Conflicting Conclusions

January 7, 2010 at 3:02 am 10 comments

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, “hmm…. that’s funny….”

Isaac Asimov

Quiz for the day: To prevent or avoid canine aggression problems, should you:

  1. Live in the U.S.; spay or neuter your dog and train him without any aversives under the supervision of a veterinary behaviorist;
    or…
  2. Live in Europe; plan ahead to acquire a very large, sexually intact male or spayed female dog; refrain from spoiling your dog; exercise it regularly and train it yourself using effective corrections?

According to a pair of studies published in 2009 — both answers are right.

In the previous post I wrote about Meghan Herron, Frances Shofer, and Ilana Reisner’s (Herron et al.) “Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors“. This study has been quoted extensively as proving that “confrontational training methods” provoke aggressive responses in dogs.

During the same time period that Herron et al’s study was published, Joaquin Perez-Guisado and Andres Munoz-Serrano (PG-MS) published an article in The Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances stating that owner behavior is the primary factor influencing dominance aggression in dogs.  From the abstract:

Modifiable and non-modifiable factors that are associated with higher levels of dominance aggression and depend on the owner include first time ownership, a lack of obedience training, the owner not being the main obedience trainer, spoiling the dog, not using physical punishment, acquisition as a present, as a pet, impulsively, or to guard and spaying female dogs. Modifiable factors have the greatest influence on dominance aggression in dogs. Dog-dependent factors (gender, breed, age, size and coat color) are fewer than owner-dependent factors.  There was an association between certain dog behavior patterns and higher level of dominance aggression.

The sample for this study included a very number of dogs trained using “confrontational methods”. Dogs that should have reacted aggressively to their owners based on the results reported by Herron et al. Contrary to Herron et al’s finding, PG-MS’s data indicate that the use of physical corrections was inversely correlated to dominance aggression. In other words, their data suggest that the use of aversive training methods prevents aggressive behavior.

How can two groups of scientists study aggression in dogs during the same year and come up with conflicting findings? Tabulated data weren’t published in the PG-MS study, so this review will be more limited than I’d like. Still, a closer look at these apparently contradictory studies may provide some valuable insights.

First there were significant differences in the populations sampled. Herron et al.’s respondents were Americans getting advice from a veterinary behavior clinic on existing behavior problems. PG-MS’s were Spaniards taking their dogs for a walk. Herron et al. surveyed 140 dog owners; PG-MS interviewed 711.

In the previous post I said that I believed that there was a significant bias problem in Herron et al’s sample because it only included owners who were actively seeking help from a veterinary behavior clinic. Given this limitation, all dog owners who found that aversive methods worked effectively for them were removed from Herron et al’s sample. I stated that I thought this was the most significant problem with the study – and PG-MS’s data appear to corroborate my suspicion. In a much larger population without that bias, the correlation between aggressive behavior and aversive training methods not only disappeared – it appears to have been reversed.

How could this happen?

First of all we’re comparing two different varieties of apples here. Herron et al stated that their goal was to assess whether there was a connection between the use of aversive techniques and aggressive responses. PG-MS focused on the importance of nature versus nurture in the development of dominance aggression.

Next, I believe that there were significant differences in how the two groups defined aversiveness.  Herron et al. did it subjectively and included what I thought were a rather odd range of “interventions” in both the aversive and non-aversive groups. They evaluated “hitting and kicking” as a training method. Three different types of verbal corrections were considered separately – but the wide array of techniques used in clicker training were lumped together under a single heading. Two different types of leash corrections are included in the aversive group and avoiding any exposure to triggers is considered training in the “neutral” category. This bizarre mish-mash of categories appears to have been put together by someone with little hands-on experience with dogs.

Instead of using objective criteria (like a measure of the dogs’ responses) to evaluate aversiveness, Herron et al. used subjective value judgments to determine which methods were aversive, neutral and non-aversive. On the other hand, PG-MS don’t provide any information on how they assessed the relative aversiveness of training methods, so there may be problems with their assessment too.

One of the most interesting things I discovered in comparing these studies was that it appears that we’re all so sure we know what defines a method as positive or aversive, that scientists don’t even feel the need to clarify their definitions. And that doesn’t make any sense. Rewards and punishments are, by definition, subjective and personal measures of discomfort and pleasure. If trainers and scientists can’t find something other than subjective measures of “niceness” or “not-niceness” to define training methods – we’ll never agree on how to use them.

Moving beyond the problem of definitions, I think it’s important to ask whether the relative aversiveness or positiveness of a method is the most important factor in dog training.

In an effort to figure out how the dogs involved felt, I took data from tables published in Herron et al. and, ignoring  subjective measures of positive or negativeness, ranked them by percent of positive responses as evaluated by the dogs’ owners. Then I plotted that data against the percent of aggressive responses observed. Here’s the chart (click for big).

There’s an inverse relationship between positive effect and aggressive response. In other words, methods that worked well rarely provoked aggressive responses. You can also see that as positive response decreased, the degree of correlation became much more erratic. How can we explain this?

If you look at the interventions that elicited the highest percentage of aggressive responses (hit or kick, growl at, pulling an item out of a dog’s mouth, alpha-rolling, holding a dog in a submissive position on the ground and scruffing it) – you’ll see that these are the kinds of things people are most likely to do when they’re frustrated with their dogs. As I noted yesterday, I believe it is likely that Herron et al’s sample included an anomalously high number of frustrated dog owners.

PG-MS’s stated that being a first time pet owner, acquiring a pet on impulse, spending less time with your dog, a lack of exercise or obedience training, having someone else train your dog for you and spoiling it were positively correlated with aggressive behavior. In my experience as a dog trainer, these are all good indicators of a potentially frustrated dog owner.

In Herron et al’s study, the interventions that elicited the highest percentage of effective responses (using food to trade for an item, making a dog sit for everything, using food rewards, increasing exercise, using an attention command, clicker training, leash corrections and use of food-stuffed toys) with few exceptions* were methods that require a reasonably calm mind and some forethought. PG-MS correlated aggressive behavior to a lack of training, lack of exercise and excess of pampering. These factors don’t generally indicate mindful behavior.

Going back to the quiz we started with; I don’t believe that the answer to preventing and curing dog aggression will be found in subjective, abstract concepts tossed around by people who are more interested in parsing out behavior than handling and interacting with dogs. I’m convinced that the key to preventing and curing canine aggression is proactive, mindful behavior on the part of dog owners.

In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.  It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it happens every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Carl Sagan


* Avoiding the problem – which I refuse to accept as training; and the “force down” – which elicited a noticeably higher percentage of aggressive responses than other similarly effective methods.

Note: Based on the recommendations of both studies – Audie should morph into a vicious killing machine any day now. I used aversives to train him and he meets all the criteria for “pampered” according to PG-MS. Stay tuned for further developments…

Advertisements

Entry filed under: behavior science, dog training, dogs, science. Tags: , .

That Dogma Won’t Hunt Being Prepared

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Melissa Jo Peltier  |  January 7, 2010 at 6:00 am

    Once again, you’ve hit the nail on the head:

    “I’m convinced that the key to preventing and curing canine aggression is proactive, mindful behavior on the part of dog owners.”

    Comparing the two studies is a great idea. Love your work!

  • 2. Luisa  |  January 7, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Terrific post! Good luck with Audie ;~)

  • 3. Ark Lady  |  January 7, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    I’ve been around a while and a long time ago found that you can set up a study (versus the “survey”) to get the results you are looking for.

    Even then you can still find that you are wrong and even minor variations in the data can be significant….but I digress.

    Today there has been a lot more of the “us and them” mentality circulating through the animal world. Not just in dog training but in other related training fields or cross species specialties.

    Positive training is a misnomer since every type of training situation involves positive, negative, and neutral influences to obtain the end result of shaping behavior.

    I once was pursued by a training firm that used more traditional methodology in their dog training.

    What both the owner and I found stimulating were the discussions as to how we differed in our approaches to obtain the same end results.

    I did not accept the offer because I believe there are other ways to train behavior that are more in alignment with who I am and how I like to operate but I think we all benefited by the cross communication and respect for our experiences and talents.

    To date most of the “studies” and “surveys” I have viewed are small, uncontrolled samplings.

    Until there is some serious money and trained researchers involved–all such works need to be viewed with a critical eye.

    Nice job on presenting your concerns and observations.

  • 4. Rob McMillin  |  January 8, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Regards the Sagan quote, I’m also reminded of the quote — teh Googles gives it as Raymond C. Rowe — that says, “Old scientists do not change their minds, they just die off.” I suspect this is more true in areas where experimental data is hard to come by or in studies of complex systems (*cough* climate *cough*). Proving the luminiferous aether doesn’t exist is so (conceptually) easy even an undergraduate can understand it, but coming up with that experiment isn’t always so easy.

  • 5. Golden Retriever Puppy  |  January 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    I find your article very useful and informative. I agree that without proactive actoins which is not always easy, nobody can solve this problem. Thanks for posting it!

  • 6. Ken Chiacchia  |  January 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    One other limitation to the Spanish study: picking dog owners walking in the park probably biases toward folks whose methods are *working*, and so we’re cutting off some portion of what’s failing. But I’m struck by your graph: honest data can do some good work even if the researchers’ analysis is biased (or clueless). It makes so much sense that “methods” you’d connect with people who are freaking out over their dogs’ misbehavior would both be more likely to cause aggression on the average *and* inconsistent in this effect — at first glance it looks like the moving average is moving up even as the individual points jump up and down.

  • 7. Viatecio  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Just stumbled across something that might add an additional dimension to this discussion: a study done on the “Management and behavioural history of 100 dogs reported for biting a person” from O’Sullivan et al. has some interesting notes regarding events happening before a bite. It was done through telephone survey in Ireland, so again we have the survey aspect rather than direct observation (which, realistically, is harder to do in cases like these, I guess). From the abstract:

    “Statistically significant predictors of aggressive behaviour included owners reprimanding the dog by physical and verbal means [V in: we already know this is an unreliable variable due to the sheer differences in HOW and WHY the dog was reprimanded], owners allowing the dog to initiate play and to win tug-of-war games. Management predictors during the 2 months leading up to a bite incident included allowing the dogs onto household furniture and feeding the dog directly from the family table. Behavioural predictors included not being trusted with children, not responding to basic commands, variable obedience to different people and variable degrees of obedience
    depending on the location. Additional behavioural predictors included displays of problem behaviours such as destructiveness and barking only when family members were present, displays of fearful reactions in specific circumstances and excessive displays of specific behaviours. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between a number of these predictors and aggressive behaviour. Other findings included owner tolerance of significant degrees of aggressive behaviour, inadequate or ineffective obedience training, biting of adult household members and the possible influence of ad libitum feeding on the behaviour of the dog.”

    So, don’t let your dog on the furniture, use effective training, don’t put up with any crap from your dog, “I call you haul” in ANY situation (which should be standard anyway?), and don’t free-feed?

    I will email article if interested.

  • 8. Ken Chiacchia  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

    One other thought: None of the risk factors in the Irish study are going to surprise people who’re familiar with canid behavior. But all of that stuff is contextual: Mostly, you want the dog to have basic obedience; but generations of ESDs have worked farms without a word of obedience and without a problem; most people probably shouldn’t let their dogs on the furniture; but in nearly 20 years now, we’ve only come up with one dog — Sophie, who picks heirarchy fights with the other dogs if we give her privileges — who couldn’t have *limited*, we-say-when, access to the furniture and behave herself. I could go on.

    The Air Force has a saying I like to quote: In-flight refueling is so dangerous that you either never do it at all or you do it all the time. Trainers with chops, dirty secret, often let their dogs get away with stuff because they *can*.

    One problem with all these studies is the implicit assumption that you can pick out simple, one-dimensional behavioral predictors *that are meaningful in the absence of knowing the whole story*. What I think we’ve got is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon in which many factors weigh in.

  • 9. SmartDogs  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Exactly. It’s like those human studies that try to determine a small set of risk factors that, if addressed properly, could eliminate drug addiction or violent behavior.

    Take a dog that’s a complex amalgamation of nature and nurture, examine it in a combination of complex, dynamic canine and human relationships and you’ve got an almost infinite set of variables to study and address.

    Actually this reminds me a lot of doing field environmental chemistry work. Take non-pure surface and groundwater flowing through and/or over a huge variety of soils, rock and organic material; toss in a bunch of different micro-organisms and changes in redox, temperature, dissolved oxygen – then add a group of organic and inorganic contaminants,their breakdown products and other potential effects on the environment – and you’ll see why field geochemists and dog trainers have so much in common. To do well at either job you need to understand the functions and interactions of the various parts of the system so well that they become a part of your being. You don’t parse out a problem then attack it. You follow your gut, tweak things as you go – and then parse out the process after you see the result.

  • 10. Viatecio  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:03 am

    I didn’t think of it that way! Agreed that is definitely hard to tease out one behavior and just focus on that…it’s probably just that aggression is such a concern that there’s this rush to get a handle on it in a scientific manner so that people can latch on and get a “guaranteed prevention” or fix. Then again, most average pet owners want it to be QUICK and with little effort on their part.

    I just found it interesting that so many of the ‘lead-ins’ that the abstract mentioned were things that most logical dog owners already do.

    Thanks for the different angles and making me think 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Because A Dog’s Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste

RSS

Copyright notice

All original content on this Web site is copyright © on the date of publication by this author. All rights reserved except, of course, that others may quote from original content under the 'Fair Use' provisions of US copyright law.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 282 other followers

Recent Comments

lynellex on House of Horrors
Mary on I Hate Jon Katz Too
Susie on I Hate Jon Katz Too
Susan Jaffe on See no evil. Read no evil. Cit…
Top Dog Blog
Featured in Alltop
ResearchBlogging.org

sitemeter

Add to Technorati Favorites
Dog Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
blogarama - the blog directory
Blog Directory
Blog Directory & Search engine
January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: