Modal Theory
Part Three: Implementation of the Modal System
By Iain
MacDonald
Introduction
Within this section we seek to explain the basic roles and needs of
the canine and human parts of the partnership. Consideration of the dog, its
early experiences, and innate potential are required to insure that this theory
is effective in educating dogs. No one method will work on every dog. The modal system is a system rather than a
method. It allows for the use of many traditional methods to be tailored to
the individuality of the dog to attain the behavioural
responses desired. Whilst traditional methods are still largely used the modal
theory uses them to attain higher results due to improved communicative abilities
between the dog and its handler. When considering the owner the emphasis will
be placed on knowing who you are and how the dog perceives you, ways to ensure
communication is effective, anxiety reduction techniques and how to build the
social structure with your dog.
All breeders are urged to become familiar with the research done on
canine development. This paper is not
the correct forum to go into enough specific detail on the subject but this
does not lessen its importance. The canine education process will begin as
soon as the each of the dogs senses begin to operate will. As the dog is born
with tow senses operating, touch and smell, this means that the impact of the
dog environment will begin to interact with its innate potential from the day it's
born. Breeders to the detriment of the dog frequently overlook this area.
Further senses, being sound and sight come into being between two and three
weeks and at this time it is vital that dogs begin to experience stimuli in
these areas as well. This is not adequately achieved in a kennel environment
without significant input from the breeder. Fox
1978 did a large body of research in this area and makes suggestions as to
what is considered to be the minimum stimuli to be introduced to the dog.
Practical experience of the author suggests that even more and varied stimuli
should be used to achieve the maximum potential from the dog. Easily read
literature on the subject is available and specifically recommended reading is Fox 1971 Understanding Your Dog and Fogle 1990 The
Dog's Mind and O
Farrell 1992 Problem Dog.
The Attitude of the owner once the pup has been homed is also of
great importance. All owners will interact with their dogs differently and will
have at least a degree of expectation of what their dogs will be. This may be
they want a show dog or a working dog or even as simple as a family companion.
These expectations will play a significant role in how they interact with their
dog and as a result will effect the developing
personality of the dog, some times for the good and other times not so good.
This again emphasizes the need to take care in choosing the right dog for the
purpose you have in mind for that dog when it matures. It should also point out
that frequently owners do put a great deal of pressure on very young stock to
perform certain functions very early in life. This degree of pressure
frequently has the opposite effect to the desired one.
The interaction between the owner and the young dog is therefore
colored to a large degree by the early experiences of the pup and the owner's
attitudes. This system hopes to bring those two variables into a balance to
minimize stress on both parties and to maximize learning performance and
developmental potential
The young dog
As stated previously, much of the framework from which the dog
builds its behavioural patterns are developed during
the first 12-14 weeks of the dog's life. Appleby 1997, stated that unfortunately many
breeders are still unaware of the importance of this period in the pups life
despite the works of Freeman,
King and Elliot 1961, Scott and Fuller 1965, Fox 1971 and 1978, O'Farrell 1989
and 1992 and Dehasse 1997. To summarize
this work there are three main
developmental phases in dogs with depending on whose research is taken a
number of transitional stages. Neonatal (birth to 3 weeks),
Socialization (3 to 12 weeks) and Juvenile (12 weeks to maturity). Fogle 1990 stresses the
value of this research to dog breeders by making specific reference to Fox 1971 and how brain
development is impacted on by the environment in which the pup is raised. Fox
found that EEG readings demonstrated that pups exposed to mild stressors in the
neonatal and socialization stages matured
faster (mentally), fine tune the adrenal-pituitary system, and were better at
problem solving in latter life. Furthermore Fogle,
states that pups which undergo mild stressors in the neonatal period will have accelerated body growth, a reduction in
emotional over reactivity and possibly an increased resistance to certain
diseases. This emotional over reactivity is what in this theory is
described as low and unbalanced thresholds.
Fox developed a series of
stimuli involving touch, temperature fluctuations, clicking and strobe lights
as well as balance work. All breeders should
be aware of this work as it attempts to find the optimum levels of stressors to
improve canine development. It should also be noted that Fox did also find
that excessive stressors had a negative effect on development. In plain terms
we know from research such as that completed by Fox and others that the pup has
an incomplete sense of touch at birth and a developed sense of smell. This
would suggest that handling at a young age has definite benefits to the
developmental process. Short and frequent exposure to cold is also another
stressor, which has been found to be beneficial in very young pups. In the wild
dog the bitch leaving the den to feed and or relieve herself
would facilitate this exposure to cold. We can assist this process in our
domestic dogs by the use of a metal tray. If each pup is removed in turn from
the litter box and placed on this cold surface for short periods (30 sec). This
procedure can be repeated every second day for the same period and gradually
increased as the pup gets older. It must be stated though that this should not
be the only time that such young pups are handled or an unpleasant association
with handling could be formed.
Scent development can be begun right from birth. If the pup is
exposed to a wide Variety of smells especially during the first few weeks when
its other senses are not yet operational it has in practice had a beneficial
impact on the pups developing personality. Dogs are primarily scent animals; it
is without doubt their most developed sense and as a result will play a
significant role in the dogs perception of its
environment. It is for this reason that the more we can expose the dog to in
this area the better the dog will adjust to unfamiliar situations latter in
life. Of course a reasonable balance must be reached and the Author has found
in practice that introducing a single new scent each day to the pups during the
first two weeks is sufficient to have a beneficial effect. Such scents should
be of organic origin and are things which the dog is expected to come in
contact with. This scent work should always be a pleasant experience for the
young pup. The scent is introduced using a cotton bud, which has been saturated
by the scent, and this is positioned directly in front of the nostrils of the
pup. The pups should not come into contact with the scent receptacle and should
not be restrained. A pleasant stroking motion from the breeder is acceptable.
The range of scents which can be used is vast, various human scents, compost,
flowers, grass, other dogs, manure's of other animals, etc.
Between two and three weeks the other senses become more developed
and begin to impact on the development of the young pup. At this time sounds
and visual stimuli should also be added to the work on the other senses mentioned.
It is important to note that this is additional and not a replacement for the
previous work. Fox 1978 and O Farrell 1989 made specific reference to sudden and
sharp audible stimulus and flashing visual stimulus. Again it is suggested that
such stimulus should be of a short duration (30 sec to 1 min). This stimulus
should be additional to that which the pup will experience through the normal
process of its day. When ever possible such stimuli should occur when the
breeder is not perceived by the pups to be the direct cause. It is not
recommend to have stimulus present when the pups are
not being observed but it is not desirable for the pups to associate the
arrival of the breeders with different or possibly stressful fluctuations of
their environment. All stimulus which can be directly associated with the
breeders presence should be of a pleasurable nature so as to reinforce the bond
between human and dog.
Audible stimuli can be something as simple as a clicker used for
training. This is highly beneficial if the positive reinforcement of the
clicker can be established this early in life if this method of training is to
be used latter in the dog's life. If the dog learns at this age that this
audible cue is a prequel to a pleasurable experience it is very easy to
incorporate this method into a training program at a latter stage. In this
manner the clicking sound becomes classically conditioned in the same manner as
in Pavlov 1927. In
practice clicking is a good place to commence audible stimulation but should
not in anyway be considered to be the only desired stimulus. Like all stimulus
added to the pups environment it should begin gradually and increase slowly
over time to include all kinds of stimulus which the dog may be expected to
encounter in normal life, or more correctly in the life the dog is destined to
lead. This particular point is very important when matching a pup's early
experience to the owner's expectations of the pup's future role. In the case of
a working Police dog for example they should have been exposed to a wide and
diverse range of stimuli which could possibly invoke a fear response in an
unexposed animal. This early systematic desensitization will refine the dog's
reactivity so early in life that it is far less reactionary to such stimuli
latter in life.
Visual stimulus can begin with the strobe lights, which Fox
suggests, and then progress to other means such as rapid moving objects,
brightly colored objects, and large and/or oddly shaped objects. Again this
work begins slowly and gradually increases in intensity and duration as the
pups are desensitized to such stimulation.
By the time that the pups are 4 weeks such enrichment of their
environment can now begin to combine two or more of the dog’s senses. The use
of a lawn mower or line trimmer will activate visual, audible and scent
receptors as will vacuums or other appliances commonly found in the average
home. Television is also useful as it provide sound and strobe like pictures.
By the time the pups are at this stage exposure of 5 to 10 minutes daily to
such combined sensory stimuli should be sufficient. It is advised that such
stimulation be performed on pups, which are isolated by themselves, as well as
when they are with their littermates. Observations of the pups as individuals
and as a group will give the breeder strong indications as to the pups
developing personality which will assist in matching the pups up to the most
appropriate owners.
At 5 weeks the motor coordination of the pups has developed where
by they can now be exposed to other stimuli which are more of a problem solving
nature. The use of a scaled down agility course is particularly useful here, as
it will improve the dog's confidence in itself as well as providing improved
coordination. Items such as ramps, walks, seesaws, ladders and the like can all
be used. It is not advisable to include jumps as the pups skeletal development
is not sufficiently mature to accommodate the jarring on landing. Unstable
footing is also highly useful and can be as simple as a tarpaulin stretched
over a frame, this is perfectly safe for the pup but it moves and required
constant balance for the pup to remain upright. The author also agrees with Fox 1978, that it is
beneficial for the pups to be exposed to stimuli, which impacts on their depth
perception. The use of fine wire mesh or Perspex as a walk from a raised
platform facilitates this.
By the time a pup is 8 weeks old it should have been exposed to
virtually all the environmental influences it will be expected to come across when
it arrives at its new home. Many breeders also make a huge point of not
exposing pups to strange people until they have had all their inoculations.
This is a grave mistake as by the time that this has occurred the attachment
periods of the pup’s life are concluded and unless the breeder has a large
family it is likely that the pups will not have had sufficient exposure to
people to form the bond with their new owners. The better compromise is that
after the pups have received their initial temporary inoculations that they
begin to socialize with people outside of the family and as frequently as
possible.
It is during the socialization period when most pups are taken to
their new and hopefully permanent homes. As this is defined as a critical
period in the dog's development there are many very important facets which need
to be addressed. Until this time of bringing the new pup home the prospective
owner is largely at the mercy of what the breeder has done, but with taking the
pup home the developmental process is now under their effective control. Appleby 1997,
defines the socialization process as: whereby
an animal learns how to recognize and interact with species with which it will
cohabit. This is a good working definition of what is meant by the term socializing
your puppy. Socialization experiences should not be limited to humans or dogs
but should include all species with which the dog is expected to live with or
tolerate. At the same time as socialization, as defined, is to introduce the
pup to environmental stimuli. This is referred to as either environmental work
or Habituation. Appleby defines this as: the
process whereby an animal becomes accustomed to non-threatening environmental
stimuli and learns to ignore them. Prior to the undertaking of work in this
area it is vital that a new owner understands what is occurring in the young
dogs mind.
Fox 1971
suggests that at the time most pups are placed in their new homes, the natural fearfulness inherited from the wild
ancestors comes into play. If the wild model were considered it is an
understandable adaptation as a fearless pup in the wild would not survive long.
Being suspicious of anything new in the environment is a survival need this
same need is innately present in the domestic dog. Through systematic
desensitization it is overcome, whereby the
dog is able to distinguish between non-threatening and threatening
environmental stimuli. Appleby
1997 suggests that approaches to socialization and habituation should
be addressed gradually and systematically.
The ideal situation would be one whereby the breeder has commenced a systematic
plan of desensitization and details of this plan are passed on the pups new owners for continuance and completion.
Unfortunately this is very rarely the case and the new owner will start out
with little advice and any mistakes made often have very long lasting results.
Woolpy 1968 and Fox
1978 also stress the fact that if such systematic desensitization is
not continued through the juvenile stage then regression to a more distrustful
approach can occur. Considering the huge amount of research done in this area
all with similar findings, it can be stated that without attention to providing environmental stimulation in the pups
critical and juvenile periods there is little chance of producing/owning a dog
which is able to tolerate stress and use cognitive abilities to problem solve
successfully on reaching maturity. It is important that these works are
clearly understood and again breeders are urged to read the specific scientific
studies in this area and have a thorough working knowledge of the subject.
Finally Dehasse 1997 indicates that
true genetically based fear is a rare scenario, in most cases deprived
environmental stimulation and/or maternal imprinting is the probable cause.
A workable solution for the new owner is that they should gradually
introduce the dog to all the situations they expect the dog to encounter in
their perception of what the dog's future role will be. This should still be
done gradually and with increased exposure over time. A new owner must begin to
read the emotional status of the dog and to insure as much as is possible that
the dog is never exposed to more stimulation than it can emotionally cope with.
An excellent indicator of a dog which is feeling anxious or stressed is if it
will not engage a known person in a game whilst in the presence of the
stimulus.
A dog which is
experiencing significant stress or anxiety is unable to function cognitively
during the time of such stress or anxiety at peak efficiency.
This is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, which effects
the brains transmission abilities. High levels of excitement induce a similar
state. These physiological functions provide further proof as to why such
environmental aspects as described above need to be addresses as a matter of
priority.
The Owner
How the owner interacts with the dog is also of vital importance to
create a strong and lasting partnership. When the pup is in its new home one of
the first issues which needs to be addressed is how the pup will be controlled,
i.e. rewarded and disciplined. This is frequently seen as a common problem in
dogs demonstrating dysfunctional behaviors later in life. This theory has very
few hard and fast rules of conduct but one is that an owner must use the least possible force to obtain a desired response
from the dog and when correcting the dog for undesirable behaviors. Control
has been defined as the ability to change a dog's behavioural
action. The basis for control stems from the social relationship between dog
and human.
Very little research appears to have been done on this subject,
possibly due to the insufficient take up on the huge amount of work done on the
early development of dogs. This is a shame as it would of course be the next
obvious step to take. Studies on human parenting however have significant
relevance to the human dog relationship. Izard 1991 suggested there were three type of attachment bonds, the
securely attached, anxious avoidant and anxious resistant. Detailed
examination of this study reveals distinct similarities in each type to
behaviors exhibited by dogs. Practical
experience also appears to support a direct transposition of this human
research to canine behavioural therapy. In short,
behavioural patterns identical to those mentioned for
each attachment type have frequently been seen for the same reasons in canine behavioural therapy.
Securely attached individuals seek the comfort of the owner when
needed but are more inclined to explore their environment, exhibit less anxiety
when left alone and appear happy to have contact on the owners return. Anxious
resistant individual do not explore their environments when in unfamiliar
surroundings, show significant distress when left alone and tend to act ambivalent
when the owner returns. Anxious avoidant individuals are relatively unattached,
exhibit little or no anxiety when left alone and show little response on the
return of the owner. It is obvious from the given examples that the most suitable is the securely attached.
Securely attached individual come from homes within which the owners are
responsive and sensitive to the needs of the dog. This does not however equate
to giving into the dogs every desire. Being responsive in a canine sense is
that in times of need the owner is there to provide support.
The ownership style has, as the above example suggests has lot to
do with the type of social bond created with the dog. Further human based
research, Achermann, Dinneen and
Stevenson-Hinde 1991, suggests that securely attached individuals have
been exposed to effective, unconflicted problem
solving behaviours which have fostered a sense of
trust and security. The other less desirable types demonstrate a greater
level of disobedience and resistance to authority due to a lack of unconflicted problem solving behaviors which has fostered a
lack of trust and security. Again this research is seen to have significant
relevance to the canine/human bonding process. Baumrind 1977 looked at
parental discipline styles and the effect it has on social relationships and
development of the human child. Three
broad styles were identified, Authoritative, Authoritarian and Permissive.
This too has relevance to the canine/human bond and in practice has proven to
transpose directly from human subjects to canine/human subjects.
Authoritarian control is considered to be the enforcement of set
standards of conduct with an emphasis on obedience and with the use of
punitive, forceful measures to enforce proper behavior. Authoritative control
directs behavior in a more rational fashion. Firm control is exerted with
attempts to convey the reasons why discipline is required. Permissive control
is affirming and attempts to consult about rules rather than requiring them to
be adhered to.
Authoritarian households typically produce dogs which are
conforming and submissive whilst young but may become rebellious and aggressive
latter in life, vulnerable to stress, moody, with a low defense threshold.
Permissive households tend to produce demanding, rebellious, impulsive,
domineering and aggressive individuals. Authoritative households foster
co-operative, self-confidence, and friendly dogs, which cope well with
stressors. In addition to these styles, the work of Patterson, Stouthamer-Loeber 1984
found in human studies that Authoritarian and Permissive type parents exaggerate the negative effects if they are
also cool and aloof towards their offspring. This provides a descriptive
model of the effect owners can have and as is suggested here, do have on the
social ability and development of their dogs.
In practical terms, related to canine/human relationships, authoritarian control is thought to exist
in the majority of older dog training methods. If the training calls for
continual physical corrections it would be fair to deem such methods as
requiring authoritarian control. Authoritative
control is thought to exist in the more modern methods of dog training,
whereby force is kept to a minimum and the dog is guided through the learning
process as opposed to being forced to comply. Passive control is thought to exist when an owner makes little or no
demands of the dog and the dog is largely allowed to behave as it sees fit.
This use of a type system does have drawbacks as it makes the assumption that
the owner will remain consistent to a single type. This is frequently not the
case and of all factors facing a dog owner
the subject of being consistent with their approach to the dog and its behaviour must be held foremost in an owners mind. This
point is stressed in the work of O'Farrell
1992.
Consistency
regardless of the control type does allow the dog to adapt.
Canines are highly adaptive but the constant need to adapt to ever changing
reactions will lead to a greater anxiety level in the dog. This can manifest
itself in many different forms but it would be fair to say that in behavioural
modification therapy that the majority of cases where professional help is
sought a significant degree of inconsistency from the handler has been
observed. This becomes a serious problem when coupled with the innately
dominant dog. A dominant dog will not continue to remain subservient under a
leadership, which is actively inconsistent. There are two main reasons thought
to be the cause of this. Firstly, the dominant dog will assess the inconsistent leader with regards to assessing for
weaknesses which can be exploited in a later leadership challenge. Secondly,
as the welfare of the pack as a whole is
perceived to be at stake a dominant dog will seek to depose an inconsistent
superior in order to insure the packs continuing survival. This second point
must be taken from the dog's point of view, in reality the household is in no
immediate danger but to the dog a pack is only as strong as its leader. The
biggest problem in attempting to explain this to the dog's owner is they
frequently take it personally, as an insult from the dog to themselves. It is
not the case.
To implement the theory of the Modal system an owner must remain consistently authoritative.
Force is kept to an absolute minimum and communication is kept as effective and
concise as possible. A securely attached dog operating under such a control
type should be the aim of all dog handlers. This facilitates the optimum
circumstances whereby the dog has the ability
to use its cognitive abilities within the emotional framework of the species.
It will have enhanced abilities to withstand stress and will as a result
perform consistently better in problem solving tasks. As a result such dogs are
less prone to over reactive emotionality and dysfunctional behavioural
actions.
A further consideration is what owner's project emotionally on to
their dogs. This phenomenae is covered very well in O'Farrell 1992.
Owners frequently project their feelings onto their dogs, this refers to a well
know psychological process where by the feelings of one individual are
attributed to another. A classic example was highlighted in O'Farrell's
research where it was found that dog owners with children tended to be less
attached to the dogs they owned than did people who had no children or lived
alone. It is argued that all dog owners project to some degree onto their dogs
it is what makes our own dogs seem special, this type of projection is usually
termed projective identification. This projection can also have its extreme
form which is all too frequently see at dog shows when a dog the owner feels
should have won is beaten. Interestingly and totally in support of O'Farrell's
work is that this same phenomena is also seen at human baby shows. This is
projective identification at a dysfunctional level; the owners have in their
own mind exaggerated the attributes of their dogs to an unrealistic level.
Projective identification is in the main a helpful process, it
provides owners with immense enjoyment of activities they engage in with their
dog which in reality are boring, repetitive and in some cases seemingly
pointless. Owner's feel that in obedience their dog is doing the exercises to
please them, they believe that they identify with how the dog is feeling, this
may be the case but it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Where
problems occur with projection is when the projector has made a wrong
assumption about the feelings of the other individual. This is quite easily done
with inter species projection as the observable behavior of another species can
be very misleading. The dog standing over a crying child is frequently
idealized as an expression of protective behaviour, in reality it is more likely the dog is expressing dominance.
If the owner of such a dog considered this behavior to be desirable serious
problems could result when in the dogs mind the child began to behave in a
manner which does not recognize its higher station.
O'Farrell being a clinical psychologist went further and found that
the early experiences of the owner's own lives impacted significantly on the
way in which they idealized their dogs. Those owners who had
less than desirable early experiences had a far greater incidence of
idealization with their dogs. Their dogs became a substitute for what
they had desired as a child, for example if their father had been cold and
aloof their male dog would be the substitute for the relationship they feel
they should have had with their father. Thankfully most dogs, especially those
that have been raised in an enriched environment can cope well with the
distorted reality their owner's project, but this is not always the case. The
author sees the incidence of dominance aggression in dogs with in modern
society as being at least partially caused by dysfunctional idealization.
If the owner has a distorted perception of the dogs actions it is
very easy for them to be reinforcing dominant behaviors through their
interactions with the dog, setting up a scenario where by a leadership
challenge by the dog is far more likely to occur. It is also noted in the
authors practical experience that frequently owners will tolerate overtly
aggressive behavior by describing it as a personality trait of the dog,
"its just how he is", " he does have his little games", or
"he's just in a bad mood today" are all expressions heard by the
author from owners of dogs who clearly have a distorted perception of what
their dog is doing. The famous Yorkshire vet "James Herriot"
in one of his books described two terrifying west highland white terriers which
would attack the vet whenever he came to visit and how the owners though such a
display was loving and playful. Whilst such an experience can be amusing when read in a book, the reality is not.
In practice such distorted views are more frequently seen in small
dogs, which is thankfully the case. A display such as described by Herriot would have been far less amusing if it had been
done by two St Bernard's or any other large breed. But within the context of
this theory the dogs displaying such behaviors must be experiencing fear to
display aggression. This can then hardly be considered to be an acceptable way
for these dogs to live and as a result should not be condoned or trivialized
due to the smaller stature of the dog. The fact is though that we do, it would
be a very rare case where a small dog is deemed dangerous and forced to be
confined or muzzled. In such cases it is usually the result of severe injuries
inflicted on a child. The fact that such a small dog has probably frequently
displayed aggression or even attacked an adult has been overlooked as being of
no major concern because it did little or no damage. If the same situation were
done by a large guarding breed there would be a public out cry if measures were
not taken to insure a repeat offence couldn't take place. The plain facts are
though that the dog is suffering anxiety and regardless of its size it needs to
be treated as a serious problem.
Such ambiguity is frequently used by the anti dog lobby as an
excuse for the banning or mandatory confinement of large guarding breeds. It is
the potential to do damage to an adult, which is then projected onto the dog to
create fear in the public. An aggressive display from a small terrier is often
seen as the dog having spunk or some other desirable attribute, if a German
Shepherd did exactly the same display it would be considered as proof that the
dog is dangerous. It must also be noted that the author has always owned large
guarding breeds and thus due to his own projections may have his objectivity in
this matter called into question. This having been said it would be a fair
statement that the owner of a small dog is far less likely to be put through
the courts over a dog attack than the owner of a large dog displaying exactly
the same behaviour. This lack of accountability
however though does not lessen the owner's responsibility for the damage they
doing to their dogs emotionally due to their dysfunctional projection.
Owner/Dog Interactions
The basis of owner/dog interactions is communication. Without
effective and concise communication the social bond with the dog cannot be
utilized as a means of control. Abrantes 1986
wrote extensively on the manner in which dogs communicate. Humans are primarily
vocal communicators; we have language, which enables us to express ourselves to
others of our species. Dogs of course do not comprehend human language, the
primary means of canine communication of their emotional state is visual, the use
of body language. Frequently an owner will consider that the dog understands
what is being said to it, this cannot be supported with any empirical evidence.
Instead the dog has learned by observing the owner what they are implying. As
this theory seeks to utilize the emotionality of the dog to modify behavior the
dog's body language is given a greater degree of importance in this paper.
Humans need to develop the ability to read the signals the dog is
giving with its body to gain a better understanding of the canine cognitive
process. It is beyond doubt that the dogs are attempting to communicate with
their owners, they are social animals where
communicative abilities are important for the survival of the species. Scott and Fuller 1965, Mech 1970, Fox 1971 and 1978, Fox and Cohen 1977,Zimen 1981 and Fogle 1990 all make specific references to the means of canine
communication. Such published reference provides a greater detail than is
available within this context and, as such this paper will limit itself to the
visual.
Each and every time the owner and dog interact, both parties are
attempting communication. Frequently when dogs are being trained the owners are
aiming for robotic type results which are not doing justice to their dogs.
Considering what has been written so far, a better approach is to engage the
dog in training activities whereby the dog itself is using its own cognitive
abilities to work to solve training problems and achieve the desired behavior.
Within this theory the most important aspects are to be aware of the signaling
for switching of modes and to be able to perceive the intentions of some basic
canine behaviors as a gauge to which mode the dog is operating in or if it is
experiencing stress.
Each and every training session must be a joyful occasion for the
dog. Forced learning will only lead to greater resistance and make application
of this theory impossible. Prior to beginning and education the dog must be
receptive and happy. Dogs express this status in a number of ways and familiarity
with the individual concerned is required for an accurate identification. Most
dogs will demonstrate attentiveness to their handlers, wagging tail, bright
alert facial expressions and a general state of excitement and expectation.
This should be perceived as a high state of social mode where by a switch to
prey is imminent. This is due to the dog's use of play to establish and
maintain social structure without the need to consistently use aggression.
The difficulty is that most training exercises require the dog to
remain in social for control/guiding purposes. The owner must establish that
whilst this activity is going to be enjoyable, they are in control. This is
easily facilitated using a verbal correction whenever the dog is switching to
prey or is loosing concentration. O'Farrell
1992 makes specific references to the dog displaying dominance by
initiating interactions with the owner. This information is certainly relevant
in this aspect. A dog that is, when undergoing obedience training which require the dog to remain in the social mode, continually
attempting to elicit a game is most likely expressing dominance. This is based
on the assumption that habituation and socialization training has been
thoroughly worked through or it could as simply be a state of over excitement
or even anxiety. It is also a very worthwhile test to see if the dog is the one
which always elicits the game; a dog that only wants to play when it chooses
the time and place is clearly dominant. If the dog, however, is always ready to
play, it is more likely an overly excitable reaction.
Only the owner is in a position to differentiate between the three
given possibilities. If the dog has had some training and particularly when the
dog knows the exercise the most likely causation would be a dominant stance. In
that case the owner should be communicating effectively to the dog that the
owner is clearly in charge. In most circumstances following advice such as O'Farrell 1992
will bring about the desired result. This advice is that the owner should
ignore the dog until it has completed a command. In practical terms the sit in
front has proven to be the most effective and is an exercise, which is easily
completed by a dog at almost any training level. The handler simply moves backwards
away from the dog asking it to come to them. When the dog does it is asked to
sit. If the dog fails to sit the owner gives a verbal correction and moves
backward again asking the dog to come and again sit in front. A few
repartitions of this are all that is usually required to get the dog to comply.
The owner can be sure that such an action by the dog is a clear
sign that the dog is in fact in social mode. Do not excite the dog at this
stage, calmly and quietly praise the dog, retain its focus on you and if the
dog breaks go back to the beginning by moving backwards and calling the dog to
come and sit in front. Of particular importance is that the owner does not seek
to punish the dog for its disobedience, in practice this is difficult for most
people to accept. The dog is in their perception ignoring their rights as a
superior and this is frequently the case but to gain control using force is in
most cases counter productive as the dog is avoiding a confrontation rather
than accepting the superior rank of it handler. A dog can achieve this and
remain in the social mode but if the punishment inspires fear in the dog then
the dog has switched to defense mode and true control cannot be attained.
This action is the first exercise taught to the dog in this
training system. It should be well ingrained in a pup as young as 8 weeks old.
It gives the owner the ability to gain the dog's attention and resume control
when control has been lost. Frequently seen when a dog has been trained under
this methodology is that if the dog becomes confused the dog will assume the
sitting in front position. If this happens the owner should take steps to
insure the dog understands what is being asked of it and not punish it. It has
become an action intended to communicate a state of emotion, it is not
disobedience; it does demonstrate that the dog is using its own cognitive
abilities to try to find a solution. The owner needs to look carefully at their
own communicative abilities and make adjustments to obtain comprehension from
the individual dog concerned. A break down in communication such as described
is frequently seen with handlers who have more than one dog. They usually have
one dog, which is very successfully trained and assume that all dogs will be
able to understand the education process in exactly the same way. They make no
allowance for the individuality of each dog. All research listed in this paper
clearly indicates that dogs are individuals which possess as many
character/personality/temperament types as do humans. It is therefore vital
that all training programs are continually revised based on observable
comprehension of the individual dog, which is being trained.
If when the handler moves forward the dog bounces out again this
exercise should be repeated until such time as the dog moves forward in a more
controlled manner. Do not over do it though; if the dog is worked (drilled) in
this exercise, the actions of the dog will become bored and robotic. This is
undesirable; we want the dog happy and attentive but controlled. The sit in
front facilitates a mild demonstration of dominance by the owner and yet is
unlikely to engage a defense reaction even from highly dominant dogs. In the
case of anxious or excitable dogs it requires them to remain calm and concentrate
which facilitates positive reinforcement of a desired behavior. In the case of
a young dog or any new dog, regardless of age, Sessions must be kept short. Five
to ten minutes on any particular exercises is the maximum time which the dog
should be expected to concentrate for. It is better to err on the short side
rather than aim for the perfect behavior and work the dog too long.
Play should always follow each and every training session. This as
stated previously has beneficial effects on the social bond between handler and
dog as well as making the whole training process far more enjoyable for the dog
in question. If the dog is prone to becoming bored easily then play sessions
can be included as rewards for concentration. Care needs to be exercised here
however as if the dog is over excited then its cognitive function will be
impaired as much as if the dog is experiencing anxiety. Again the chemical
balance in the brain reduces cognitive functioning and poor learning results.
It should be noted that whilst the effect on learning performance is similar as
in is detrimental to optimum learning performance it is a totally different
chemical imbalance and the two should always be differentiated as the solution
is very different when seeking to rectify the training problems.
As stated play during a training session is usually only used
consistently when working with young dogs, but occasionally an older dog will
need to have its mood lifted during a training session, play is how this is
best accomplished. Such a use of play is usually short term for the adult dog
unless it has be over-trained continually where by the whole concept of
training is perceived by the dog as repetitive and boring. In these cases the
use of play and a less rigid structure to the training program will attain the
desired attitude from the dog and lead to improved working performance. This is
due to the increased motivation; dogs like people are more likely to learn if
they feel motivated to complete the task at hand. When we look at the degree of
repartition involved in most of the exercises we ask our dogs to perform, the
actions themselves can hardly be considered to be stimulation or motivating to
the dog. By working for shorter periods and using a more diverse training
structure the dog remains stimulated and motivated, as a result optimum
learning performance is achieved.
This point is particularly relevant to those looking at competing
in organized obedience trials. These trails by there very nature
are not stimulating and repetitive. In the lower level classes we find a
higher proportion of dogs which are happily working and expressing the desired
attitude in their work. The work certainly is not of the standard seen in the
higher classes, but the dog's attitude is usually better. The repetitive nature
of the training is the reason why many of the dogs competing in the higher
levels are appearing robotic and generally uninterested in what they are doing.
The aim of the handlers should be to improve the dogs work performance without
reducing the dogs willing and happy attitude. Play and a varied program is how
this is best achieved. This becomes even more important when you look at the
areas in these higher classes where the dogs make mistakes, which results in a
failing score. In the majority of cases seen by the Author the dog would have
been less likely to make the errors if its motivation to work had not been
thoroughly trained out of it.
Heeling mistakes made in these higher classes are a classic
example. The dog is bored so it lags behind or is easily distracted the result
is sloppy work. Many trainers then attempt to fix the problem by increasing the
amount of heeling work they are doing or drilling the dog hard in heeling
exercises, this is fatally flawed as it doesn't come close to addressing why
the dog is making mistakes. The dog's contempt for the repetitive actions
required is hardly going to be improved by increasing the repartitions or by
applying a greater degree of force when correcting mistakes. The dog is still
bored and now would have even more unpleasant experiences to reinforce why it
doesn't enjoy training or trailing. The answer is to address the whole boredom
issue by making the whole process more stimulating and interesting, this will
increase the motivation of the dog and improve its performance.
A program, which is from the onset varied, tends to produce dogs,
which are more enthusiastic about their work, and as a result more motivated to
learn. They have learnt through their training program that exciting things
will happen. This is further reinforced during the course of their duties. If a
trainer incorporates agility, tracking, searching or even protection work into
their training program even when working with young pups they are more likely
to produce the desired work ethic. If Police dogs were taken as an example the
above statement would be seen to be true. A Police dog will frequently have to
work for up to 12 hours on a single shift, this will involve long stints of
heeling of a far greater duration than is ever called for in competitive
trials. If a police dog loses concentration, the police officer may be hurt or
the dog may miss a vital clue; as a result it is imperative that the dogs are
able to function both in its ability to carry out its orders as well as
retaining its own cognitive process to solve problems it encounters. The varied
training program of a police dog is one of the major factors why Police dogs
can perform the boring and repetitive tasks without becoming de-motivated, they have been conditioned to expect something
more enjoyable will happen soon.
Another consideration is the handler. Competitive situations are by
their nature stressful; you and the dog are being judged. Many handlers project
this anxious state onto their dogs and effect the
dog's performance as a result. Police work is also very stressful but the
handlers know that even if it is a life and death situation they are there to
support their dog and maintain optimum efficiency. This point is often lost in
the competitive scene as a mistake made by the dog is viewed by the handler as
a slight against their own abilities. In their striving for the perfect
performance they forget the dog is a sentient being and has feelings which need
to be considered. They feel anger at a silly mistake the dog has made; their
body language expresses this anger very clearly to the dog. The dog then reacts
with fear of the handler and the whole performance is lost. The dog cannot
comprehend that it was because it heeled wide on the third turn that the owner
is angry. Also worthy of note is that Police dogs are evaluated on their
effectiveness and not the cosmetic appearance of their performance. No
Policeman wants to be dragged along by his dog when heeling through a crowd but
if the dog is not in the exact position required for competition purposes no
one would care. The emphasis is on functionality.
Obedience competitions don't make this allowance, the dog is being
judged on the precision of its work. The key is that whilst the obedience dog
must be more precise in his work he only has to retain this intense
concentration of a boring and repetitive activity for a very short period of
time. If competitors looked at the time their dog is in the ring and then
looked at the amount of that time they are actually working for on a single
exercise they have a good idea as to the maximum time they should be training
their dog on a single exercise without breaking the concentration with an
enjoyable social interaction. This does make a total farce of the 1 hour-plus long
training sessions practiced by many training clubs. Shorten the sessions, add play or pleasant social contact for the same
length of time you have been training for between training specific exercises
and reward the dog for concentrating as much as you do for doing the correct
action. Evaluate the dog and ascertain what its motivation level is like and
devise ways to make its training interesting. Drilling the dog into submission
is only likely to have any beneficial effect if the causation of the problem is
the dogs perceived dominance over its handler and even that is doubtful as to
if it is the best solution.
The interaction between the dog and its handler must always remain
a pleasant experience. The dog needs to know that whilst at times it is
expected to do boring and repetitive things something fun will always happen
every time it is with its handler. To facilitate this in a trial situation the
handler must make good use of the breaks between the exercises by ensuring that
the dog receives the pleasant social contact required to keep its emotional
state from impacting on its performance. At the conclusion of the dog's time in the ring a game which spans for the same
length of time should be engaged. In this way the dog clearly knows that its
social superior is happy with it and thus positive reinforcement of its
pleasurable experience of being with the owner has been achieved. The
additional benefit for competitors is that this kind of training program has
the dog more focused on its handler, they are waiting to switch to the more
pleasurable and fun prey mode. To make sure they don't possibly miss the
all-important invitation to play they as a result watch the handlers very
closely and are more animated in their movements.
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