MODAL THEORY
Part Two: Operational Descriptions of the Modes
By Iain
MacDonald
Introduction
This section deals with what each of the modes actually are and
what their triggers are. To implement this theory it is vital that this section be clearly understood. As modes act to
prioritize information, knowledge about each mode and the ability to determine
what mode the dog is in at any particular time is necessary for effective
communication. Each of the three modes
has particular relevance to the canine education process. Prey mode is the
primary rewarding and stress reducing; Social is the mode in which control over
the dog is attained and Defense is the mode from which all non-psychotic
aggression is enacted. Once the basic knowledge of what information is given
greater importance in each mode is understood, practical application of the
theory is easily mastered. In should go without saying that the information
which we want the dog to learn must be presented in the best possible manner.
Unfortunately many of the old dog training methods simple consist of telling
the dog what it is to do and then forcing it to adopt the behavior we want.
This type of training does not consider the cognitive abilities of the dog or
the receptivity of the dog to the information we are imparting.
Advances in the human educating process should be seen as proof
that we need to get the student motivated and enjoyably involved in the
education process. None of us like to learn something we consider boring or
irrelevant, a dog is no different. As with Human children the basis of the
dog's education process starts during the developmental period. With dogs of
course such a period is of a far shorter duration than its human counterpart,
which is one reason why such a vital part of the dogs like is frequently
overlooked until it has passed. All handlers must seek to involve their dogs in
the training process; it is simply not enough to expect the dog to be a passive
participant. If the dog is able to be trained using methods whereby the dog is
relegated to the role of a passive observer which, many are, it should be asked
just how much better the dog could have been if the dog was encouraged to be
involved in a more active manner. This very simple process is frequently used
to justify methods, which have over time been demonstrated to be less
effective. The aim of training should be to get the best possible performance
from the dog not simple to reach criteria where by the dog could pass a certain
test.
As discussed in the previous section the refinement of the modes,
drives and the thresholds form the basic framework for the effective
communication between the dog and the handler. To fully implement the
refinement process we must understand what each of the modes considers the most
relevant and what stimulus will allow the handler to effectively manipulate the
emotional status of the dog to insure it is in the best state to learn the
particular exercises we desire it to. This section will cover each of the three
main modes in detail, giving a number of practical examples to achieve this
aim. Such information, like the previous section should be applied during the developmental
stage to firmly entrench the stimulus we as handlers can instigate to
facilitate the activation of the mode we require. As stated this section
together with the previous one, must be thoroughly understood by any handler
attempting to instigate this system on education.
Prey mode
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 effect 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 problematic situations to best achieve the result it
desires. For example the raising and lowering of the threshold or trigger for a
desired behavior. 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.
Fox 1978,
noted that true prey behaviors in the domestic canine, such as prey catching,
killing and ingestion also had a
significant learned component and that frequently, when compared to hybrid
dogs and other canids, domestic canines showed a tendency to engage in play activities
with prey species. Fogle 1990, in
a number of different contexts frequently mentions this retention of infantile
behaviors. It is put forward by both Fox and Fogle that such infantile behaviors could be regarded as having been specifically
bred for during the domestication process. Should this lead to a renaming
of the prey drive to the play drive? No, whilst many areas covering all three
modes can be impacted on in the prey mode it still does retain the primary
function of being the mode in which hunting is carried out. It is also fair to
say that the dogs who have high to extreme prey drives
are also usually very effective in the more natural hunting activities.
Scott and Fuller
1965, frequently made mention of the importance of play in the
psychological development of the dog. Subsequent research by many others has confirmed this most important part of the
pup's development. There is however a lot of misunderstanding as to what is
appropriate play for the domestic canine to be
involved in with its human owner. O'Farrell
1992,
suggests that tug of war playing is best avoided especially if it is with an
innately dominant dog. This is not supported by this theory as if the play is controlled by the human it
is in effect causing the dog to switch from prey to social mode which is highly
beneficial for treating dominance disorders in dogs. Rogerson 1998 adopts a
stance, which is more consistent with this theory as the use of social position
is utilized to obtain control of the dog in a heightened state of arousal. Fox 1978,
suggests that through play the dog
learns its physical and mental limitations and those of whom it engages in play
with.
This is fundamental to the practical applications of this theory. By engaging in play we can consistently
and positively reinforce human dominance over the dog in a non-stressful and
non-forceful manner. O'Farrell's position however is understandable if we
consider than the majority of dog handlers have difficulty remaining consistent
in the rules they apply to their dogs. It is easy to see by taking the
information from Fox and re-examining O'Farrell's position that, if an owner is not consistent, an innately
dominant dog would be able to derive information about the human which could be
used in a future dominance challenge. The fault however is not with the
type of play rather the consistency of which the rules of the game are applied.
But this does not detract from the fact that the use of play and the subsequent
refinement of the modal switching performance are still the best way to
constantly reinforce the handler's dominance over the dog.
Especially in light of a dominant dog it should be stressed that correction for undesirable play behaviors
should be a recommitment from the human play partner that they control the game.
The only alternative to using prey/play as a medium which dominance can be
easily and consistently applied is to use force to dominate the dog. This is
more fully covered in another area of this section of the theory but it is by
no means as effective as the prey to social modal switch. O'Farrell does not in
her work actually cover a practical alternative; rather it is suggested that
ignoring the dog should be the method of choice for correcting undesirable
behaviors. This is simply not practical in the majority of situations
encountered during the training of the dog. In fact it could be suggested that
such an approach whilst having some limited applications could be detrimental
to the longevity of the social bond if overused and could foster a more
independent attitude in the dominant dog. The most effective form is to end the
game and leave the dog alone to consider what has happened. This does use the
ignoring treatment suggested by O'Farrell, but it is not so much that the
handler is ignoring the dog which in practice has the beneficial effect rather
it is the handlers ability to end the game and stop it from recommencing which is
the true demonstration of dominance. If this is consistently applied it will
curb the desired behavior and elevate the social stance of the human concerned.
This is achieved without placing any pressure on the dog; it is its choice: either play by the rules of the game or its
social superior will not engage in play activities with it. The difference is
between this stance and that suggested by O'Farrell may be subtle but they are
never the less still apparent. In O'Farrell's position, it requires the dog to
adopts a passive wait and see position where by the owner when they feel like
it will invite the dog to play. In the position of this theory the dog can
choose not to break the games rules, rules which are laid out by the dominant
superior, the dog uses it own cognitive abilities to decide to obey and
acknowledge the social superiority of the handler.
This is not to say that the dog is operating in two modes
simultaneously. It is not, play is carried out in prey mode and the dog is
switched from prey mode to social to be corrected. When an owner enforces rules from a position of dominance the dog's
threshold for social drive is activated. Play ends and control begins. This
again refers to the refinement of the dogs switching abilities as described in
the previous section. As stated a dog can switch back and forward between modes
very rapidly and does so in the natural course of events. Finally on this point
Fox 1978 stated
that it is through play behaviors that social behaviors are learned at least in
part in the domestic and wild canids. Such research
provides a very strong argument that it is through the controlling and
stylization of the games we play with our developing dogs that the basis of our
very control over these same dogs is achieved. This clearly mimics the natural
behaviors of other wild pack type canids and as such
is an easily applied and more importantly readily understood means of achieving
social dominance without resorting to force.
Of greater concern in play behavior leading to behavioural
problems is the loss of control by the
owner in other areas, which do not involve a direct challenge. Actions such
as keeping's off, where by the dog runs away with the toy and won't bring it
back to the handler have far greater significance to the dog exploring the
weaknesses of its human playmate. If a dog is engaging in such behavior it
needs to be brought back into social mode which by the very rules of this game
will be difficult if the dog is at liberty. But the punishment should be the
same and that is if the dog won't play
by the superiors rules then play stops, but only
after the toy has been taken from the dog. A dog which is the instigator of the
play is also of greater concern pertaining to dominant behaviors. O'Farrell 1992,
recognizes this point in her work. If
such a situation is paired with a de-motivation to play when the human partner
elicits such the dominance structure is already demonstrating a bias towards
the dog. This is clearly demonstrating an imbalance in the way the dog has
been handled and serious social work with a prey reward for successful working
performance is an excellent readily understandable and relevant solution,
providing that such types of games have the dog still remain clear within the
boundaries set down by the handler.
When in prey mode the dog will give relevance to environmental
stimulus based on what information is stimulating for this modes innate drives
and the degree of development of these said drives. Stimulus for prey will
always involve activity, be it strong or attractive odors which lead to
investigation and area searching, rapid sideways movement, a play bow which
elicits a game with a peer or social superior. All the triggers of this mode
refer to activity and usually high level and exciting activity. This can be a
difficult situation for a handler to remain in control within, again giving
further evidence to the need to strongly establish a low social threshold when
engaged in prey mode behaviors.
Frequently handlers will mention that when their dog sees a cat or
a rabbit that it will not listen. This scenario is equally seen in dogs, which
have a high level of obedience training. It is not a disobedient reaction from
the dog, nor is it a failure of the dog to recognize the wishes of its social
superior. It is that such information is given such a low priority with regards
to the current activities the dog is engaged in. The fault is with the handler
and not the dog. If the refinement of the threshold for social mode had been
correctly achieved then the dog would readily understand and more importantly
obey the directives given. In human terms we have a very clear example, try
talking to a person who is really involved in the activity they are completing,
such as watching a final in a sport they actively support. In the majority of
cases what you say will not be comprehended and possibly not actually heard.
Does this mean that these people who may be your children or work subordinate
are failing to acknowledge your superiority, of course not. At that specific
moment in time their brains are focused on a specific set of environmental
stimulus and what you have to say especially when not relevant to the activity
they are engaged in simply is not given sufficient priority to impact on their
current activity.
Prey type play to a dog is a stronger attractant than most other
environmental stimuli. As a result dogs which have high innate potential within
this mode will frequently have very low thresholds for prey and very high
thresholds for the other modes. The dog needs to be brought into balance and
this is achieved through correct prey play with the dog having to frequently
switch to social to demonstrate submission so as to be allowed to continue to
play.
If we look at the training methods used to teach a dog the call off
from attack in the French ring program we can clearly see the power prey
rewards have to offer. In the exercise mentioned the dog is engaged initially
in prey mode to effect the chase. Its fun and the dog
goes out very fast, as the dog nears the decoy the dog switches to defense to
effect the aggression required. At a distance, which will be covered in
seconds, the dog must switch back to social to effect
the call off without touching the decoy at all. This distance is frequently
less than 2m. At this distance and with the speed the dog is traveling at the
dog has its mouth already open to effect the bite. The
rules for French ring are very specific the dog must return to the handler at
the same peed as that which it went out to attempt the attack.
This is achieved by the dog when training having a prey play reward
with the handler for a clean call off and rapid return. In effect it is the
perception of the dog that it is about to have a chase with the decoy and
subsequent attack which provides the motivation for the dog to leave the
handler at a fast pace. It is fair to suggest that a similar motivational
response must be attained to achieve a comparable return. So in training the
dog is taught that a call off command becomes a trigger to switch to social
mode but it also gives the dog the invitation to return to the handler and
begin to play with its social superior which with regards to the dogs own
dominance position is far more beneficial than attacking a unknown decoy. Now
the dog’s perception is that its social superior wants to display its
appreciation for the dogs efforts in driving off an
intruder by engaging in play, this not only is fun but clearly shows all
concerned that the dog is highly favored by its social superior. For those
readers not Familiar to the French system the call off from attack is not
performed at a specific stage in the program, a handler is informed by the ring
assistant after the dog has been sent that this flee attack will be the call
off. Also the decoy is still moving, unlike some other systems he does not
stand still to lessen the motivation to attack.
This same highly beneficial reward system can be put in place in
far less demanding circumstances. The obedience dog can be taught that its
reward for prolonged concentration to the boring and mundane activities
required for most obedience titles will be play as soon as each specific
exercise is termed over. When obedience trials are observed frequently seen are
the dogs, which are so over trained that their reactions are almost robotic.
These poor dogs have done and redone exercises over and over again with
presumably the ubiquitous pat on the head being considered to be sufficient
reward. In fact to most of those dogs it is the end of the session, which is
the real reward. Yet more and more we are now seeing bright happy dogs which
are competing at high levels of competition, a far more pleasant sight. All of
these dogs have one very important thing in common, at the completion of the
exercise as directed by the judge the dog is actively encouraged to play with
its owner. Not only does the owner have a more attentive and responsive dog
which is actively using its own brain to assist the handlers
desires but it becomes an enjoyable pass time for both handler and dog. This
improves the social bond, reduces stress on both participants and facilitates
the kind of relationship every true dog owner wants with their dog. It is
difficult to understand why apart from sheer habit other less effective means
of reinforcement are still used.
Herding dogs are another high level example of prey work. Here the dogs drives have been specifically selected not to include
those prey killing behaviors, a monumental feat in itself but watch the level
of control a top level handler has over a dog working at great distances from
himself and frequently on the other side of a herd/flock. Again the dog in this
instance is operating on prey but still maintaining a low social threshold so
as to facilitate the orders of its social superior. This would have to be as
close as we get to coordinated pack hunting with our dogs. These dogs are not
only expected to listen to all commands given by their handlers and to obey
those commands instantly but they must also exercise their own judgment and
work with their own initiatives.
Herding is now becoming a popular event with the exhibition dog
community and the respective Kennel bodies should encourage this. The benefit
of handlers having to work with their dogs in a situation where force is totally
counter productive is one which should be fostered and encouraged at all costs.
It is usually only true prey type behaviors such as searching, tracking and
herding and their exhibition classes where a handler cannot use force to obtain
a passing performance. Obedience, agility and lower level protection exercises
can all be taught using forceful means but if force is attempted in the three
prey type fields mentioned the handler is almost guaranteed to not get a
passing score.
Why? This theory puts forward the proposition that if the dog is
consistently corrected using force or perceives that it will be that it is
impossible for that dog to actually remain in prey mode. As stated a dog cannot
be in two modes at any one time so if the dog is feeling constant stress or
anxiety with relation to the issue of its security within the pack then it will
be in social mode. The activities required to obtain a pass clearly rely on the
dog exercising its own initiative and processing information from its
environment, which is relative to the task being asked of it. This it cannot
complete if due to its emotional state of mind it is prioritizing information
on its social superior's behavior in order to try, admittedly unsuccessfully
not to get into trouble. In short due to the dogs priorities being
security/pack orientated the information relevant to the prey actions the dog
has been asked to be involved in are actually given a lower priority.
Social Mode
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. Freedman, King and Elliot 1961, and
Scott and Fuller 1965,
demonstrated that if human contact is a
part of the pups environment in the first twelve to fourteen weeks of its life
it will socially interact with humans. Further studies by Woolpy 1968, Fox 1971, 1978 and Dehasse 1997 further support
this concept and add that ongoing
contact is still required to maintain the social bond. Appleby 1997 puts forward
the supposition that breeders are still
largely unaware of the harm they are doing by allowing older pups to go into
the pet market which have not had sufficient social and habitual
interaction with a stimulating environment. This would certainly seem to be the
case despite all the published works on the subject. O'Farrell 1992, suggests that although the dogs
concept of social relationships is similar
to the human view it is different enough to allow for misunderstandings to
occur. This specific issue is one, which this theory hopes to address.
The comments of Appleby
1997, about the need to
socialize and habituate a pup to various environmental stimuli are vital for a
truly successful relationship with a dog. His work added further weight to
the positions of earlier researchers. Discussed latter in greater detail but it
is pertinent to mention this in this section. Just as the prey drive is
impacted upon during the early weeks of a pup's life so is its social drive. If the dog is not exposed to a stimulating
environment when young the purchasers of the pup are facing an up hill battle
that very few are capable of winning without professional assistance. One
of the problems frequently seen is whilst the pup has received adequate
socialization, i.e. has spent time with people in its formative weeks it lacks
exposure to a wide variety of environmental stimuli to be able to lead a life
in the human world. It should be remembered by looking at the works of Mech 1970, Fox 1971 and
Zimen 1981 that this distrust of environmental factors
previously unknown is a survival instinct of non domesticated canids which is still present in some form with our domesticated
species. Systematic desensitization as put forward by Appleby 1997 is the best way
to overcome this largely genetic trait.
All control
exerted by the handler is achieved through social mode.
Control is defined for the purposes of this theory as the ability to change a dog's behavioural
action through the recognition of a pack superiors direction. 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 acknowledging the handler's social
superiority attains the dog's compliance to such a request. The canine pack is a dominance hierarchy, yet it is not an autocratic
system. Lockwood 1979, in
studies of wolves, demonstrated that packs function in a less rigid manner
where different animals would assume the lead position subject to the
activities the pack was engaged in. This position is identical to feral dog
research done by Fox 1978, where the same
actions were observed. This would also be mirrored by the role of Police dogs who,
at times, take the lead or dominant role in certain situations. If the dog
failed to take the lead/dominant position it would require a command to come to
the defense of its handler or to effect an arrest
without command from its handler. It could not be said that this dog was being
territorial as frequently the dog will be on unfamiliar ground and just as
often working at reasonable distances from its leader. From such an example it
is fair to consider that domestic
canines have a similar view of the pack as their wild relations. This may
be a significant factor in why so many dogs owned by people who feel the need
to control every facet of their lives are frequently in need of behavioural therapy.
This point is worth expanding upon; a dog just like a human child
needs to make mistakes to learn. How it is corrected by its social superior for
these mistakes has a profound effect on its motivation to learn and its
relationship to its social superior and even its peers. Many different
leadership styles have been noted by wild canid
researchers and provided that the style of leadership (including disciplinary)
is consistently applied the majority of balanced dogs will adapt. This is given
by this theory as an explanation of why some dogs that are owned by abusive
handlers still remain totally loyal to their superior. It is not however seen
as the best alternative, but it does highlight the dramatically emotional
effect inconsistency has on the dogs well being. The whole concept of
leadership and punishment styles is discussed in greater depth in the next part
of this theory.
To consider social issues we must address dominance. The dominance potential of an individual is at
least largely genetic in origin, Scott
and Fuller 1965, Fox 1971,1978 and others. Environmental factors do impact on this
innate predisposition, Fox
1978, noted
that many pups reared in isolation lacked
the communicative skills to socially interact successfully with others of
the same age and species and that such interaction frequently ended in
aggression. This is largely the same situation in which humans and dogs develop
difficulties in their interspecies relationship, (inability to effectively
communicate). This supports the view of this theory that an approach to
educating a canine must have a strong basis in play (see prey mode section). If communication is unclear both humans and
dogs are left with what they perceive to be the intention of the other party.
It is worthy of note that a perception is, to the perceiving party real. With
in this theoretical framework the perception
of the individual will effect its emotional position and as a result which
emotional mode it is in. If the dogs perceptions are that it is under
threat aggression or avoidance are the most likely out comes. This is identical
to the reactions shown in Fox's research of dogs and other canids
reared in isolation and then introduced to their own and other canid species. Such animals had incomplete repertoires of behavior, caused by the lack of play,
to successfully facilitate social interactions.
The dog's innate need for
the security of its position in a pack is the emotional trigger for this mode.
A handler achieves this by exerting control in a non-forceful manner, which in the dog's perception,
failure to comply may jeopardize its position or even its continued existence
within the pack. This is not however
delivered as a threat; it is simply a fact of life and thus is how it
should be portrayed. To invoke a threat is to invite a fear based defense reaction, this must be avoided in all dogs and especially
those of a high innate dominant personality. To a dog a quite dominant presence
is all that is required. All too often people
believe that being dominant involves a significant degree of being loud and forceful, this
is not the case and in fact has in the main a negative reaction. O'Farrell 1992,
points out very specifically the power of avoiding contact. To a dog this is
one of the most painful things emotionally they can experience. In human terms
it is hard to define an example, a spouse or parent giving the cold shoulder is
as close as we can get. To the dog though it is a lot more as the effect is
felt very strongly but does not contain the resentment we, may feel if the
above example was applied to us. But simply avoiding contact is insufficient to
establish and maintain control.
Whilst the issue of using banishment as a punishment is discussed
in great detail in the next section it is relevant in this section to discuss
just how it effects the dog emotionally. When banishment
is carried out correctly it is done without fan fare and with out malice on the
part of the handler. The rule is simply if you don't work to my rules then I
don't want to be near you. This does impact directly on the dog's social mode.
Its position in the pack is in doubt as is its continuance with in that pack.
If the handler was to add aggression to the removal of the dog then a defense
or social avoidance reaction would take place and this must be avoided.
The ideal is to remove the dog as soon as it is consistently
refusing to accept the handler's higher social position. This as stated is done
without aggression and without interaction with the dog. The most successful is
to place the dog back under lead control with out calling it to you. The dog is
then transported to the place of detention without any further verbal
interaction and left. In the case of repeat offences then the dog is given a
longer time in isolation. It should be noted that kenneling with other dogs is
not isolation. The dog is to be deprived of all social contact. The duration of
the isolation is subject to the individual dog. Harder temperamented
dogs, i.e. of a more dominant nature will usually require a longer period in
isolation. Age of course is a significant factor; a young pup may only need an
hour or two to achieve the same result as an adult, which is isolated for 24
hours. Watch the dog for signs that it has learnt it did something wrong and
then release it from isolation with immediate prey or social play.
When this is established very early in the pup's life, the pup
learns that continual verbal correction will lead to banishment. This is
attained very quickly in the mind of the young pup as of course they at such an
age require the pack to provide protection. As a result the impact of
banishment is profound and must be monitored very carefully. The handler too
must consider that if the dogs are not comprehending what it is they are asked
to do then of course their will be need of frequent correction and in this case
banishment would have a negative effect. You cannot punish a dog especially
with a method which emotionally makes it consider that it ability to remain in
the pack at all is in doubt when it is simply a case of not understanding.
Banishment is best used then only when the exercise desired is known to the dog
and not when teaching a new exercise.
What is vital to instill and refine in the dog is that a social
trigger must over ride all other stimulus. In the case of dogs involved in work
which creates a high degree of excitement, such as herding or bitework this cannot be emphasized enough. It is also
fundamentally important that such a control trigger is instilled when the dog
is very young. In bitework in particular this is only
now being used as the older methodology was that you would stifle the dog’s
aggression if control work was done too early. This is simply not the case and
has resulted in very heavy-handed methods being required to attain a clean
release in bitework. If the developmental work is again
considered Fox 1978, clearly shows
that it is during the developmental stages when a pup learns the behaviors
which facilitate social interaction and that pups deprived in this area have
incomplete behavioural patterns. If the behavioural pattern is incomplete then we can expect either
resistance or other dysfunctional reactions.
By working control triggers side by side with defensive triggers a
more balanced dog is attained and the whole system is being developed to
respond instantly to a handler’s social superiority. This work should start
very young during the socialization stage and continue through the juvenile
stage. Attempting to refine emotional triggers in the older dog can be
successful but they do lack the instantaneous responsiveness of those who have
had the work done when younger. The basic philosophy is that as the degree of
heightened state of arousal increases so does the need for the control trigger
to be able to swing the dog back immediately to the social mode. Play is how
this is achieved. It is through the prey mode that we refine the dog's social
trigger. In this mode we can achieve high levels of arousal which the dog finds
enjoyable that are not dangerous to us or others and teach the dog clearly that
only when it responds to the social superior’s requests will it be allowed to
continue the game. If the dog is destined for defensive work once the control
has been established in prey mode it is easily transferred to the
defense/social trigger. This is then further reinforced by an immediate return
to prey to facilitate positive reinforcement.
The establishment and maintenance of the handler/dog social bond is
therefore of major importance in the education program of all dogs. As social
structure forms the basis of all control exerted over the dog It cannot be stressed enough how important it is that
breeders ensure that this structure is well established prior to the pup being
sold and that all new owners should be give considerable information on how to
improve this structure. (See Part 3.)
Defense Mode
Defense mode is
always responsible for aggression, unless such aggression is of a 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, it must be heavily stressed that the
fear need not be for the dog’s personal safety. Also when treating an
aggressive disorder care should be taken how such an explanation of fear is
made to the breeder, if such a consideration is not made it will be very
difficult to obtain the breeders involvement in the treatment. O'Farrell 1992,
raises this point and others when discussing the clients involvement
(attachment) to their dogs. A dominant
dog for example will switch from social to defense anytime it feels that its
position in the pack is under threat as it is fearful of the loss of station.
The clients considerations about fear aside, if the dog is demonstrating inappropriate aggression, which is not
psychotic, the causation of such aggression will be a fear based response.
Interestingly
to note is that nearly all forms of non-psychotic aggression noted by canine
research derive from a switch from social mode to defense mode. The
exception being predatory aggression required for the acquisition of food, even
fear has an element 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. The position on this is supported by research (Fox, 1978) which
demonstrates that whilst prey and
aggressive behaviors have distinct and separate motivators certain variables
may effect both modes equally or at least in a similar
direction. 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. In this manner the confusion mentioned by Fox might be avoided
and the safety aspects of such work improved.
Fogle 1990, and O'Farrell 1992 and
others frequently state that inappropriate
aggression is the most common reason for a dog to be brought to a specialist
for behavioural therapy. It is interesting to
note that such a disproportionate response is not noted in studies of wild canids. Mech
1970, Fox 1971, Lockwood 1979 and Zimen 1981 all have made
considerable references to aggressive behaviors of wolves in both social and
defensive situations. The absence of such behaviors with anywhere near the
frequency in wild canids would suggest either an innate predisposition or Freudian type defense
mechanism, Freud 1905.
This theory considers it to be largely a defense mechanism, which is more
frequently triggered in dogs, which have a higher innate dominance potential.
Freud's position is that such behaviors
are reactionary and designed to relieve anxiety. This would correspond with
the Fox 1978,
position on internal conflict within canids mentioned
earlier. Yet no real works sourced thus far covers this aspect. Lorenz 1966 and Fogle 1990 address aggression and over reactivity of same but
still fail to consider it in a Freudian framework. O'Farrell 1992 covers the topic in great detail as
well but fails to see the process as being an anxiety reducing action. It is
postulated here that such an inability
to consider the Freudian model is at least partially responsible for the
reasonably poor prognosis of the treatment of such disorders.
To consider the Freudian model in a canine sense we have to accept
that all non-psychotic aggression is motivated by fear. Fear whilst a normal and healthy emotion does cause an increase in the
anxiety level of the sufferer. In practical terms a dominant dog which has
usurped the pack leadership is by that action alone increasing its anxiety
levels. Being responsible for the welfare of the pack is a stressful business.
If this is added to inconsistent leadership of the handler anxiety levels are further
increased in the dog. By this it is meant that a dog which in its mind is
forced to take over the leadership on occasion due to perceived flaws in its
human handler and at other times forced to take a subordinate position is
suffering from significant inner conflict. On the surface this might appear to
correspond with Lockwood 1979's observations
of wolves. It is not the case. The fluid transitions displayed by wolves are
based on mutual benefit. The situation within a dysfunctional canine/human relationship
is not one of mutual consent rather one of ineffective leadership being
displayed by the human. These situation forces the dog to accept responsibility
as its very survival, in a canine sense is under threat. The implied difference is one of consent as compared to one of forced
survival need.
In the case of dominance aggression being shown by dogs it should,
as stated, be viewed as a fear based reaction. The dog is fearful for the
security and functionality of the pack. If it has attained the dominant
position it will also be fearful of the
loss of station. It may also be fearful
of punishment methods used by its owners as well as fearful of taking on the responsibility for the pack. All of which
combine to create conflict within the dog as depicted in Fox 1978. If such a
disorder is treated primarily by increasing the dominance level of the human,
it will be successful in some cases but is likely to reoccur as the same fears
to the dog resurface. This inconsistent
result mirrors the published works of O'Farrell 1992, Campbell 1975 and Fogle 1990.
Successful treatment will only be attained when the humans involved in the dog's life are able to relieve
the dog's anxiety in a more productive manner or to educate the dog in anxiety
relieving methods which are more socially acceptable. To achieve this, the
owner needs to understand his or her own shortcomings as a pack leader. The
owner must exercise a greater degree of
consistent leadership, communication between dog and owner must be addressed
and improved, relative and reasonable punishment must be implemented and the
dog must be taught what its responsibilities pertaining to the pack actually
are. Experience with the use of this theory has demonstrated that provided
the owners are prepared to remain consistent permanent results can be attained
in every case. In the initial stages the owners must be sure that they are not
placed in situations whereby environmental factors can combine to demonstrate a
lack of control, but once the respective
stations are firmly established normal life events have no impact on the
permanence of this therapy.
Also worthy of note is the means of which desensitization training
is undertaken. Dogs which are fearful of environmental stimulus do, as Appleby 1998 suggests, benefit
from desensitization. The most common problem associated with this is the
degree of anxiety the dog feels during the desensitization process. If the dog
is highly anxious at the time the desensitization is being carried out it will
have no positive benefit and is likely to lead to increased defensive
behaviors. An example would be a dog, which is fearful of crowds, if such a dog
was forced to continually confront crowded situations its fear of such stimuli
is likely to be increased as it, still has no outlet for the anxiety it feels.
There is also a definite possibility that the social bond between the dog and
the handler could also be eroded in this process.
A dog under the influence of fear must have this fear relieved to a
degree where by cognitive functioning is no longer impaired and that it can in
begin to develop more rational means of lowering its anxiety. Handlers all too
frequently reinforce avoidance behaviors during desensitization. Fogel 1990, O'Farrell 1992 and others.
When a dog is demonstrating a dysfunctional avoidance response the most common
mistake is for the handler to try to calm the dog and reassure it. This should
never be done as from the dog's perspective the pack leader is approving of the
behavior it is exhibiting. In the wild species of pack forming canids the pack leader would ignore such behavior totally
and human handlers must mirror this approach. If the handler is not anxious
about the stimulus and adopts an attitude of indifference then the dog has the
ability to make the assumption that as the pack leader is responsible for the
welfare of the entire pack their really cannot be a threat. This may seem to be
far fetched to some but it is a clear example of how the dog will use its own
cognitive abilities to overcome dysfunctional behaviors.
The difficulty in rectifying excessive defensive reactivity is the
handler needs to have the ability to read the emotional status of the dog and
to evaluate the dog’s anxiety level. Evaluation of the anxiety level is best
achieved by looking for definitive signs that cognitive functioning is
beginning to be impaired. If the dog were failing to recognize known commands
or even the handler's social position then it would be fair to say that a
chemical imbalance is in effect blocking successful cognitive functioning. When
this is occurring it is vital for the dog to have its anxiety level reduced and
it would also be a good indicator that too high a level of stimulus has been
allowed to successfully complete desensitization training. If on the other hand
the dog is acting avoidant but is still responsive it can be assumed that the
right level of stimulus has been attained to facilitate desensitization work.
Once the correct level of stimulation has been achieved the dog's
anxious state needs to be reduced. Again prey play is the most effective means
of achieving this. If the dog is engaged in prey play with its superior it
cannot experience anxiety and also clearly demonstrates to the dog that the
handler, it’s superior, doesn't consider the stimulus to be of a fear-worthy
nature. This has a massive anxiety reduction benefit and when successfully
applied allows for rapid desensitization. Dogs, just as with humans will not
engage in play in situations where they are actually under threat so logically
if with the stimulus present a game can and is enacted then the stimulus cannot
be of great concern.
If the dog has been over stimulated the dog must be moved away from
the stimulus until it is seen that cognitive functioning is no longer impaired.
When this is achieved the above information is applied and over time the
distance from the stimulus to the dog is decreased with a constant vigil
maintained by the handler to keep the dog’s anxiety level within the bounds
whereby cognitive functioning is not impaired.
The understanding from trainers that it is not the fearful
situation that needs to be treated but the resultant anxious state is a
situation which hopefully will improve as more trainers adopt methodologies
which consistently cater to the dogs cognitive functioning. This will lessen
the damage done by well meaning persons who believe the best way for the dog to
overcome its anxiety is to be surrounded or flooded with the fearful stimulus.
It also must be noted that in some cases this treatment is successful but in
practical terms it has done more damage to dogs than it has done good and has
frequently resulted in a dog moving from a defensive avoidant position to one
of overt aggression. The fault in this case cannot be the dogs, if it cannot
flee from a fearful situation it must for its own preservation adopt a more
aggressive position in the hope that in doing so it will ultimately either be
left alone or create an opening whereby escape from the stimulus is possible.
This whole situation is frequently misinterpreted as poor
temperament. Dogs with low defense threshold are not poor temperamented
dogs as a rule rather they are poorly handled by people who don't understand
that the dogs emotional triggers are unbalanced and
that the dog is actively seeking a reduction in its anxiety level. When this
situation is allowed to continue a maladaptive or more permanent response is
likely to be established which is similar to that of a genetically fearful dog.
Dehasse 1997 has written
extensively that in his opinion fear is a learned response, which has little or
no direct genetic link. This is disputed by the majority of research completed
thus far but it would be fair to state that truly genetic fear would be a very
rare event as in the majority of cases significant environmental situations
which have reinforced the dogs fearfulness have
occurred. Such influences in Dehasse’s opinion
include maternal imprinting from excessively fearful dams, which is given as
the reason for the appearance of fearful lines. If further research bears out
this point it would be in breeders best interests to ensure that regardless of
the dogs desirable attributes bitches displaying excessive reactivity are
removed from breeding programs. If such a line was of vital importance then
only males should be considered for inclusion in a breeding program as they
cannot under normal husbandry practices imprint these behaviors onto their
offspring.
Copyright 2001 Iain
MacDonald, rrenroc@bigpond.com.au. All
rights reserved. THIS MATERIAL
IS SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT. No portion of this material can be copied in any form
without the written express permission from the author.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Return Home