If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too

[livingdustmops]

If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study

Science News If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study
ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2009) — In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.



The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.

“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”

The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed.

Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.

“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”

Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.

The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal reference:

Herron et al. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2009; 117 (1-2): 47 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
Adapted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania

[QuickSilver]

Interesting. I will remove things from Thor's mouth if I tell him to Drop It and he doesn't. I feel like in that case the self reinforcement - a delicious piece of human food - can be greater than what I can offer, which is a dog treat. I think the punishment of forcing his mouth open (not breaking his jaw or anything) is important to let him know that eating his discovery will always have unpleasant consequences. Thor totally calculates his odds when he finds something. If it's too big to swallow immediately, or doesn't taste that good, he'll Drop It and take a treat. Otherwise he dines and dashes. Little stinker.

[YorkieMother]

Yupper aggresion builds aggression. Fear breeds fear and that leads to aggression. More worked up you get the more the dog sees the world as out of control and scary the more he needs to gain confort by tring to " take" control.

gentle gets gentle in time but it takes work.
Or you can aplha roll, them beat, poke them, bite thier ears, grab their jaws, them and Zap them until they give up and thier souls are dead and you win but your dog looses big time. But hay you got a dog that lays there does not bark chase cars, growl ( which is just talk) and do anything bad how proud are you. But the dog is dead in side and really rather not be hear and goes along to keep yu from hurting it again but that ok.

Gentle means they want to be with you, they want to work and are willing to work and will work harder and do better cause they know it is safe to try even if they get it wrong they are still learning.

JL

[YorkieMother]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Interesting. I will remove things from Thor's mouth if I tell him to Drop It and he doesn't. I feel like in that case the self reinforcement - a delicious piece of human food - can be greater than what I can offer, which is a dog treat. I think the punishment of forcing his mouth open (not breaking his jaw or anything) is important to let him know that eating his discovery will always have unpleasant consequences. Thor totally calculates his odds when he finds something. If it's too big to swallow immediately, or doesn't taste that good, he'll Drop It and take a treat. Otherwise he dines and dashes. Little stinker.

Only time I take by force anything from a dog is if what they have will kill them. If not I work out what is a better trade and what will help them help themselves to give it up with respect to thier need to be a soul packing loved being in the world with the right to be treated in a respectful and kind manner do any living breathing funtioning being of the world is entiled to.

JL

[Nancy1999]

It's important to remember that there is a great deal of difference between aggressive, passive, and assertive behavior. Both aggressive and passive behavior on the dog owner's part will lead to aggressive behavior in the dog. That's why assertive behavior is important to learn. One can display appropriate assertive behavior, that is nether neither aggressive nor passive, and establishes the pet owner in the dominant role, as pack leader. Humans and dogs alike favor calm assertive behavior.

[YorkieMother]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

It's important to remember that there is a great deal of difference between aggressive, passive, and assertive behavior. Both aggressive and passive behavior on the dog owner's part will lead to aggressive behavior in the dog. That's why assertive behavior is important to learn. One can display appropriate assertive behavior, that is nether neither aggressive nor passive, and establishes the pet owner in the dominant role, as pack leader. Humans and dogs alike favor calm assertive behavior.

Passive behaviour of an owner is a scary thing for dogs as they have to make up the foundation of interaction between them and the world and its owners it is not about control though it is about what works and is most benifical to the dogs needs and wants and a calm self assured dog can manage this where as a dog that is shy or fearful it can be all to over whelming.

so it also depends on what a dog brings to the table in gentic temperment that will or will not work in a family of people and dogs and what in the owners eyes is or is not allowable as well.

I have a freind that has a dog that has not skills in training but he is sweet boy that he goes through doors and does not sit drives me nuts and if my girl was in that house she could not manage do to the lack of structure that her genetic make up makes her need.

You take our other female and she is a sweet girl and well soicalized and goes right along to get along and lives life well. The other make in our house needs much support and guidence as he can get to feel the same sence of go along and have fun.

JL

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by YorkieMother

Only time I take by force anything from a dog is if what they have will kill them. If not I work out what is a better trade and what will help them help themselves to give it up with respect to thier need to be a soul packing loved being in the world with the right to be treated in a respectful and kind manner do any living breathing funtioning being of the world is entiled to.

JL

I respect your advice, but I don't think it's always that simple. If Thor finds something in the park to eat, very often it is a chicken bone, which could be very dangerous. Or it could be something rotten, or a piece of chocolate. It's not immediately obvious. I suppose I could carry an extra good treat around for Drop It, though he's managed to find a way to work that system as well.

I do consider myself more of a "new age" trainer, but even very modern trainers will use punishments, though they may be very rare.

[YorkieMother]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I do consider myself more of a "new age" trainer, but even very modern trainers will use punishments, though they may be very rare.

Yes we do use punishrs but not in the forms that would be concidered hands on. We tend to use removal of say the dog into a time out. Or loose of the chance at a reward. A no reward marker is then used and the dog gets to learn that that was an error to think again.

I do not concider my self new age either the way I train been around alot longer then many think and it just that the lay people are coming to terms with it and getting to know it really does work and it really is worth trying to use it in the right manner as when done right it works better then all other methods.

JL

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I respect your advice, but I don't think it's always that simple. If Thor finds something in the park to eat, very often it is a chicken bone, which could be very dangerous. Or it could be something rotten, or a piece of chocolate. It's not immediately obvious. I suppose I could carry an extra good treat around for Drop It, though he's managed to find a way to work that system as well.

I do consider myself more of a "new age" trainer, but even very modern trainers will use punishments, though they may be very rare.

I'm with you on this one, and I'll even go a step further. When I'm teaching drop it, I yell the command, since I rarely yell, it gets the dog's attention, and they automatically drop it. I also would take the piece out of the mouth if I had no way knowing what it was, especially with a small dog like a yorkie, just a little of something can make them gravely ill. Like you, when they do drop it, I give a treat and praise.

Behaviorists do believe in using punishment. Remember, a punisher is something that decreases the probability of a response, while a reinforcer is something that increases the probability of a respond. A positive reinforcer is something you "give" a negative reinforcer is something you take away. Same with punishers, a positive punisher is something you give, a negative punisher is something you take away.

When taking the food out of Thor's mouth, using your hands, and forcing him to relinquish it, you are giving him an uncomfortable feeling in his mouth, and you are hoping that next time you say, "drop it" he will respond. So this would actually be considered a positive reinforcer in behavioral terms, if it actually produced the results. If Thor became worse at dropping it or releasing it, the hands on treatment would be considered a punishment. In themselves, the terms punishers and reinforcers have no human value, it's only by the results they produce, we label them with either word.

[QuickSilver]

Thank you. I had a slightly different understanding of those terms. The distinction between a reinforcer and a punishment I'm with you. I believe a negative reinforcer is something that the animal wants to stop and produces the desired behavior - so a horse's bit is a negative reinforcer, because the horse turns its head to relieve the pressure in its mouth.

I believe punishments come after the act also. So, I THINK taking food out of Thor's mouth is a "positive punishment" - I am adding an unpleasant experience to reduce his desire to run away and eat his find.

I think. I've never been completely clear on the terminology.

[2Parises]

Interesting article and confirms some of the things I see... I am going to send the link to some people I know. Maybe it will change something.

[YorkieMother]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Behaviorists do believe in using punishment. Remember, a punisher is something that decreases the probability of a response, while a reinforcer is something that increases the probability of a respond. A positive reinforcer is something you "give" a negative reinforcer is something you take away. Same with punishers, a positive punisher is something you give, a negative punisher is something you take away.

.

True in this but there tends to be a leaning to use the positive reinforcer and the negative punisher over the other two.

Reinforcer_ postive is to use treats.
Negative punisher is to not give the treat use a no reward marker.



JL

[mscat]

I totally agree with the article> I have seen it happen with one of my brothers dogs. A female german Shepard mix. He treated like crap, was very "agressive" towards" and kept the dog in an outside area .That was not the bad part. My brother was physical with the dog, and the dog acted out aggressively. The dog ended up biting his own child and the kid needed stitches, the dog was getting that bad> Other times, the dog had just given birth and attacked anther young pup who got too close to her pen, which in turn nearly killed the pup. Then the same Dog, got inside the hose and killed a family rabbit.
This dog, was hit, all the time unsocialized and extremely aggressive. My brother brother had her put down> It was his own doing. How horrid, however, a perfect example of what happens when a dog is not treated with respect, and cruely treated.
I never understood why they treated that dog this way. but they did. And the dog responded allright! It became worse and worse.

[Sweetlips6]

Originally Posted by YorkieMother

Yes we do use punishrs but not in the forms that would be concidered hands on. We tend to use removal of say the dog into a time out. Or loose of the chance at a reward. A no reward marker is then used and the dog gets to learn that that was an error to think again.

I do not concider my self new age either the way I train been around alot longer then many think and it just that the lay people are coming to terms with it and getting to know it really does work and it really is worth trying to use it in the right manner as when done right it works better then all other methods.

JL

So what is a "no reward marker"?

[livingdustmops]

"NRMs" No Reward Markers | Karen Pryor Clickertraining

"NRMs" No Reward Markers
By Melissa Alexander on 07/01/2003
Filed in - Training Theory
Humans are notoriously verbal creatures. We love to talk, and we do so automatically, even when the person we're talking to doesn't speak our language, can't hear what we're saying, or even when the "person" isn't a person at all.

We're so used to verbal instructions that the ideas of stilling the chatter during early learning and adding the cue after our dogs are offering the behavior seem ridiculous. The clicker, however, we understand. The clicker may not be verbal, per se, but it gives clear, audible feedback that the dog did what we want. It seems only logical then that we need another signal to tell our dogs to try something else when they offer something we don't want.

This signal is called a "No Reward Marker," or NRM. NRMs are intended to be a verbal cue for extinction, not a punisher, so people attempt to say them in the most neutral tone of voice possible. "Uh-uh," said quietly and calmly, is a common NRM. In a training session, the trainer would either click or use the NRM after each repetition to let the dog know whether his behavior was correct or not. Although they sound logical, NRMs are not without problems—and controversy. The biggest problem is that NRMs may not be as neutral as we want them to be. Imagine yourself on a game show...

You know that every right choice will get you closer to the grand prize. After a right choice, a bell sounds. After a wrong choice, a buzzer sounds. How do you feel about that buzzer? Is it neutral? Is it simply telling you "wrong choice," or is it increasing your stress level? Would it be any different if the sound were a beautiful harp chord instead of a buzzer? I doubt it. Now imagine that you weren't given any feedback for wrong choices except the lack of the "right choice" bell. Would you be as frazzled by the puzzle-solving process?

Some dogs will take NRMs neutrally, simply as information offered. Others will view it as a mild punisher. In the short term you might not be able to tell how an individual dog views the NRM. The effects may be clear only over the long-term, as rate of emitted behavior falls off and the dog becomes reluctant to experiment with new behavior.

You may be lucky enough to have a dog that takes NRMs neutrally, but that may not be true of your next dog. Another problem with NRMs is that they're habitual. Once you, as trainer, are in the habit of giving an NRM, you will do so nearly automatically. It can be very, very difficult to break that habit if you need to work with a dog who finds them punishing. NRMs are also habitual for the dogs. They learn to rely on them, expect them. If you get into a situation where you can't give that expected feedback, the dog can become confused and anxious.

Fortunately, NRMs aren't required for training. Though they make sense to us verbal humans, the reality is that you can communicate the same information simply by withholding the click. The click means "You did what I want!" No click, then, means "Try something else." By clicking and reinforcing the choices you like and ignoring and not reinforcing the choices you don't like, you allow positive reinforcement and extinction to work together in a powerful way. Reinforcement makes those behaviors stronger and more likely to occur. Extinction makes the other behaviors weaker and less likely to occur.

The process for training without an NRM is simple. At the beginning of the session, set your criteria—decide exactly what will make you click. Each and every time the dog achieves that criteria, click and reinforce. If the dog offers anything else, including a sub-par version of the goal behavior, simply do nothing but reset for another repetition.

The bottom line is that NRMs, though logical, add an unnecessary level of complexity to training. Keep training simple for you and for your dogs: forego NRMs and stick to basic positive reinforcement and extinction.