing the pack leader and as such still constitutes modified play behaviour.
By switching our dogs to prey mode at the completion of an exercise we are
clearly displaying to the dogs that we are happy with them. This lack of confusion
is why dogs trained in this manner are a lot happier in their work and have
improved handler bonds over the more institutionalized systems.
It is
also important to note is that whilst a dog can only operate in a single mode
at a time, the influences on a dog in one mode can effect the threshold of
another mode. This does not imply that one mode or another is consistently more
important to the dog, rather that a dog controls the thresholds of each mode to
suit the individual circumstances it is currently in. In obedience heeling
exercises, we use the social mode to increase the threshold of triggering the
prey response. This allows us to hold the dogs focus on the task at hand
until we release it at the completion of the desired exercise. If a prey object
such as a retrieval toy is used as the motivator for the dog to respond we use
the social mode, which is our position with relation to the dog in the
hierarchy to stop the dog from switching to prey mode until we release the dog
by throwing the article for it. In such circumstances, the dog must raise the
threshold to achieve the results desired by a superior before being able to
switch over to prey mode and play with the prey object the way it desires. This
is copying the method used by pack superiors in wolf packs to hold younger,
lower ranked dogs from spoiling a planned stalk.
This
is as close to setting the thresholds as we can come, but it is still a
judgment call from the dog, which actually sets the threshold. We show our
disappointment if they get it wrong by withholding the reward and making the
dog go through the exercise again. This way the dog soon learns to wait
until it is allowed to switch, this is true control. We have all seen dogs
that have low thresholds unable to complete the scenario given. The handler is
unable to switch the dog to social mode where by he can control the dog. In
such cases, the handler must look to ways in which he can maintain the dog in
social mode when the prey object is in sight. This is achieved very gradually by
withholding the reward from the dog until he has remained in social mode for
gradually increasing periods of time. The dog learns to heighten its threshold
or the reward will not be made available. This principal is identical to that
of a wild dog attempting to elicit play with a superior of the pack, it must
observe all the correct social forms so as not to infer a challenge to the
superior and evoke a corrective response from him.
This
also highlights why punishment of a forceful nature is ineffective in dealing
with many canine behavioural problems. The dog in social mode is under our
effective control, or at least is in the correct mode for us to obtain
effective control. If we generate fear in the dog, subject to the dog's
threshold at that point, we risk a defence reaction. If the dog is in prey or
social modes and it has a low threshold for defence any incidence of fear being
felt by the dog can result in a defence, read aggressive, response. We as
handlers have caused this situation; it is not necessarily the fault of the
dog. We have been unable to effectively communicate our desires to the dog
in a non-threatening manner. If trainers persistently facing this problem
were to use the prey mode as a reward for concentration of the dog in the
social mode, the withholding of such a reward is more than enough punishment
and more importantly is effectively communicated to the dog.
In
extreme circumstance, the ultimate punishment is to banish the dog from the
packs security. No dog is truly comfortable when it is in complete isolation
from its peers, be they human or dog. This measure conveys unambiguously to the
dog that its behaviour will not be tolerated and if it continues its presence
is not wanted. The dog's innate need for security is how we should control
our dog, using the social mode reinforced by the medium of prey play as a
reward for correct behaviour. This is easily understood by the dog and
limits the chances of defence modal reactions. This approach directly mimics
the approach used by our dog's wild ancestors and a result it is readily
understood.
It
should also thus be apparent that any move towards correction can only be
achieved successfully after the dog has switched to social mode.
This is vitally important when the dog is in defence mode, as punishment
applied to a dog, which remains in this mode, will most likely lead to greater
aggression being shown. If the dog submits it has not necessarily moved back to
social mode, it may simply choose to avoid the confrontation by acting
submissive and yet remain firmly in defence mode. The dog’s action immediately
after will largely demonstrate which mode it is in and if the punishment has
been understood and accepted. An example is that a wolf may submit to a bear to
avoid a confrontation, this does not imply to the wolf that the bear is its
superior, rather it is simply bigger and stronger. Handlers using force to
obtain results from their dogs are simple creating the same scenario; the dog
avoids a confrontation by acting submissive it has not acknowledged the
handler's superiority. Dogs in prey/defence modes when corrected need to
understand that it is an issue effecting their security within the pack, if
they fail to understand this and feel fear they can also move to/remain in defence
mode and aggression can result. If a dog is consistently failing to obey the
commands of the handler, it is directly attributable to how the dog views the
handler in relation to its social position. Force will not necessarily
improve the handler’s position but a demonstration of the power the handler has
to control the dog, such as banishment, will. Remember that in a wild pack if
the pack leader only had physical force or aggression as its means of
controlling subordinates the whole pack would as a result of the fighting be
unfit to hunt, end result death to the pack. Posturing and withholding of
clearly understood rewards are how control is achieved. We as trainers need
to mimic this not compete against it.
Modal
theory allows dog trainers to use the emotional reactivity of the dog to
effectively educate the dog in a manner that is clearly understood. The
succinct way in which information is presented to the dog and the handlers
ability to manipulate the dogs emotional reactivity to insure that the dog is
in the best state of mind emotionally to receive and process this information
increases the likelihood of the dog being effectively taught. This theory
also insures that the rewards system required for operant conditioning to be
effective is also clear and uncomplicated. This too in an operant
conditioning framework increases the likelihood of desired behaviours becoming
permanent.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Copyright 2001 Iain
MacDonald, rrenroc@bigpond.com.au. All
rights reserved.
Return
Home