Patricia McConnell Seminar: Science-Based Training?

 Training with dad. Note the clicker in his hand.

A lot of people call clicker training (or positive-reinforcement training in general) “science-based.” But is it, really? What do we know, scientifically, about training dogs? In this, my last post on Patricia's seminar, I'll discuss some of the studies she shared with us.

I'm always astounded by the number of people who don't train their dogs. These are the people that, when they learn I do rally and obedience with Maisy, or that I teach training classes, always laugh and say, “My dog could use some obedience!” I'm usually then regaled with increasingly horrifying stories of near-death incidents resulting from a lack of training. But then Patricia shared two studies that made me wonder if most people even want a trained dog.

The first study looked at 118 dogs. Roughly half had no training, or only one basic-training class. The other half were highly trained agility, schutzhund, or search and rescue dogs. Each dog was tested on his ability to manipulate a box in order to get food out. Twice as many of the dogs in the trained group were able to get the food, suggesting that higher levels of training is associated with better problem solving skills.

The other study tested dogs' ability to discriminate quantities. The dogs were allowed to choose between small and large piles of food; in general, both groups chose the bigger amounts. However, the difference between highly trained dogs and untrained dogs became apparent in the second stage of the experiment, when the dogs watched their owners choose the smaller piles before being allowed to choose for themselves. The untrained dogs typically followed their person's lead, and also chose the smaller amount- this despite the fact that they earlier chose the bigger piles. The trained dogs, however, chose the larger piles, suggesting that training creates independent thinkers.

Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Perhaps it's a good thing that pet dogs don't receive high levels of training!

Once we've made the decision to train our dogs, though, the next question becomes: how often should we train them? When Maisy and I were actively attending training classes, we were advised to train in short sessions, several times a day. At the very least, we should try to get in 5 or 6 sessions a week. As it turns out, though, this may not be the most efficient use of time.

Two separate studies found that training once a week results in “better learning performance.” They discovered that dogs acquired the skill in fewer sessions when trained less frequently than when trained daily. (One of the studies also looked at how well the dogs remembered what they'd been taught, and found that the dogs in both groups retained the task equally well.)

I think Patricia put it best: maybe the dogs learned in fewer sessions, but come on: it took eight weeks to teach a simple targetting exercise. Maybe it takes a couple of extra sessions, but by doing several sessions a day, the same task could be learned in just a few days. Still, she said these studies point out the importance of processing time; dogs need rest periods in order to learn most efficiently, especially for more complicated tasks.

Finally, every trainer has to make decisions about how they will train. Patricia shared that there are a number of studies showing that force-based training has negative effects. For example, one study showed that dogs trained with shock collars exhibited more signs of stress, even when compared to dogs trained with “fairly harsh” methods. Another found that punishment was associated with increased behavior problems, like aggression, distractability, and overall lower obedience levels. And the study I found most interesting discovered that punishment was associated with increased anxiety in fear in small dogs, but not in large ones.

There are also studies showing that reward-based training has good effects. These dogs are more likely to interact with strangers, be more playful, and are generally better at novel training tasks than dogs who are trained with punitive methods.

Patricia felt it was only fair to share a study whose results we may not like: it found that search and rescue dogs were more successful in advanced stages of training when there was “an increased use of compulsive methods.” Generally speaking, though, it seems that science favors reward-based training, which leads us to the clicker conundrum: should we use them?

One researcher trained 20 dogs to target a ball with their noses. Half the dogs were trained with a clicker, and half were trained with the verbal marker “good.” The results showed that the clicker trained dogs learned the task faster than those trained with the verbal marker (about 36 minutes as compared to 59 minutes). Patricia believes this is because the clicker makes a short, abrupt sound with a very clear start and stop. It's also a “broad noise band”- it covers more frequencies than the spoken word. All of these things make it more distinct and easier for the dogs to notice.

The last study that Patricia shared with us looked at the use of clickers and food versus food only in training. Thirty-five basenjis were taught to target a traffic cone, and once they learned the task, were variably reinforced for a maintenance period. The researchers found no difference in the amount of time that it took the dogs to learn the task; despite proponents' claims, the clicker was not found to speed up learning.

Then the researchers did extinction trials in which they quit giving food to both groups of dogs, but continued clicking the dogs in the clicker group. The results showed that the clicker-trained dogs were more resistant to extinction, to which I just have to say: DUH. The clicker is a reinforcer- it's a secondary reinforcer, not a primary one, it's true, but it's still a reinforcer. Of course the behavior didn't extinguish as quickly. They were still being reinforced. (To be fair, the study authors state that this suggests the clicker does, indeed, act as a secondary/conditioned reinforcer, and I guess it's nice to have that scientifically verified.)

So, with all of this in mind, will it train the way we train? Personally, the answer is no. I train because I enjoy it. Yes, I have a smarter dog as a result, and yes, that can make her more difficult to live with sometimes (I often wonder who is training who). But I train for the experience moreso than the end result... which is probably why I play endless shaping games but have pretty much nothing on cue. (Sigh.) And my methods? Well, those are unlikely to change, too. My choices have been made on my personal moral and philosophical beliefs, not science.

What about you? Will you change anything about your training based on these studies?

If You Want to Know More

• Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs' performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem solving task, by Marshall-Pescini, et al
• Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task, by Prato-Previde, et al
• The relationship between number of training sessions per week and learning in dogs, by Meyer and Ladewig
• Patricia's blog post on the Meyer and Laedwig study
• The effect of frequency and duration of training sessions on acquisition and long-term memory in dogs, by Demant et al
• Training dogs with the help of the shock collar – short and long-term behavioural effects, by Schilder and van der Borg
• Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability, by Rooney and Cowan
• Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors, by Herron et al
• Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog, by Arhant et al
• Obedience training effects on search dog performance, by Alexander et al
• Clicker Bridging Stimulus Efficacy, by Lindsay Wood
• Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), by Smith and Davis

This post has been edited for clarity (see comments). It originally said: "Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Maybe instead of training the dogs, we should focus on teaching the people how to manage situations better." I think the new version is a better reflection of the study.

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Communication

 
It's another quiet night at home. I am curled up on the couch, absorbed in a book, when Maisy walks over to me and gazes intently at me. I'm not sure how something as silent as a stare can be so piercing, but it sure does wonders to get my attention. I smile and ask, “What do you need, pumpkin?”

She dashes away into the other room, then comes back to the doorway and stares at me again. She wants something, I can tell, so I set my book day and say, “Show me!” She leads me to the den, where she nudges at her Kong, then looks at me pointedly.

And people say dogs can't communicate.

Patricia took some time at the seminar to dispel this myth. Of course we attendees know that dogs communicate, and I'm sure we all have stories like the one above. But it's still nice to see science delving into the topic, so today I'm going to share just a few of the recent studies on canine communication.

What's all that noise?
Whether they're feeling threatened, protecting some food, or just having fun, dogs can make a lot of noise. Experienced dog owners know that a growl can mean many different things, but are they merely depending on context? Scientists set out to find out, and recorded dogs growling in each of those three contexts and then analyzed the sounds acoustically. They found that play growls are shorter and higher pitched, but that there is little difference between a growl directed at a threatening stranger or while resource guarding.

Despite this, the dogs could still tell the difference. The researchers placed a dog alone in a room with a tempting bone, and when the dog approached, would play a recording of the different growl types. Unsurprisingly, the resource guarding growl was more effective at stopping the dog than the other growls.

Other studies have found that dogs can tell the size of a dog by its growl. Using recorded growls and images projected on a screen, the scientists tracked where the dogs looked. The vast majority of dogs would look at the correct sized image.

Wag the Dog
We all know that a dog's tail can wag for a wide variety of reasons. Patricia likened it to a human smile- it's usually a happy thing, but sometimes it's forced or faked. Scientists wanted to learn more about tail wagging, so they created a special box with a camera mount, placed the dog inside, and then presented him with several different stimuli type to see what his tail did.

When the dogs saw their owners, their tails were more likely to wag further to the right. They also wagged to the right when the saw unfamiliar people, but there was less amplitude. When the dog saw another dog who was unfamiliar to him, the tail tended to wag to the left. The same was true when the dog wagged while alone. The most interesting response to me was the dog's wag when he saw a cat: most dogs would wag to the right (the same as for people), but with the least amount of amplitude of any wag.

Patricia shared that the conclusion is that the right-sided wag probably indicates that the dog is interested in approaching and investigating, while the left-sided wag probably indicates the dog's desire to withdraw or avoid the situation. It makes me wonder how a fearful or reactive dog's tail might wag when faced with unfamiliar people.

And your point is?
One of the very interesting things about dogs is that they seem to intuitively understand pointing gestures by humans. Research for years has been mixed on whether or not dogs understand pointing better than other animals, such as their canine cousin, the wolf.

Monique Udell has done some pretty interesting research on this. She found that wolves can following pointing gestures, and in fact, that they do just as well as dogs... if the conditions are right. Wolves can do it if the experiment is done outside. Pet dogs do best if they're tested inside. Interestingly, shelter dogs tend to fail miserably when the experiment is conducted indoors, scoring worse than even the wolves. Patricia believes this is because of stress, both in general and that of the testing environment.

Udell also studied a variety of point types. Directly touching something- and maintaining that position- was the easiest gesture for dogs to understand. They also did well with a sustained point. While they could understand other types of points, including momentary taps and points, as well as those held both to the side and when across the midline, they didn't do as well with those gestures. Keep that in mind next time you're trying to show your dog something.

The Dog Watchers
This last study was the most interesting to me. Researcher Michelle Wan collected 30 videos of dogs and had them rated and categorized by eight experts. She then played them for over 2100 participants. These people ranged from those who had never owned a dog to professionals who'd worked with dogs for more than ten years. Each participant was asked to categorize if the dog was feeling happy, sad, fearful, angry, or neutral, and then to rate the level of safety, boldness, fearfulness, stress, etc.

The results showed that people with more dog experience were more likely to label dogs as “aroused” in some way. They were also more likely to observe “negative” emotions like fear, sadness, or stress. This rings true to me. The more I learn, the more I see miserable dogs. Once you learn that a yawn can mean more than tiredness and that a lip lick is more likely to be about stress than hunger... well, it's hard to ignore those signs.


Anyway, that's just a small sampling of what science knows about dog communication. I'd love to hear your stories about how your dog “talks” to you. Does he growl? Point? Understand your gestures? Share in the comments!

If You Want to Know More
A Dog's Growl Announces Its Size
‘The bone is mine’: affective and referential aspects of dog growls, by Farago, et al
Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stimuli, by Quaranta et al
Study on Human Perception of Emotions in Dogs, by Michelle Wan
Patricia's blog post on Monique Udell's Pointing Research

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Canine Cognition

Historically, there has been a lot of animal research, but not much on dogs. I've always found this puzzling, but I guess working with non-human primates or rare birds is a bit more exotic. Thankfully, research on man's best friend has exploded in recent years, so today I'm going to share what Patricia had to say on the subject of canine cognition.

As always, we must start at the beginning. Can dogs think? For those of us who live with them, the question seems silly. Of course they can. But science requires that we prove our assertions. So what is “thinking”? Patricia shared that the scientific community generally defines it as: the ability to formulate an abstract mental representation of an event or object external to the self and the ability to manipulate that representation to solve a problem.

That's a pretty big definition, so let's break it down. First: can dogs understand abstract concepts? It seems that they can. Ken Ramirez has done quite a bit of what he calls “concept training”- teaching dogs (and other animals) things like left vs. right, high vs. low, and big vs. small. He's even taught them how to copy the actions of other animals!

Imitation is actually a pretty complex cognitive process. In order to perform a novel behavior after observing someone else do it, the observer needs to have self-awareness, some measure of empathy (as in, his left front leg is like my left frong leg), and an ability to translate seeing into doing. Ramirez isn't the only person to have taught mimicry- Adam Miklosi from the Family Dog Project in Budapest has done it, too.

No discussion of smart dogs would be complete without talking about Rico the border collie who has demonstrated the ability to “fast map.” This is a mental process in which children (and apparently Rico) learn the meaning of a new word after hearing it only once. Rico learned the names of over 200 different objects, and could retrieve them for a different room when requested. That's pretty impressive on its own, but when Rico was told to find the name of something new, something he'd never heard of before, he could correctly choose the novel object through the process of elimination.

In a similar vein, European researchers have taught dogs the concept of “match to sample.” Using touch screens, they have the dog match two identical images. Dogs are quite adept at this, and so researchers began assigning “value” to the images. Some images resulted in treats, and some didn't. Dogs learned to choose the “positive” images and avoid the “negative” ones. When two images were placed next to each other, the dogs would not only choose the positive ones, but would also infer that the other image- even if they'd never seen it before- must be negative. After that, they would avoid the negative item, even when it was paired with another novel image. Pretty neat.

These are pretty complicated ideas, so I'm really glad that somone uploaded this video demonstrating them:



So, it seems pretty clear that dogs can think abstractly. But can they solve problems? Again, we dog people would agree this is a no brainer. Thankfully, science supports us: dogs can solve problems. What's interesting, though, is the way they do it.

Dogs, dingoes, and wolves have all been tested on what's called the “detour test.” The subject is on one side of a see-through fence, and there's food on the other. The task is to go around the ends of the fence in order to get to the food. It sounds simple, and the dingoes would agree: 100% of them could complete this task within 60 seconds. Dogs, though? Depending on the study, only 60-80% could do it.

Why is this? Well, scientists have found that wild canids seem to be more adept at solving non-social problems than dogs. Man's best friend truly believes in his role, and is more likely to look to his owner than to try to solve the problem himself. Which, let's be fair, is a way of the solving the problem. After all, why not get the being with opposable thumbs to do the hard work?

Another study set out to see if dogs could recognize if their owners needed help and alert a nearby person. They set up two situations, in which the owners either fell to the ground, faking a heart attack, or where the dog entered the room to find their owner trapped under a bookcase. Lassie they were not: not a single dog sought help from a bystander. The authors concluded that the dogs could not recognize an emergency, but Patrica criticized this, sharing that she thought it possible that the dogs knew their humans weren't actually in danger. I tend to agree with her- after all, dogs have an excellent sense of smell, and their people probably didn't have any of the chemical indicators of distress. Add to that all of the hundreds of anecdotal stories of dogs saving their owner's lives... well, I think further research is needed.

The good news is that there will be further research. Canine cognition labs have sprung up all over the world, and there is a lot of really interesting stuff being studied. Check out the links below not only for references to the specific studies Patricia discussed, but also to the labs' sites in general- there is tons to explore there, and the science geeks out there will be in heaven. (There are also some links to non-canine animal cognition studies that Patricia shared with us, but that just don't fit in with this post.)

In the meantime, I'd love to hear stories about your dog's ability to think. Has he ever copied you or another dog's actions? Does he have a unique method of solving a problem? What amazing feats has he accomplished? Tell us! Anecdotes may not be science, but they sure are interesting... and maybe someone will read your story and decide to study it.

If You Want to Know More:

• Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), by Boysen and Berntson
• Alex the Parrot, and Dr. Irene Pepperberg
• Life of Birds: Crows in Japan
• A video of the smart crows
• Temporally structured replay of awake hippocampal ensemble activity during rapid eye movement sleep, by Louie and Wilson
• Word Learning in a Domestic Dog: Evidence for "Fast Mapping" by Kaminski et al
• Can a Dog Learn a Word, by Paul Bloom (more on Rico)
• Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans by Aust, Range, Streuer, and Huber
• How well do dingoes, canis dingo, perform on the detour task? By Smith and Litchfield
• Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task, by Pongracz et al 
• Social Learning in Dogs, links to studies from the Family Dog Project (Pongracz, Miklosi, Topal, et al) 
• Adam Miklosi video on imitation
• The ethological analysis of imitation by Miklosi
• Do dogs (canis familiaris) seek help in an emergency? By Macpherson and Roberts

Canine Cognition Labs:

• Dog Cognition Lab at Barnard in NYC (Horowitz, Hecht, Wan)
• Clever Dog Lab at the University of Vienna (Range)
• Family Dog Project at the Budapest Department of Ethology (Miklosi, Csanyi, Topal)
• Canine Cognition Lab at the University of Florida (Wynne, Udell)
• Canine Cognition Lab at Harvard

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Emotions in Dogs

Do dogs have emotions? While I'm confident that my regular readers will agree that, yes, dogs most certainly do, I know there are people out there that claim this is baseless anthropomorphism. I always have to shake my head a bit when I run across someone like that- have these people even met a dog?

Still, their skepticism is warranted. After all, B.F. Skinner, the father of operant conditioning, concentrated on external behavior because it is impossible to know the internal state of animals. Well... it was. Science today is closing that gap through the use of medical imaging technology and very clever research. At the seminar, Patricia spent some time to share a bit about emotions in dogs.

First though, a definition is in order. Patricia favors Damasio's definition: Emotions are the internal changes in the body (hormones, adrenal gland activation, etc.) that cause changes in expression (external behavior), and the thoughts and feelings that accompany them (an internal, subjective thing to be sure).

We know through imaging studies that dogs have many of the same brain structures, hormones, and neurotransmitters that humans do. What's more, we've learned that emotions are centered in the limbic system, also known as the mammalian brain (so named because all mammals share that particular structure). So internally, dogs meet the criteria for having emotions.

We also know that emotions serve to drive a lot of behavior: fear, frustration, and anger are the causes of many, many actions among humans and animals alike. In fact, emotions are needed for even the simplest of decision making; Patricia told us that things like deciding where to file a piece of paper is impossible without emotions. Our dogs don't file (unfortunately), but they do make plenty of decisions every day, and their behavior is definitely suggestive of different emotions. Therefore, we can only conclude that dogs meet the second criteria.

As for the third... well, while we'll probably never know exactly what a dog is thinking, we're getting closer to understanding what's going on in there, thanks to some very clever researchers. Here are the emotions science is pretty sure that dogs feel:

Disgust, Fear, and Anger
These are all very basic emotions. Disgust is considered the most primitive emotion of all since it is realated to whether or not something will kill you, especially in the sense of “ew, this is too gross to eat.” Anger is also pretty basic- Patricia shared that anger is mediated by the amygdala, and if you have one (and dogs do), you can get angry.

As for fear, well, we talk about fear in dogs all the time. Again, it's a primitive emotion necessary for life; if you don't fear danger you will die an untimely death. Our brains are very quick to make fear associations- an evolutionarily advantageous trait to be sure. A wild dog will live much longer if he learns to fear cars, for example.

Like with anger, the amygdala plays a key role, as well as the hippocampus. In fact, these systems can become overactive, causing the amygdalar pathway to bypass the cortex entirely, meaning that the animal will literally react without thinking. Since this is what happens with people who have Post Traumatic Stress Disodrder, this has caused Patricia to wonder if dogs can suffer from some sort of PTSD, too. The sypmtoms include anxiety, increased emotional arousal, irritability, being easily started, avoidance, trouble concentrating... sound familiar?

Treatment for fear in dogs, PTSD or not, typically involves avoiding triggers and counter-conditioning, a plan which Patricia feels might be lacking. While it does help address what is going on, it doesn't do much to change the internal state. She suggested looking to diet, massage, anxiety wraps, aroma therapy, homeopathy or chinese medicine, and anti-anxiety meds for a well-rounded treatment plan.

Guilt
Many pet owners believe their dogs experience this emotion, citing the way they “just look guilty” after doing something they shouldn't have. But are the dogs actually experiencing guilt?

Alexandra Horowitz set out to find out. She had dogs and their owners participate in an experiment in which the dogs were left alone in a room with some food with a researcher to watch over them. Sometimes the dogs ate the food, and sometimes they didn't But sometimes the researchers engaged in a bit of subterfuge- they would tell the owners that the dog ate the food when he didn't, or that he didn't eat it when he actually did. When the owners returned, they were instructed to either scold their dogs or greet them normally depending on whether the food was there or not.

The researchers found that the so-called guilty look was actually a combination of nine different behaviors: avoiding eye contact, lying down and rolling to side/back, a drooping tail, low, quick wagging, lowered ears or head, moving away, raising a paw, and lip licking. What's more, whether or not the dog ate the food had no significant effect on these behaviors. What mattered was the owner's response. Scolding resulted in behaviors associated with the guilty look, and the most were seen if the dog was obedient and didn't eat the food, but was scolded anyway.

A similar study confirmed these findings. This time, Hecht and Gasci studied the behaviors associated with the “guilty look”, and found that there was no difference between dogs who ate the food, and those who didn't. And while it appeared that owners could tell if their dog ate the food or not, upon further study, it was determined that the owners weren't relying on behavioral cues, but rather on past experiences and expectations.

Jealousy
Dog owners believe their dogs can feel jealous- one study even asked them about it. 81% of dog owners agreed that their dogs did, and all of the examples given included a social triad with another person or dog involved. The behaviors described were what are generally considered to be attention seeking behaviors (nosing, pawing,etc.).

But does this pan out in the lab? It seems that it does. A recent study showed that dogs understand the concept of “reward inequity,” or to put it in plain English- they can experience jealousy. Here's the deal: the researchers worked with dogs in pairs. Each dog was asked to “give paw,” but only one was reinforced. The dogs were also worked with alone, where they were asked to perform the behavior without any reinforcement. The results showed that the dogs stopped responding sooner and required more prompts when they saw the other dog getting a reward than when they were alone. In both cases, the dog got no reinforcer, but simply being treated unfairly caused the dog's behavior to deteriorate quicker.

Patricia also teased us by telling us about some of the ongoing work into the concept of “fairness” with dogs. There is some really interesting science going on, and I can't wait to see some of the resulting studies.


So it would seem that dogs have emotions. I know that I certainly think so. Of course, I believed that even without knowing about the science, but it is interesting to see it studied in a controlled, systematic way, and I love that it gives us something to point to when we run across one of those people who don't think animals have emotions.

What about you guys? What emotions do you think dogs have? Do you have any great stories that illustrate one of the emotions above (or perhaps a different one)? I'd love to hear about your experiences!

If You Want to Know More

• For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotions in You and Your Best Friend, by Patricia McConnell
• Patricia's Blog: What Emotions Do You Share with Your Dog?
• Patricia's Blog: Survey Results on Emotions in Animals
• Patricia's Blog: Yup, Dogs Can Be Disgusted! 
• Patricia's Blog: Anger and Anger Management 
• Looking for Spinoza, a book by Antonio Damasio
• Disambiguating the “guilty look”: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour, a study by Alexandra Horowitz
• ...and the press release
• Do You Think I Ate It? Owner Perceptions and Behavioral Assessment of the “Guilty Look” in Dogs, by Hecht and Gasci (scroll to page 14 of the document)
• The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs, by Range et al
• Video of the experiment
• Secondary emotions in non-primate species? Behavioural reports and subjective claims by animal owners, by Morris et al

Patricia McConnell Seminar: The D Word

Do dogs have dominance hierarchies? Do wolves? And does it matter?

Many people argue that canine behavior can be explained by dominance- or its flipside, submission. Books have been written, television shows have been produced, and there are arguments all over the internet about “the D word.”

One of the biggest problems with the concept of dominance is that the term has been so overused (and, Patricia argues, misused) that it doesn’t mean much at all anymore. I have coworkers who talk about how dominant (or submissive) their dog is, and I’m often left wondering just what exactly they mean by that. And Maisy? Well, I’m just thankful they’ve never asked me to categorize her.

Scientists describe dominance as “priority access to a preferred, limited resource.” In other words- if there are two dogs and one beefy bone, who gets it? Which dog will stubbornly insist it’s his, and which will defer to the other’s assertion? This definition is very narrow, and the concept of dominance is really only relevant when there is competition over a resource.

But it's not just any resource. What if one dog doesn’t really care who gets the bone? Maybe he’d fight for a hunk of chicken, but doesn’t care enough about the bone to go head-to-head for it. Dominance really depends on the resource in question. Is it a preferred resource? If not, then it's not dominance.

That other word- limited- is also important. If there is only one bone, we’ve got a problem, but if there are two dogs and twenty bones? Well, both dogs are likely going to get a bone. The resources aren't limited enough to create competition, and again, there’s no need to assert dominance.

If you’re getting the feeling that dominance is very context specific, you’re right, but it gets even more specific because dominance is determined on a case-by-case basis. Unlike in birds, dominance hierarchies in most mammals are not linear. There is no “pecking order.” Just as I can get my way with my husband only to have to defer to my boss, Maisy might be willing to take on Fido to get the bone, and then submit to Rover. In other words: the term dominance describes a relationship between two individuals, not personality.

So, do wild canids have dominance hierarchies? It depends on the canid, of course. Patricia told us that foxes have dominance relationships dependent on the resource base- in months where there are plenty of small critters, the need for dominance is much smaller than in leaner times. Coyotes tend to be “faculatively social,” with only some signs of dominance and submission. And wolves? Well...

Much has been written about dominance in wolves, to the point that the notion of an “alpha wolf” long ago entered the popular lexicon. But many of the studies of dominance in wolves were based on captive situations. L. David Mech, the man who did some of the most well-known studies, went on to study wild wolves and found that they tend to live in family systems, not packs of unrelated wolves. To become the leader, the alpha wolf, requires reproduction more than dominance. The differences are profound; a family member can leave if there is conflict, a captive wolf cannot. As a result, Mech has now gone on record as saying that the term “alpha” really only applies to captive situations which require extreme signaling and displays in order to maintain harmony in a very unnatural situation.

We’ve already talked about how wolves and dogs are very different, both physically and behaviorally. So does this mean that we should drop the concepts of dominance and submission for dogs entirely? Both Bradshaw and Coppinger suggest that we do. Bradshaw even says that dogs don’t have the cognitive ability for status. Instead, he talks about “resource holding potential,” which seems like a nice way to discuss “the d-word” without all the baggage that comes along.

Patricia shared that she believes there is some sort of dominance/submission relationship between dogs. After all, when there’s two dogs, someone has to get the bone. She has also seen puppies who seem very interested in controlling resources at an early age- so much so that she thinks there is probably a genetic component to this tendency.

She’s not entirely sure what to call the tendency though. Do you call it “controlling resources”? “Status seeking”? “Dominant”? No matter the words chosen, though, one thing is clear: the concept as a whole is just not useful in living with dogs. Our dogs are very rarely in competition for resources with us, and failing to respond to our commands has nothing to do with who could win the bone- it has to do with training.

Nor is dominance related to aggression, at least not in the sense that aggressive dogs must therefore be dominant. Aggression can be a way to win the bone, but so can groveling. There’s a pretty big difference in the tactics of Gaddafi and those of Ghandi, and yet both could get priority access to desired resources.

I’m very thankful my coworkers have never asked me if Maisy is a “dominant dog.” I honestly don’t know how to answer the question. It just doesn’t come up in our relationship. Part of this is probably because I view her as a teammate or partner; we work together to achieve our goals. She has the freedom to request things she wants, and I am free to say no... or more likely, to spoil her rotten. It doesn’t seem to matter, really. If she is “dominating” me, then it is with my permission… and enjoyment.

If You Want to Know More
Dog Sense, by John Bradshaw
Dogs, by Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger
L. David Mech's website- complete with links to articles and videos

Patricia's Own Blog Posts on the Subject:
The Concept Formerly Deseribed as Dominance
Dogs and Dominance: What's a Person to Do?
Dog Training and the D Word
Dominance Mythologies (Patricia's summary of a presentation by Suzanne Hetts)

Patricia McConnell Seminar: What Science Tells Us About Puppy Development

So now we know: a dog's behavior is a complex thing, based upon both his genetics and his experiences. But can we stack the deck in our favor? How do we ensure that our dogs, and those in the future, are safe, healthy, and sound? What do we know, scientifically, about puppies? Patricia shared some of the research (and some of her own opinions) on the matter.

Good Dogs Start Before They're Born
If genetics influences behavior, that begs the question: What are we breeding for? Patricia showed us a slide that was made up of advertisements for various breeders, including show/conformation breeders. The focus was unequivocally on physical characteristics: size, substance, toplines, coat, color... things which are easily visibly, but in the grand scheme of things, probably not so important, at least not when we're considering the family pet.

The thing is, Patricia told us, today's breeds have severely limited gene pools, and while this is great for establishing a breed, it tends to be detrimental for maintaining it. Lack of genetic diversity can result in less variability in major histocompatibility, which is related to autoimmune diseases, allergies, and hypothyroidism. Patricia urged breeders to calculate co-efficients of in-breeding rather than just looking at pedigrees, and for breed clubs to consider outcrosses with related breeds when done to introduce new genetic material. As for us puppy buyers? We need to look for breeders who consider temperament when planning litters.

Maisy is from a puppy mill- and it shows, even at 12 weeks.

But there are other things that affect a puppy even before he's born. His in-utero experiences can have an effect as well. If a puppy’s mother is experiencing stress, she will have higher levels of cortisol in her body, which will probably reach the fetus. If it does, the fetus will develop fewer brain receptors for cortisol. As an adult, that puppy’s brain won’t be able to sense cortisol unless there are large amounts present in the body. Since the body does need some cortisol, the brain will compensate for the lack of receptors by producing increased amounts, which can result in hyper reactivity, withdrawal, and depression. Not a good thing, and it definitely puts a whole new spin on puppy mills, doesn’t it?

But even if momma dog is happy and content throughout her pregnancy, the number of male vs. female pups in the uterus can have a profound effect on behavior through the process of androgenization. This happens when a female fetus is next to or between two males, which will expose her to increased amounts of testosterone. Studies have found that testosterone has been correlated with an increase in cortisol and aggression. Of course, we really can’t control things like who is next to whom in the womb, but it’s still interesting!

Help Puppy Be All He Can Be
A puppy’s early days can also have a profound impact on his adult behavior. And I do mean early- the US Army created an Early Neural Stimulation program (also known as SuperDog or Biosensor) that is completed between days 3 and 16. This program only takes a few minutes a day, but the end result is impressive. The Army’s research shows that it results in dogs with stronger heart beats, a better adrenal system, increased immunity, and more stress tolerance.

"What is all this white stuff?!"

The results are probably the result of increased dendritic branching. Dendrites are basically connections to other neurons, and when there are more connections, the dog will have increased health and mental stability. Dendritic branching happens as a result of experience, and so things like the early neural stimulation programs probably increase the amount of dentritic branches in the puppy’s brain. Another easy way to do this is by providing a complex environment for the puppy to explore (play tunnels, platforms, different surfaces); such novel experiences help improve the puppy’s long-term behavior.

Nursing is also a vital experience for puppies. Patricia described how pups will push their littermates off a teat, which teaches frustration tolerance and persistence. The pups also learn to tolerate a lot of body touching/handling when this happens. This is probably why, anecdotally, puppies from single litters seem to have more behavior problems.

Patricia also advocated for allowing momma dog to do a natural weaning instead of the breeder forcing weaning at a particular age. In addition to teaching frustration tolerance, she’s seen some very interesting body language happen between momma dog and puppies, and believes that this process is an important learning experience for the pups.

Socialization, Puppy Classes, and You
Anyone who has been in the dog world, even peripherally, has probably heard about the importance of socialization. But what do we know about it scientifically? Well, the results are interesting… and not entirely what I expected.

First, when is the socialization window? Well… we don’t really know. Scott and Fuller said the primary socialization window is between 3 and 7 weeks, but were willing to extend it out as late as 12 weeks. Patricia described some of their research as “squishy,” which means that she takes those ages with a grain of salt. Add in the fact that every individual will develop at his or her own rate, and… well, there's science there, but it's not an exact science.

Okay, but what can socialization do for a dog? Well, two separate studies, conducted on two different breeds, found that socialization may help in some areas, but that it’s unlikely to create a difference in adult dog’s attitudes towards people. One project on German Shepherds studied the differences between puppies adopted at either 6 weeks or 12 weeks, and found no difference in either group in their adult behavior towards humans. However, the pups adopted earlier showed higher distress behaviors, disease and mortality. The other study grouped Jindo dogs into two groups: half were socialized from weeks 7 to 13, and half were isolated. The results showed that the socialized dogs were more playful towards novel objects and dogs… but that there was no difference in their attitudes about people.

So what does this mean? Well, it’s possible that the socialization window is open longer than the guidelines suggest. It’s also possible that a dog’s behavior towards people is more strongly linked to genetics (and less so to early experience) than we think. Considering the fact that dogs have been selectively bred for hundreds of years to interact with humans in certain ways (cooperatively to herd, independently to kill pests, etc.), this seems plausible. Ultimately, we don’t know how much of an effect socialization has, although it seems clear based on the Jindo dog study that even if the benefits are more limited than previously thought, it’s still worth the time.

One highly touted way of socializing puppies is through puppy classes. But does science back this up? Well… probably not. Some researchers placed 58 pups into 5 different groups: socialization and training, socialization only, training only, going into the classroom and being fed a comparable amount of treats, and going into the classroom and having nothing happen. The end result? They found that the group the puppy was placed in had no effect in their social responses to people or other dogs.

Maisy went to puppy classes... but did it matter?

What they did find, however, is that the dogs in the socialization and training group were rated higher on responses to obedience commands, and a later study done by MM Duxbury (who just so happens to be my dog’s own veterinary behaviorist) found that dogs who went to puppy classes were retained at higher rates (90%) than those who did not (75%). Was this because of the effects of socialization? Were these dogs more obedient, and thus easier to live with? Did the owners simply bond with their dogs more if they’d been through a class together? Or was there actually some socialization going on that "innoculated" the dogs against future behavior problems? No matter the reason, it would seem that puppy classes are not a waste of time.


So… can we stack the deck in our favor? Probably, although I suspect we just don’t know enough just yet. Still, it is exciting to see that there’s a lot of research being done into dogs in general, and puppies in specific. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to hear Patricia McConnell discuss some of it.

If You Want to Know More

• MHC class II polymorphism is associated with a canine SLE-related disease complex, an article by Wilbe, et al
• Low Uric Acid Dalmations, the website for the most famous outcrossing project to bring in genetic diversity, and a project cited by Patricia in the seminar
• My own post on Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance (Not recommended by Patricia, but there are a lot of cool links here.)
• A link to a Google Books excerpt from Steven Lindsay’s Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, which has a discussion of Beach’s 1982 study on testosterone in dogs.
• Information on testosterone’s effect on the brain, from the University of Plymoth
• The Social Endocrinology of Dominance: Basal Testosterone Predicts
  Cortisol Changes and Behavior Following Victory and Defeat, a study by Mehta, et al
• Information on the Army’s Biosensor program
• Scott and Fuller’s book, The Genetics of Social Behavior
• The effect of early separation from the mother on pups in bonding to humans and pup health, by Slabbert and Rasa
• Behavioral Reactivity of Jindo Dogs Socialized at an Early Age Compared with Non-Socialized Dogs, by Kim et al
• The Seskel puppy class study is summarized on page 7 of this document
• Dr. Duxbury’s study on puppy classes

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Behaviors with a Genetic Influence

The Labrador’s desire to retrieve. The Great Pyrenees and his devotion to his flock. The Border Collie’s infamous eye. There is no doubt that each breed of dog shares more than physical similarities: they also share behavioral tendencies, a fact which clearly demonstrates that a dog’s genetics contributes to the way he acts.

But beyond breed-related predispositions, what other behaviors can be inherited? Patricia identified five, although she freely admitted that two of them are based on personal speculation alone. The other three have some science that show they tend to be pretty stable over time.

The first, and possibly the most researched, is shyness. Shyness is not the same as docility. It has nothing to do with submission. And it doesn’t really tell you how the dog will act. Shyness, scientifically speaking, has to do with fear of the unfamiliar.

This behavioral trait is actually a continuum, with shyness at one end and boldness at the other. It is influenced by the level of cortisol, the HPA axis, and the activity of the amygdala. A study by Goldsmith and Lemery demonstrated that it is surprisingly stable through an individual’s life. They discovered a correlation between a child’s cortisol baseline and his mother’s, and found that the baseline level taken one and a half years before a child started school could predict a teacher’s evaluation of inhibition at age seven.

In other words, shyness is strongly linked to genes, and is incredibly easy to pass on. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the child (or monkey or rat or cat- all have been studied) who runs from something new and unfamiliar stands a better chance of surviving than the one who boldly investigates strange and potentially dangerous things. It also makes sense then that shyness is expressed early in an individual’s development. Patricia shared that Margaret Seary Young found it was the only trait reliably predicted on puppy tests.

Reactivity is “mediated by physiology,” Patricia told us, and it is therefore logical that it would be influenced by genetics. Reactivity here does not refer to the bark-growl-lunge type of behavior problem that we dog people usually define it as. In this case, it simply has to do with how quickly and how much a dog responds to its environment.

Reactivity can be desirable in certain contexts- a herding dog that doesn’t have a short reaction time probably won’t be very good at his job. On the other hand, there are times where you need a “bomb-proof” dog who doesn’t really notice, much less respond to, what’s going on around him.

It’s also important to know that reactivity is separate from the shy/bold continuum. A very bold dog might notice and respond quickly to his environment, although he will probably do it in very different ways than the shy dog does.

Another behavioral trait that seems to have a genetic influence is frustration tolerance because it is mediated, in part, by the amygdala. However, there also appears to be a strong environmental component to frustration tolerance as well. Who can’t relate to being more irritable when tired, hungry, or in pain?

A dog who is having difficulty tolerating frustration is more likely to act out aggressively. Interestingly, aggressive dogs typically show lower amounts of serotonin and higher concentrations of cortisol, which also suggests there's a link to genes.

The last two behaviors are the ones that don’t (yet) have any scientific research to back up: predisposition to use mouth and status seeking. Both of these traits are things that Patricia has observed enough to believe they are genetically inherited. For the first, she says it just makes sense. Australian Cattle Dogs, for example, would need to use their mouths in order to herd cows. As for status seeking, Patricia said there seem to be puppies that are interested in controlling resources at a very early age… but more on that soon.

It’s clear that there are a number of behavioral traits that have at least some genetic influence. They go beyond just breed-related tendencies, and help explain why two dogs of the same breed can act quite different from one another. Of course, we already know that the environment is an important factor, too. In my next entry on the seminar, I’ll tell you about some of those factors, including in utero experiences, early stimulation, and socialization.

If You Want to Know More

• Linking temperamental fearfulness and anxiety symptoms: a behavior-genetic perspective, an article by Goldsmith and Lemery
• The genetic contribution to canine personality, by Saetre et al This study found that shyness/boldness has a strong genetic component.
• Shyness-boldness predicts performance in working dogs, by Svartberg
• Blood concentrations of serotonin, cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in aggressive dogs, a study by Rosado et al
• Breed Differences in Canine Aggression, a surprising article by Duffy, Hsu, and Serpell
• Behavior Problems in Dogs, by William Campbell, the book which introduced the concepts of “passive defense reflex” and “active defense reflex.”

Patricia McConnell Seminar: The Interplay of Environment and Genetics on Behavior

There was a time when I believed that Maisy’s reactivity was my fault. I got her when she was around 15 or 16 weeks old, from a less-than-desirable place, which meant that she missed out on that vital socialization period. Her early experiences were limited, and no one was watching out to make sure they were good ones. After she responded so favorably to medication, I began to think that perhaps the problem was genetic. It would certainly fit with her origins.

Today, however, I believe that Maisy’s behavior is likely the result of both, and Patricia’s discussion on the interplay of the environment and genetics only confirmed this. Patricia said that it is very difficult to separate out the effects of each one on behavior. There really isn’t a way to definitively know which is causing something to happen. What’s more, most scientists agree that “flexible behaviors” (that is, behaviors that are not instinctual) don’t have just one cause; they are likely the result of both genetics and the environment.

Research in humans has shown that there are a number of behavioral traits that are stable over time and that make up a person’s general temperament- that is, the specific differences between individuals that are present and relatively unchanged from birth. The “big five” that scientists believe are genetically influenced are: openness to experience (curious vs. cautious), conscientiousness (efficient and organized vs. a more easy-going nature), extraversion (outgoing vs. reserved), agreeableness (friendly and compassionate vs. cold and unkind), and neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident).

As we grow up, our temperaments are overlaid with experience, and this combination results in our personalities. Patricia used a great example to illustrate the difference: a person’s temperament is like a blank canvas where his personality is the actual painting. The finished product can never go beyond the borders of what was originally there, but it may look drastically different based upon the colors and brush strokes that happen.

All of this means that while genes set boundaries, they don’t dictate behavior. Patricia discussed several behavioral characteristics in dogs that she believes are influenced by genetics (more about that in my next post), but noted that even when a dog has a genetic predisposition towards acting a certain way, the behavior still needs to be “triggered” by the environment. Further, while we can definitely influence a dog’s behavior through experience (such as training), we can’t change his genetics. Just as Picasso was confined to the limits of his canvas, so is the best trainer confined to the limits of his dog’s genes.

Interestingly, this means that dogs with different genetics can appear behaviorally similar. The chart below (a recreation of one of Patricia’s slides) is an example of the genetics of two different dogs on the bold/shy continuum. The dogs are limited to what their genes will allow, as evidenced by the range shown.

As you can see, Dog 1 has more genetic capacity for boldness, while Dog 2 is more likely to be shy and fearful. However, their experiences will dictate where each dog will fall within their predetermined range. So, if Dog 1 is kept in relative isolation and Dog 2 receives great socialization, their actual behavior could look the same. The only difference is that Dog 1 will always be capable of being bolder, despite all of the great training Dog 2 might get. And that’s the thing with genes- you can only influence behavior within their boundaries, and you won’t know where the boundaries are until you try.

So was Maisy’s reactivity my fault? Not really. While her experiences (and lack thereof) certainly contributed to her behavior problems, I can no more control her genetics than I can my own. We are what we are. Still, it is my responsibility to take the metaphorical canvas that she is and create something beautiful by using quality tools and an environment full of vibrant colors.

And that's the thing about dogs: they are all individuals. Picasso is not Kandinsky is not Da Vinci, and it would be foolish to try and force Jackson Pollock to be Botticelli. I strongly believe the same is true for our dogs. Encourage them to be their best, of course, but we should enjoy each of our dogs for the works of art they are.

If You Want to Know More
Temperament and Personality: Origins and Outcomes, article by Rothbart et al, 2000
Aggressive behavior in dogs that passed a temperament test, a 2006 study by Christensen et al Patricia said that this study helps demonstrate the effect that the testing environment can have on a dog’s behavior. As a result, temperament tests (which are probably misnamed) are not a guarantee of the future, but rather gauge probabilities.

Patricia McConnell Seminar: What is a Dog?

Does it seem odd for a famous dog trainer, one with a PhD and who is a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, to ask what a dog is? Whether it is or not, simply asking the question encapsulates one of the things that I love about Patricia McConnell: she is always, always learning. She never assumes that she has all the answers, she's not afraid to say “I don't know.”

And so she began a day-long seminar- one intended to summarize the latest scientific studies about the genetics, development, social systems, emotions, and cognition of dogs- with the most basic of questions: What is a dog? The problem with this question, of course, is that we will never be able to truly answer it. While we all have ideas on what a dog is, our answers come from a decidedly human point-of-view. Our reality is so startlingly different from the dog's that it may even be impossible to answer the question at all.

We still try, though.

Dogs, Patricia told us, have been living with humans longer than any other domestic animal. But where did they come from? How did they become domesticated? And how long have they been living with us?

The first question is easy, at least from a taxonomical standpoint: the scientific name for dogs is canis lupus familiaris, which makes them a subspecies of wolves. However, to say that dogs are wolves is similar to saying that humans are chimpanzees. We share many of our genes with chimpanzees, as do dogs and wolves, but we do not share all of them, and even a small difference can have a profound effect on behavior.

Wolves and dogs are different largely because of a change in a regulator gene, specifically one that controls the process of development in dogs. This has resulted in paedomorphism in dogs, which is the “retention of juvenile characteristics in the adult.” Basically, as compared to wolves, dogs act like puppies.

In Patricia's experience, wolves (even wolf hybrids) act distinctly different from dogs. For example, she has found that wolves are much more physically active. They are mouthier and have a tendency to destroy things far beyond what even the worst dog puppy ever does. They aren't as docile as their canine cousins, and as a result are difficult to correct (and Patricia didn't mean physically; wolves just aren't as interested in humans as dogs are). They have an extreme desire to roam, and are next to impossible to keep at home. What's more, wolves are much more wary of new experiences.

All of this means that even a very difficult dog acts like a baby in comparison to a wolf. That's because they are, simply put, socially immature. Paedomorphic. And this paedomorphism extends to more than just behavior; it includes physical appearance and internal physiology.

One of the best examples of how the process of domestication causes profound changes is Belyaev's Foxes. Belyaev was a Russian scientist who was breeding silver foxes on a fur farm. He and his colleagues began breeding only the tamest foxes, and within eight generations, they had foxes that acted like, well, dogs. These “genetically tame” foxes were more docile than the average fox, and even as adults, they showed juvenile behaviors like face-liking and paw-raising.

But they also began to have patches of white in their coats (something rarely seen in non-domesticated animals), curly tails, and flopped over ears. Their internal physiology changed, too. Instead of one heat cycle a year, they began to have two, like dogs. There was a delay in the production of corticosteriod, which meant that their “fear period” and socialization window extended from six weeks to eight or more weeks... like dogs. And there was an overall decrease in corticosteroids in general, which meant the foxes were less likely to flee. Like dogs.

So how did dogs become domesticated? Well, we'll never know for sure, but there are three main hypotheses: The Village Dog Hypothesis, which says that there was a natural selection for wolves who were bold enough to hang around an early settlement's garbage dumps, the Hunting Hypothesis, which says that wolves began to follow human hunters (or vice versa?), and the Nurturing Hypothesis, which says that after adult wolves were killed, the pups were brought back to camp and raised by the women and children. Patricia doesn't claim to know which is correct, but does wonder if perhaps there were multiple forces in the process of domestication instead of just one.

As for when this happened, fossil evidence places domestication in East Asia around 12,000 to 14,000 (maybe even 20,000) years ago, while DNA analysis places it somewhere from 100,000 to 135,000 years ago. That's a pretty big range, one that has been expanded as science has progressed rather than narrowed, which makes it a huge question mark in history.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. While dogs and wolves are related, they are different. Wolves are difficult pets for even the most knowledgeable people, and impossible for the inexperienced. Yet dogs are everywhere, and as Patricia put it, our relationship with them is nothing short of miraculous. No wonder so many people are asking so many questions about our canine companions. We may never find all the answers, but we have learned a lot, and Patricia McConnell shared much of the current scientific knowledge about dogs with us throughout the day. I look forward to sharing some of it with you.


If You Want to Know More
Patricia suggested these books for further reading on today's topic:
Inside of a Dog, by Alexandra Horowitz
Dog Sense, by John Bradshaw
Dogs, by Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger
Part Wild, by Ceiridwen Terrill

And a suggestion of my own:
The Wolf in the Parlor, by Jon Franklin

Videos you might like:
Belyaev's Foxes, selected for docility
Belyaev's Foxes, selected for aggression

And a fellow blogger's own series on Belyaev:
Leema Kennels on Belyaev

Clicker Expo 2011 (Chicago): Closing Session with Patricia McConnell- Emotions and Dogs

Patricia McConnell made us cry. Even people who had heard her talk on the subject of emotions and dogs before, who knew what she was going to say before she said it, didn't escape with a dry face. Yes, for all that we talked about theory and science and data at Clicker Expo, when it comes right down to it, we were there because we love our dogs.

But do our dogs love us? Do they have emotions? Trisha said that the evidence points to yes.

Here's the deal: emotions are primitive things. They integrate the body and environment. They are as important to us as is rational thought, and in fact, actually allow rational thought. Emotions enable us to make decisions, and without them, we would be unable to do things as simple as filing a piece of paper. It stands to reason that animals would need emotions to make decisions, too.

What's more, the limbic system- the part of the body that regulates emotions- is present in all mammals. Although some areas are bigger in some than others, we share all of the same brain structures. We also share many of the same hormones, such as oxytocin, which is critical to process of bonding and attachment in mother and young.

Still not convinced? Well, Trisha said that we often share external expressions of emotions with other animals. Things like fear, happiness and anger look similar among species. She showed us a great slide show demonstrating this; if you'd like to see the pictures, check out her book For the Love of a Dog. (And then read the whole thing- it's fabulous.)

The truth is, most biologists agree that mammals, including dogs, have emotions. However, there is a great deal of controversy over which ones they have, and how they experience them. Generally speaking, it appears that dogs can feel disgust, fear, anger, happiness, and “seeking.” They probably don't understand more complex emotions like jealousy, sympathy, or guilt.

But do they feel love? Well, it certainly seems so. Who hasn't spoken of the “unconditional” love of a dog? But is it truly unconditional love, or is it that they can't talk back? Their nonverbal status certainly enhances the primal connection we often feel with our dogs. They also elicit nurturing behaviors and empathy. Who hasn't cooed at a puppy, after all? These behaviors result in the release of oxytocin, which helps us bond to them even stronger. Perhaps that hormone also leads to the perception of unconditional love.

There's one thing we can all agree on though: No matter how they feel about us, we certainly love them. Trisha made us all cry when she shared the story of her beloved dog's death. Even now, I tear up just a little, knowing that I will (hopefully) outlive Maisy. I have such a hard time imagining life without her, and I have no idea how I will survive.

So go. Turn off your computer. Spend some time with your dog. Train if you wish, but don't worry about the result- you're a good trainer, and you could teach almost any dog to do that behavior. Instead, enjoy the process. Revel in the beauty of the relationship you have with your dog. Simply enjoy being together. Love him. And if you can, let him love you too.

24 Hours Later...

So, I thought I'd give everyone a quick update on how the first 24 hours after the unfortunate incident went.

First, yes, I called animal control first thing this morning. The gentleman that answered the phone was very nice. I explained what happened. He told me that since Maisy didn't have any puncture wounds, they couldn't investigate it as an aggression case, but that they'd investigate and likely cite the owners for the loose dog violation. I did tell him that I kicked the other dog, and he was very understanding. He said that I was within my rights to do whatever I needed to do to protect my dog, and while he understood that it doesn't feel good, he would have done the same thing.

Speaking of which, people have kicked -no pun intended- around some ideas here in the comments and over on facebook about what to do about loose dogs. There's no easy answer, of course. Usually I try to body block the other dog, and I'm usually pretty successful at this. I've been teaching Maisy to "switch sides" to make this easier. But this particular dog was on top of her before I even saw it coming, so I didn't have the option to body block or "switch" anyone.

Grabbing the other dog by the legs and swinging was mentioned, although I have to admit, I'm not sure I have the coordination for that. In the right situation, though, it could be a great idea.

Someone else suggested throwing treats at the oncoming dog, which is a great suggestion, and one I've heard from Patricia McConnell, among others. In fact, I did have a pocketful of kibble with me, but in the stress of the moment, I didn't even think of throwing it. I do have some reservations about this, though, as Maisy has a tendency to resource guard me when she knows I'm packing treats. In a situation like this, I'm not sure if throwing treats would be a good distraction, or if it would just create a bigger problem.

Citronella was also discussed, but I dismissed it completely, figuring that the spray would also punish or repel Maisy, making the whole experience even worse for her. Then my brilliant friend Sara suggested buying two cans: one for potential attackers and one to use in advance to counter-condition Maisy so that she associates the citronella spray with treats. I think I'm a good trainer, and one who understands the concepts behind training, but I don't think I would have ever thought of that. Seriously, remember her name, because she's going to do amazing things some day.

Anyway, the most important part is that Maisy seems to be doing well. She was completely normal at home last night and this morning. We also went for a walk again this afternoon as I didn't want to change up the routine too much. I brought a dog-less friend along so that I would have a distraction that would help keep me from being stressed and weird. (And it doesn't hurt that Maisy adores this particular friend.) We also chose not to walk down the street with the offending dog, and we probably won't for a long time, which helped me stay more relaxed, too.

As proof of her ability to bounce back, she seemed emotionally fine on the walk. We walked by barking dogs without a problem. No freezing like yesterday, and nice loose, relaxed body language for the duration of the walk. I was much more liberal with the cookies than I usually am, and will continue to do that for a few days.

Of course, I don't know is what kind of fallout I'll see with Maisy's reaction to dogs in closer proximity. We won't push it this weekend because I want to give the stress hormones and the other chemicals in her brain time to recede. Even so, class next week is liable to be interesting. I'll have to remember to keep my criteria low and my rate of reinforcement high. I know Maisy and I can work through this, I just need to let the past remain in the past.

I am slightly concerned about her physical condition, though. Maisy got stiff halfway through the walk and began limping on the rear leg again. She even asked me to carry her part of the time. Clearly, I'll need to keep walks shorter for the next few days, and if it doesn't clear up, we'll make an appointment for next week.

Anyway, I'll try to return to our regularly scheduled program this weekend. Maisy has clearly moved on from this incident, and I need to do the same. There's no use in dwelling on it, and in fact, that might only make matters worse. Of course, I'll let you know if anything interesting happens, but from now on, I'm not going to worry about it.

Training Schedules

What’s your training schedule like? How often do you train? How long do you train? How many exercises do you work on at once?

I have always treated training like homework- you sit down, do what you need to do, and then go to the next task. So, I’ve always trained in one daily chunk, generally about 15 to 30 minutes. And in that daily chunk, I’ve worked on an average of four to six items. This has always worked well for us, although sometimes it's hard to get my lazy butt off the couch.

Then, my dog training “crush,” Patricia McConnell, posted in her blog about a book about people who had strokes, and how they made more physical progress when they were immersed in their therapy than when they did the more traditional daily chunks. Learning by immersion has long been considered the best way to learn foreign languages, and based on the science, it makes sense: you can form new neural pathways better if you’re immersed in what you’re doing. And why wouldn’t this been true of our dogs, too? After all, their brains are very similar to ours. Trisha decided to set a learning immersion goal for her and her dog: she would work with her dog five times a day.

Call me a hanger-on, but I decided to try it, too. I thought it would be really difficult at first. How do you find the time to train your dog five times throughout the day? At 30 minutes a pop, well, you don’t. Plus, Maisy hates drilling, so I decided to do very short sessions: two minutes.

I’ve done this a couple of days now, and I’m surprised by how much easier this is! Before, it was a struggle to find 15 minutes all at once. But two minutes? That’s the length of a commercial break. It’s easy to fit in while cooking or doing the laundry. It only adds marginally to a bathroom break between chapters in the book you’re reading. Before you know it, you’ve done five sessions!

And the learning seems to be faster, too. Maisy and I have been working on heeling. We spend one minute on attention heeling, and then one minute on right-side heeling. I throw a few right finishes in there, too, to help her understand the difference between a right finish and a right “get in heel” command (which I desperately need a cue for- any suggestions?). In only a matter of a few days, Maisy has almost mastered the “get in heel” on the right side- my body movements are less extreme, and she’s almost sitting straight every time now. Her attention, on both sides, is much better! And she seems to get the difference in my hand signals for right heel and right finish.

Maisy seems to be enjoying this new schedule, too. She loves training, and now she gets to do it five times a day instead of just once! Could life get any better? She still needs to entertain herself between sessions, but stretching it out like this seems to be more stimulating, even if we’re spending the same amount of time (or less!) actually training. Plus, it’s so much easier to keep her attention the entire time and end on a good note when the sessions are so short!

I’ll report back in a couple of weeks, but I think we’ll keep working like this. It will be easy to add in fronts, moving downs and back up in heel. Of course, the more I add in, the less time we can work on each skill, but I think I could easily increase the session length to three minutes while simultaneously reducing the amount of time on each skill to 30 seconds or so. After all, 30 seconds is really quite a long time.

So… what’s your training schedule like? Are you ready to take the Five Times Challenge?