Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home4/rcan5730/public_html/forum/Sources/Load.php(183) : runtime-created function on line 3
Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Hello Guest

Author Topic: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR  (Read 2968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnsk9

  • SchH3
  • Posts: 605
    • http://east-german-shepherds.com
Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« on: July 16, 2010, 06:45:32 AM »
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
by Gary Patterson
Copyright June, 1998 - 2010

 

Throughout the dog's twelve thousand-year relationship with man, its behavior has been carefully molded to distinguish the dog from its wild ancestor, the wolf. In the first installment of this series, we saw how aggression, a trait seldom seen in the defensive behavior of the wild predator, has been developed in the modern dog to serve man. The second installment examined prey behavior and concluded that the natural predatory skills of the dog have been honed so it will just as naturally pursue hot dogs, balls and sleeves as it will a running rabbit. We now examine an area that, to the dog trainer, is the single most important part of dog training, the relationship between trainer and dog. The often easy description of this relationship is a throwback to the pack instincts of the wolf. Writers describe the trainer as the alpha, meaning that the dog takes a subordinate role to the trainer, just as it would to the highest ranking wolf in a pack. But is this an accurate description of the relationship between dog and trainer?

It is an attractive description for in all of dog behavior, nothing seems so identical to a dog's interaction with people and other dogs as does the wolf's in the pack setting. In the wolf pack, ranging from only a few to over twenty members, the lines of authority are set within a strict hierarchy. The pack contains two distinct lines, male and female, with each line seldom interfering with the other. The top male and female, called alphas, maintain control and priority in feeding, mating and the social behavior of subordinates. Below the alpha position is a line of animals with each submitting to the animal above it and dominating those that are subordinate to its authority. It is not as stable a situation as this simple explanation might imply. There is a constant process of each animal attempting to gain dominance over its immediate superior, while fighting off the attempts of subordinates to dominate it. If this situation seems unstable, it is; but, the pack is able to maintain sufficient peace to hunt and protect the pack without serious injury or anarchy resulting. Because of its small size, no single wolf is capable of surviving for long, instead requiring the joint efforts of the pack to bring down a deer, caribou or moose. Therefore, pack social behavior is a constant process of challenging, confrontation and reconciliation among the members.

I am fortunate enough to live near a captive wolf pack of six members. During the winter, just before breeding, this pack becomes extremely active and it is one of the most enlightening experiences for the dog trainer. The social interaction among these wolves seems so identical to what we humans see in dogs that within only a few minutes the observer forgets he is watching wolves and starts thinking of these beautiful animals as dogs. But, it doesn't take long before the differences become apparent.

The most marked difference is the intensity of the wolf's responses around other pack members. The alpha wolves, in particular, are always showing their authority, sometimes in the most seemingly innocent ways. One will drop a piece of meat on the ground and then lie down a few feet away, defying any other wolf to even show interest in the master's property. No fight needs to follow; the message has been loud and clear. This process goes on constantly, with each wolf attempting to find a weakness in its competitor's social position. While fights and serious injury can result, this is not the normal course of events and all of the subtle and, even, unsubtle signs given by each wolf are designed to prevent serious injury. No pack can survive and procreate if all of its members are maimed or killed, so the wolf's social behavior is designed to create lines of authority and preserve them, while allowing the pack to continue.

One reason it is popular to compare the social behavior of dogs to wolves is that the interactions we see between dogs seem identical to that between wolves. Dogs will posture, bluff and even fight in much the same way as members of the wolf pack. Dogs will mark territory, guard food, submit to and appease other dogs in the same way of wolves. If the behavior is similar, it is certainly much less intense than with its wild counterpart. The more important question is does a dog's pack like relationship with other dogs extend to that which it has with the trainer?

It is my conclusion that while the relationship of dog and trainer can appear to be like the alpha relationship between groups of dogs or wolves, the real relationship between dog and man is pack member and super alpha. Without this important distinction, I question that we could ever train our dogs to the level of reliability and skill that working dog trainers require. One of the reasons that wolves don't work too well as pets is that they may constantly test the human owner for dominance. Over the time that man and dog have been together, there have been certain characteristics of the wolf's social behavior that man has had to modify or eliminate. Imagine the problems of getting to the nightly dinner table if we had to fight through a canine contender. How long would any of us last if, upon giving a correction, the dog would perceive this as an attempt to dominate it and fight back? Some might argue that this is exactly what happens to many people, so the vestiges of the pack social behavior must exist. I cannot disagree with this conclusion, but when the behavior reaches a point where the owner has to fight constantly for dominance, there is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship. Either the dog is poorly temperamented or the owner has taught the dog it can attempt this type of reaction.

The concept of the super alpha is the result of thousands of generations of breeding where the dog has learned that while it can fully exercise an unrestrained social attitude towards other dogs, it can never show these same attempts to dominate against man. Sure, a large person can always give the dog a lesson by beating it into physical submission, but the heart of the super alpha concept is more subtle, relying on building and strengthening the relationship between man and dog that our ancestors worked so hard to create.

While the word bonding has become a popular and sensitive word for the 1990's, it has a much richer and long standing significance in the study of animal behavior. The Nobel Prize Laureate, Konrad Lorenz, studied bonding and determined that some animals go through a period during their early life when they must bond to some other animal. In his studies with Greylag Geese, he was able to bond the gosling to his voice before it even left the egg. Dogs are among the most social animals we know and their bonding requirements are little different. Subsequent researchers have determined that at a time of about seven weeks of age the puppy must bond to something. If it is allowed to only be around other dogs, it will bond to those dogs, just like its wolf ancestors. If it is exposed only to a single human during this critical social period, the puppy will bond to that person. On the other hand, if the puppy is isolated through this period, not being allowed to bond to anything, it becomes the human equivalent of anti-social.

It has been the philosophy of many breeders not to remove a puppy from the litter until about eight to ten weeks of age, forgetting that during this period the puppy is developing a strong bond to its litter mates. It then will most likely key on other dogs first during the rest of its life and the bonding process with the owner can become jeopardized. Konrad Lorenz not only defined this critical imprinting period, but also concluded that once established, the bond becomes permanent. This is not to say that the puppy bonds to only one person or dog, but to people or dogs in general. Lorenz seems to be saying that when the bond is genetically driven during this early period, the results of the bond are the same as if its bond to a dog or person becomes genetically based. The research has seemed to confirm Lorenz's conclusion in showing that the many attempts to reverse a certain kind of social behavior learned during this critical period are rarely successful. It is as if the trainer is trying to change the dog's genes.

A strong bond between the dog and the super alpha trainer does not solve the potential conflict that can arise in the training environment, if the trainer fails to understand that the dog will still show many types of social responses to different training problems. Bonding does not create a magic elixir capable of changing the fundamental character of the dog. Instead, a strong bond between dog and trainer satisfies the genetic need of the dog to bond to something and, therefore, makes the dog more willing to respond to the demands of our work. Unless, of course, the trainer fails to properly read the dog's social responses during training.
Theory of Social Behavior

In the first installment of this series, the principles of defensive behavior, including aggression, were discussed and the comment was made that many of the characteristics of defensive behavior seem similar to those of social behavior. It is easy to fall into the trap of concluding that responses in one type of behavior are the same as in another. I would like to review those characteristics of defense in light of similar responses between handler and dog or dog and dog.

The strategy in defense is for the prey animal to respond in such a way that the predator can not see the prey, catch it or breaks off the threat for fear of injury to itself. Using this simple definition, it should be clear that the motivation behind defensive behavior would seem to have little to do with social reactions and this is the principal point. The most important distinction between defense and social behavior is the purpose behind the behavior. In contrast to defense, the dog's motivation in social behavior is to find its place in the relationship between itself and other members of the same species (or in our case, with the trainer). All healthy reactions in social behavior are driven by this need of the dog to find its niche. Earlier I discussed the need of the dog to find success and, in true defense, we discovered that the dog's strategy of either avoidance or aggression would lead to a dog's sense of success. The trainer must keep this in mind for in social behavior there are many responses a dog can give that will result in the dog's sense of success, but which can be a total failure for the trainer.

In examining defense, we found that an animal can evade the attack by withdrawing to a safe place, fleeing or freezing. All of these responses can be shown in social reactions to the trainer, except we must add some additional characteristics and redefine some of these seemingly identical behaviors when discussing social characteristics. While the word avoidance fits comfortably into our descriptions of the above defense responses, similar reactions in social behavior can not so easily be described as avoiding the trainer. In a wolf pack, if the alpha wolf actively dominates a subordinate, the lower wolf will immediately show every sign that it is submitting to the strength of the alpha. It will lower its body and tail, pull its ears back and even roll on its back. As soon as it demonstrates that it is no longer willing to challenge its superior, the alpha immediately reassures the subordinate by greeting it or even sharing some social activity. Therefore, the response of appeasement or submission is critical to the survival of the pack, but would be totally worthless in the life and death struggle of defense. No animal can submit to or appease a predator and succeed, let alone survive. If an animal runs away, freezes or submits to a more dominant force in social interactions, it has still found success. Therefore, the trainer who unfairly disciplines his dog will teach it that the only way for it to succeed is to avoid, usually in the form of submission. The dog has found success and the trainer has found failure. Further, because the bond is ever present, the dog has found a pattern of successful behavior that it must use whenever it is around its master, so the trainer can look forward to consistent and, perhaps, permanent avoidance from the dog. Other forms of defensive like avoidance can manifest themselves in the relationship between trainer and dog. One of the most frustrating is freezing or passive resistance. In this behavior the dog simply freezes, choosing neither to submit nor run away: it simply does nothing. Here the dog is in conflict; it wants to submit and flee at the same time. It is not hiding by freezing, as in defense, but totally incapable of resolving the conflict of wanting to do two things at the same time. Unable to work its way out of this dilemma, it finds some third type of behavior, freezing, to resolve the problem. This response was earlier discussed in the installment on defense and is called displacement.

The above describes behavior that is designed to avoid the confrontation between trainer and dog or dominant dog and subordinate dog, but what about those cases where the dog is willing to actively defend its position? We see dogs that fight or handlers that are bitten. Isn't this just another form of aggression, similar to what we saw in defense?

In defense, I described aggression, perhaps to the reader with some uncertainty, as hostile behavior against animals of a different species, beyond the displays and posturing of bluffing. It might seem that I have conveniently created a definition that gets me out of having to define social aggression as identical to that in defense, but I hope the definition will now become clearer. If my definition would include animals of the same species, then a dog urinating on a post or bird singing in its territory would also have to fall into the definition of aggression. Researchers, faced with this problem, believe a more accurate way to define aggressive like behavior in social relationships is conflict resolution, or agonistic behavior. It is not the purpose of the aggressive behavior to inflict harm or kill, but to maintain social order through confrontation, resolution and appeasement. While this behavior may be intense in the wolf pack, especially during the breeding season, man has placed limits on this behavior in dogs. While dogs are capable of fighting, if you carefully watch the behavior there is a significant amount of posturing and displays before the fight actually starts. If one dog should submit, there is little risk of an outright fight, for the dominant dog has succeeded. Even if a fight should ensue, bites most often are directed against less vulnerable parts of the body, minimizing the risk of serious wounds or death. Certainly, all of this can go wrong with serious injury resulting, but the norm is that the result of what seems to be a horrendous fight is little more than minor cuts and bruised egos.

In the case of dog and trainer, the reader can probably think of many examples where dogs have bitten their owners. If the definition of the human-dog relationship is truly predicated on the super alpha concept, then no owner should fear his dog. Yet, we know that many owners are challenged and even attacked by their dogs. The super alpha concept is based on the relationship of a trainer and dog, not the simple custodian of a pet. Through good bonding and sound principles of conditioning and reinforcement, the dog has found success in the relationship and is not tempted to seriously challenge the working dog trainer. It should not be in the modern working dog's makeup to seriously consider challenging the trainer. It can happen and does, but only because the super alpha relationship has broken down or never been established in the first place. Look at the many books written by dog psychologists and the common denominator is usually that the owner has sent out the wrong messages to the dog. Maintaining the super alpha relationship is not simply a matter of exercising brute force over the dog so it never challenges again, but reinforcing the dog's genetic sense that the owner is always dominant and it can find success in this relationship. Therefore, if the trainer experiences aggressive like behavior against him, he can be sure that he has violated the fundamental rules that the dog's genes and good training require.Of course, the dog could have a poor temperament, but this is an entirely different matter.

Putting Social Behavior to Work

The dog trainer can use the critical social period to advantage in amazing ways, where what the young puppy learns will stay with it for life.

The trainer can take walks with the puppy and call it to return to the trainer. Each time the puppy returns on command, there is a reward of food, praise or petting.

By teaching the beginning of retrieval during this period, the puppy not only learns to retrieve, but also that it must return the prey to the handler on command, an act that is not so natural. Retrieval training at this early period greatly strengthens the bond.

Isolate the puppy when you are not training or playing with it. Allowing the puppy to run with other dogs or subjecting it to the corrections and demands of other people only confuses the bonding process where the puppy becomes uncertain about who the super alpha is. Usually putting the puppy in a crate or run during inactive periods is sufficient to allow it to rest and remain isolated from these other influences. The trainer must strive to become the center of this young dog's universe during this period and up to an age of one year.

The danger during this period is that the trainer may also teach the puppy the wrong thing. If all the positive bonding work has an irretrievably good effect on the dog, then poor training can create permanent harm for the same reason.

Taking the earlier statements that a dog must find its place in the social order and strive for success, if the trainer tries to put too much strain on the bonding relationship, the young dog will simply give in. Suppose a trainer is going to show everyone how good he is by teaching a young dog perfect obedience before it is six months of age. The young, undeveloped dog has no foundation in obedience so the trainer will use corrections and praise to teach the exercises. The young dog, not understanding the corrections, learns only to submit to the dominant force of the super alpha. Because the bonding defines the basic relationship between owner and dog and, further, because the dog is not strong enough to confront the owner, the only avenue for success is avoidance. While most of us would agree that this type of attitude is bad training, the real damage results from the dog's young age and its, now fixed, attitude that the relationship with its owner is one of stress and submission. It will make little difference that the trainer might later realize his mistake and return to motivational work; the damage has been done with the dog finding success and the trainer creating failure.

On the other hand, making the young dog associate the bond with a person who is always a source for an active and interesting relationship carries into later, more formalized training.

The isolation of the young dog from other influences focuses the bond on the trainer.

Retrieval and teaching the dog to come on command make the puppy think only in terms of the super alpha.

Make all sessions with the puppy highly active so that it only thinks in terms of maximum energy when with the handler.

Avoid all formalized training in the early months and instead concentrate on building the foundation for later, more structured training. Such things as building confidence, physical skills, the bond and trust are those elements that, when taught at this young age, become a permanent part of your puppy's character.

In the last installment we will look at a slightly different subject, the dog's drives. Instead of being a specific behavior such as defense, prey and social activity, a dog's drive is the engine that pushes these behaviors and leads to the top working dog, or just as easily, creates a working dog monster.

Offline Johnsk9

  • SchH3
  • Posts: 605
    • http://east-german-shepherds.com
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR#2
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2010, 06:46:47 AM »
Tell Me About Your Dog! Part II
by Armin Winkler
Copyright September, 2008 - 2010

 

Unfortunately, this form of aggression is not very common in our dogs anymore, because many people find it to be socially unacceptable. Dogs today are supposed to be social and to a certain degree friendly. And while I see nothing wrong with a social dog, I personally also see nothing wrong with a socially aggressive dog. These dogs are not unpredictable menaces to society or vicious animals. They simply have inborn motivations that include this form of aggression. Social aggression is a trainable trait, meaning it can be directed and controlled. Naturally that requires the right handler, so that accidents are prevented.

Socially aggressive dogs have an urge to be aggressive towards strangers. This can be controlled and the dog can be taught to tolerate strangers. However, the dog will not become a social or friendly dog with strangers, no matter what type of training is done. The only way this urge to confront a stranger aggressively when not under control would go away is if the stranger meets the confrontation and social order is established. This happens either if the person can subdue the dog and subordinate him or if the person unequivocally submits to the dog. (At that point the person is no longer a stranger though but an integrated pack member).

The trend in breeding has been to breed dogs who do not have social aggression. And that may be what many people want. The point I would like to make is that social aggression is nothing that should be made out to be something evil. It is a valuable trait in dogs that are in the right hands. Such dogs do demand a high degree of responsibility and vigilance on the part of the handler. Socially aggressive dogs who are also dominant are difficult to handle and to train and should be in the hands of experts.
Dominance behavior

Dominance behavior falls in the category of social interaction behaviors. It can appear together with social aggression, but it does not have to. It can appear on its own as well. In many ways dominance behavior resembles aggression, but it really is not a form of aggression in itself. Dominance behavior stems from an internal urge to prove superiority and status. In discussion I use the phrase "this dog likes to throw his weight around." The reason I am making dominance behavior a component of fighting "drive" is that it has an impact on how a dog physically interacts with other individuals and therefore it becomes part of the picture we see.

Dominance behavior includes climbing up on the helper, eye contact, puffing up to impress, and physical dominance through power. Satisfaction seems to occur when the dog gets a sense of power over the helper. This trait is almost always more strongly developed in males than in females.

Dominance behavior can appear on its own or it can overlap with other components. For example, in a dog with a sense of dominance and good prey drive and a personality that frustrates easily we can see that the dog becomes aggressive only if he cannot get a sense of power. This is not the same as social aggression. This type of dog likes to assert his strength while working in prey, the frustration occurs when he cannot express his power over his adversary for the prey. We can also see a dog with a sense of dominance but only capable of the weak passive defense reaction. This type of dog must naturally have a lower threshold for defensive reactions. For him not being able to feel physical power over the helper triggers the sense of worry which in turn triggers the defensive reaction, which in this example would include retreat.

Naturally there are countless examples of different combinations. There is no need to list them all, the point I am trying to make is that dominance is not automatically aggression. It is not an isolated trait, and always occurs in conjuntion with another motivation. But it warrants examination on its own. I feel this is important particularly because the re-active forms of aggression can occur without any expression of dominance (Socially aggressive dogs always have some sense of dominance.
Rage

This is the last major component that I want to include in my discussion of fightin "drive." What is rage? Webster defines rage as "a furious, uncontrolled anger" or "a brief spell of raving fury." I think that definition gives us a pretty good point to start examining what I am talking about. Rage is a re-active form of aggression. Even though most dogs have some form of rage, only a few dogs have it as a useful trait for training. Rage can be directed, but it is very difficult to control. It is therefore not a trait that is selected for in breeding for performance dogs. Biologically this trait is if anything a contradiction. It does not seem to have a biological goal. Rage is triggered by mistreatment, pain, and opposition. It can appear as a result of frustration overload. What is unique about rage is that it is extremely forceful and violent and also that it seems to be able to override self preservation instincts. No other form of aggression has that quality. As soon as the negatives become too much and self preservation is threatened dogs will chose other options if they exist in defense, social aggression or frustration aggression. But rage seems to be able to shut out "good sense" even if only for a short period of time. Another unique quality to this form of aggression is that it has a certain vengeful or retaliatory tone to it. Vengeance may be the only goal we can give it. But that is very hard to quantify, and I may be anthropomorphizing a bit here. I am sure that rage differs from the active defense reaction, because I have seen dogs who clearly showed the weak passive defense reaction to all threatening stimuli. But when pain was caused without any further reduction of safety distance, the dogs suddenly became enraged and came forward aggressively without any regard for their welfare. I have seen the term pain aggression used in a similar way. However I feel that is an inadequate description of rage. The Germans use the word "Wut," which means rage or anger, as part of their protection terminology.
Fighting "Drive," Conclusion

This brings me to the end of the discussion of fighting ?drive?. The major contributing components I have been able to isolate are the six I just described: prey drive, defense drive, frustration aggression, social aggression, dominance behavior, and rage. All dogs will have these components in some form or another. But we have to draw the line at the point where the components stop being useful. I hope you will agree with me when I say that a dog that everyone describes as having great fighting "drive" will display most if not all of these components in a useful form. I feel that it is important to look at this concept as a package made up of components, and not one drive. The individual components need to be promoted, solidified and manipulated to where a dog can freely switch between all the components he has in order to deal with virtually every situation he may encounter. Only then does a dog have fightin "drive." We also have to accept that some dogs will have fewer dimensions to their individual fighting "drive" package than others. Knowing which components are workable is very important in chosing the right training approach. I would say that in the good modern day sport dog the package consists of prey drive, defense drive (with the strong passive reaction being the most common), and frustration aggression. Social aggression, dominance behavior and rage are more rare. But when we see a dog that has all six components, we will not forget him soon, because the fighting "drive" that is displayed when those dogs work leaves a lasting impression.

There are few more terms I would like to discuss.
Sharpness

Sharpness is probably the most incorrectly used term in English dog terminology. I may be wrong here, but I thought the word sharpness was a translation of the German term "Scharfe." But the use of the term sharpness is very much a contradiction of the German term. In every conversation I have, people use sharpness synonymous with spooky or jumpy or nervy. But the word "Scharfe" in German texts is actually defined as being synonymous with aggression. So there certainly is a great discrepancy between the uses of the word.

The type of aggression that is talked about when the term sharpness is used seems to vary depending on the designed use of the dog. For example, in big game hunting dogs and terriers it refers particularly to the intensity and attitude with which these hunting dogs kill their respective prey. It is not prey drive as such; it is the actual killing response that is assessed. I have heard the term "gameness" used in the US in a similar context. For the large game hunting dogs the word used is "Wildscharfe," which translates as game sharpness. This assessment is made best when observing how the dog deals with wild boars. Because of the "bringing down" requirement in this type of hunting many of the dogs of these breeds use physical dominance techniques. For terriers the term is "Raubzeugscharfe," which translates as small predator sharpness. Terriers are used to hunt and kill small predators such as martens, foxes, badgers, etc. It is no easy feat to kill these predators without suffering injury. So a particularly fast and furious shaking technique is very common, as is a chomping bite behavior. These types of sharpness categorize the dog's prey drive.

Now to the term that we should be most interested in for our service dogs. The term used here is "Mannscharfe," which translates into man sharpness. The definition of this quality states the following. The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent (or feigned) or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner. If I were to use terminology I have already discussed in this article I would say that sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat.

I did a fair bit of research and could not find anything written that stated that this quality has to come together with a low stimulation threshold for threat. So in fact how easily a dog is triggered does not seem to be a factor by definition. But to be fair, when I was growing up, the dogs we called sharp were the ones that would become very aggressive without much provocation. One thing that I never thought of when I used the term sharp was spooking away. In the old East German Koerung system, sharpness was rated from 0-5 with 5 being the most desirable. So when did sharpness become a bad thing? I don't know. I don't think it is a bad thing.
Flight Drive

Flight drive is part of the self preservation mechanism of animals. All animals have this in them somewhere. In some cases flight drive is described as just a very strong form of avoidance behavior. I don't think that is a wrong way of putting it, but I don't believe it is totally accurate either. Flight drive is more than just staying clear of a threat, it is actually turning around and running away. I generally use the term flight tendency when I discuss this trait. I have seen weak dogs who do not have a have a high flight tendency. But I have also seen fairly strong dogs who still have in them a tendency to bolt away when the right trigger is hit. I think for us to get a clear picture of a dog we should make an assessment of the flight drive or flight tendency in a dog, so it can be weighed against the other traits the dog possesses. The trigger stimulus is for flight is fear.

Defense Drive Overlaps
Defense of prey

This trait is often referred to as guardiness or possessiveness. This is naturally an overlap of prey drive and defense drive. The trigger stimulus is a sense of worry over loosing prey. This has proven to be a very useful trait during protection work. Guardiness is to some degree inborn, but it can be created to some degree through training, it most certainly can be promoted. It is a good way to add the intensity that defense drive brings with it without having to threaten the dog himself. As with all defense work, avoidance or retreat is a possibility, so caution has to be taken here also to ensure the work is done correctly.

Dogs seem to have different levels of guardiness depending on the prey object. In some it is limited to actual food related items like bones, etc.., in some toys are the focus of their possessiveness, and in others only protection equipment seems to be worthy of defending and only against strangers. I feel it is a worthwhile trait to assess because it gives us additional training options.
Defense of territory

Territorial aggression as it is sometimes called can be one of two things. It can be an actual defense of the territory the dog considers his, like a yard, or even a car. This kind of aggression is a type of defense reaction where the worry is over the potential loss of territory. And this worry leads to a defensive reaction. Dogs who display this overlap don?t act like thay are personally threatened, f or them the dispute is over territory.

Or dogs may sometimes appear to be territorially aggressive, but in fact aren't. This can happen in dogs who actually feel personally threatened, but only feel secure enough on home turf where they feel protected to show a defensive response. While anywhere else the dog would retreat or be avoidant and submissive. For these dogs I would call it a self defense reaction.
Mistrust

I am putting mistrust as part of the defensive drive points. The reason for this is that aside from socially aggressive dogs, we can also have mistrusting active defensive dogs who appear to be almost the same thing. Naturally, the other forms of defensive reactions occur as well, since they are triggered by the same stimulus. But only the active defensive dogs will appear like a socially aggressive dog. To a certain degree this form of re-active aggression does fall under the aspects of social behaviors. Mistrust of strangers is what will lead to the worry that may trigger the defensive response in the dog, no matter what the response may be. The difference between this and social aggression is the following: the socially aggressive dog, as I see it, is not really in defense drive. He treats strangers with aggression, period. I'm sure trust plays a role here but is not a deciding factor. As I mentioned under social aggression, the aggressive response does not stop (if left uncontrolled) until integration occurs. But a mistrusting defensive dog will stop reacting defensive towards the person as soon as the threat of mistrust is neutralized. Once this is done such dogs can be social towards people they would have met with aggression before.
Play drive

I will end this article with a discussion on play drive. What is play drive? Does such a drive exist? I believe it does exist and it is a drive in itself. Now, it also has a certain componential nature, but because I believe it has pretty much a singular biological function I think it is a drive in itself. I believe that play drive is nature?s school. The drive to play ensures that young animals practice adult behaviors i n a non-risky way. How good a dog's play drive is I think depends a little bit on how many dimensions there are to his play. Dogs practice prey drive by stalking and chasing each other and other moving objects. They practice defense drive overlap behaviors by guarding objects, food, and small sections of territory, they practice dominance through wrestling matches. The desire to compete is a way to practice the survival of the fittest principle of nature. It is this competitive spirit that leads puppies to race each other and play tug of war. Sometimes a puppy won't show any interest in an object or running, until he can measure himself against another. We can capture a part of this competitive spirit and make it part of protection training. I think that it is this competitive spirit of play drive that leads people to link play drive with fighting "drive." I believe that play drive is linked to fighting "drive" on two levels. On one hand the competitive spirit allows dogs to develop the urge to measure themselves against human competitors as well. It is not serious enough to warrant the term fighting however. On the other hand I believe the more extensively a dog plays the more dimensions he will later have to his fighting "drive," since nature's way of practicing techniques allows a bit of a glimpse into what will be. So play drive lets the dog practice the components of fighting "drive" on his own. That is why dogs who have an extensive play drive can develop a well rounded fighting "drive" even if the training people do with him is fairly one or two dimensional. Such dogs are able to develop the other components to some degree on their own. Still, the seriousness we want to see in the adult dog's fighting "drive" needs more work than what play drive will do for the dog.

Another point to make about play drive: since our dogs are infantized wolves, we can preserve certain pieces of play drive long into adult life and even for the entire life of the dog. The desire to play is a lust-oriented drive in the dog. And by keeping this alive we give ourselves yet another drive to work our dog in to make training even more fun and successful.
Conclusion

This article was difficult to write, but it was a lot of fun too. It gave me an opportunity to browse through many books on my shelves that sometimes just sit there. It gave me a refreshed interest in talking about dogs and delving into their minds. I had a hard time putting some of these thoughts into words so that they wouldn't be misunderstood. But in the end my goal is to get people to think about their dogs and talk about them and learn more about them. And I think I accomplished that. Thank you as always for reading my thoughts.

Offline Johnsk9

  • SchH3
  • Posts: 605
    • http://east-german-shepherds.com
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR#3
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2010, 06:48:02 AM »
DEFENSE BEHAVIOR
by Gary Patterson
Copyright May, 2004 - 2010

 

Unlike most dog events, working dog competitions are not so much a test of how well a dog can do a particular exercise, but a more fundamental examination of the dog's temperament. Whether it is Schutzhund, Ring Sport, herding or service dog trials, the points may be determined by how well a dog does each exercise, but the exercises, collectively, are a test of the dog's temperament and behavior. In AKC matches, a dog is expected to perform a series of unrelated exercises in only one discipline (i.e., obedience, tracking, or agility). In working dog competitions, the exercises cut across many disciplines and are usually placed in an order designed to identify the less than perfectly temperamented dog. While all animal trainers should understand the foundations of the behavior of the subject they are working with (how many of us complain that our bosses don't have good sense), it is imperative that those who hope to be highly skilled working dog trainers understand the forces at work in the minds and genes of their dogs. What follows is an examination of the basics of dog behavior as they relate to training. I hope to keep the language as unscientific as possible, but everything is based upon solid scientific research and conclusions. I only ask that you consider this series in light of how these ideas apply to our training, and not what some alternative thesis might argue in light of non-dog training experiences in a more sterile environment.

Dog training, by definition, must be unscientific. We, as trainers, deal with hundreds of variables that no self respecting scientist would tolerate. The personalities, life experiences and relationships with either humans or other dogs are often unique to an individual dog and not controlled by any abstract protocol that is designed to come up with ultimate truths. Dog trainers only deal with relative truths: what works with one dog, works, but may never work on any other dog. It is this one characteristic of dog training that makes it exciting and challenging, but serves as the undoing of many trainers who believe that with each dog, you reinvent the wheel. The truth is there is a long history of dogs-now some twelve thousand years-that helps us define their behavior. The trainer who doesn't understand this history of development of the modern dog is truly reinventing the wheel, meaning he is doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Over one hundred years ago, the English researcher, Lloyd Morgan, warned: "Never attribute animal behavior to a high mental function, if the behavior can be explained with a more simple process." The dog trainer who doesn't have a good theoretical base to his training is often guilty of exactly this mistake. His is a constant routine of trying to explain the dog's mental processes or, even worse, forcing the dog to conform to the trainer's wishes. This is the trainer who explains dog behavior in human terms ("The dog is defying me.") or is totally indifferent to what behavior is really driving the dog.

On the other hand, the trainer who understands behavior seems to do things so easily; a light correction and a soft word are extensions of an active mind that really understands what is going on during training. A mistake in training is little more than a challenge to this trainer who, upon reflection and drawing from a reservoir of knowledge about behavior, finds solutions to what others might find an impossible task.
Defense Theory

In this section, one of the most difficult characteristic of animal behavior is examined. Defense theory would not be so difficult, except that defensive reactions in the animal world can take many forms, at so many levels. Further, they are interwoven into virtually every kind of behavior an animal displays. No matter what behavior an animal exhibits, it is always capable of instantly shifting into defense and that is a good thing. Defense is a basic survival characteristic built into every higher animal; it is the means by which each can survive and procreate. In general, it can take many forms that are ideally suited to protect a particular species in a certain environment. Defense can be built into the animal's physical form as with a turtle or porcupine or, in the case of canines, an active display of behavior that improves the chances of living for another day. It is these types of behavioral defenses that we are concerned with and even these can take many forms.

Withdrawal. An animal does not run away, but moves to a safe place, such as a rabbit to its hole.

Flight. While mistakenly included with submission and appeasement to be described as avoidance, these characteristics reflect social behavior, not defense. Flight is simply getting away by running and trickery.

Bluffing. This behavior makes the attacked confront its adversary and, through displays and posturing, it is often made to seem too great a threat so the attacker quits the battle. It is often a war of nerves. Defense is most often shown by prey against predators and we should remember that the first rule of the predator is to avoid serious injury; an injured predator is a dead predator. Therefore, these displays are often important in breaking off an engagement where the attacker, not the prey, fears injury.

Passive behavior or freezing. Most often seen in young mammals and birds, this behavior requires the animal to simply remain motionless in hopes that the threat will go away or fail to see it. It is also a behavior we will see in beginning protection training, where the dog's temperament gives it neither the motivation to escape or attack.

Aggression. While I have never been able to find a clear, all inclusive, definition of the word, aggression will be defined as hostile or attack behavior against animals of a different species, beyond the displays and posturing of bluffing.

Later, I will differentiate defense aggression, in those cases involving different species, from social aggression, where the dog's handler or another dog is involved, but it is important to distinguish between the above behaviors in defense from similar behaviors we might see during social interaction. While social responses can be similar to those we see in defense, the motivation behind the behavior is what makes them different. In defense, behavior must be directed against a predator or an animal of a different species (excluding a human's relationship with his dog). In social behavior, responses are driven by the fundamental social status among animals of the same species. Social behavior requires that the animal's acts be controlled with no behavior leading to the destruction or significant injury of any pack member, although things can go wrong with resulting serious harm. Any alternative would lead to the destruction of the social order of the pack and its ability to produce future generations. Therefore, when watching dogs, make sure that you always understand this important distinction between basic defense and social behaviors, no matter how similar they may appear.
Defense and Dog Training

Among all of the defense strategies we have examined, many are experienced in dog training. Flight, displays, freezing and aggression are experienced in week to week training sessions with different dogs and, in fact, it is all these characteristics that must be identified and worked on to produce a top working dog. If a dog attempts to flee, display instead of attack or simply becomes passive during training, the protection trainer must work to eliminate these responses. If the dog shows aggression, the character of the aggressive responses may be improper with the dog either out of control in its defense drive or displaying the wrong kind of aggression. Aggression is not a simple process of the dog willing to attack an adversary, hut can take two entirely different forms.

Let's examine two different situations in which a dog might find itself where aggression is the result. In the first, a dog is trained to patrol a farm and stop any intruder from coming onto the property. It freely patrols the farm until it finds a trespassing bear invading the farmer's bee hives. The dog will first display through barking and making its body apparently larger (raised hackles, stiff front legs, ears extended forward, deep barking and quick, but aggressive, advancement against the bear.) If the displays don' t work against the bear so it continues to advance, the dog must then make a decision to shift to another form of defense behavior, either flight or aggression. The important point is that this is a voluntary act by the dog, it either runs or fights. Either behavior is a legitimate defense, so the dog wins no matter which way it reacts.

Using the same example, we will now chain the dog to a post next to the bee hives so it cannot escape. Here, when the bear advances, the dog has no alternative but to fight for its life. Thus, instead of willingly engaging in a fight, it takes on an entirely different body posture as the bear approaches. Its ears may go back, barking will be high pitched and shrill, its tail may tuck under the belly and its lips will pull back to show its teeth. In other words, the dog is experiencing stress at the highest level, a total fear reaction.

In the first example, the dog is showing true defense, a response where the dog voluntarily attacks and is rewarded. In the second example, self defense, the animal has no choice but to try to save itself and will inflict injury in any way to avoid the threat. Self defense always results in fear and stress with the dog never being the winner. It is this type of dog that, if it should show this kind of behavior in training, we often describe as sharp or sharp/shy. While it is difficult to say with certainty, sharpness comes most commonly from the basic temperament of the dog, but I have seen cases where it seemed that poor training or imprinting was the cause. In either case, it should be understood that the overly sharp dog is never a qualified candidate for any protection work as it exaggerates any experience to the point where anything can become a threat. It may bite a protection sleeve harder than any novice dog should only to pop off, or it may as easily bite the helper's face, club members or family friends.

It must be understood from the outset that all defense is stressful, in the sense that defense only arises from a perceived threat, real or otherwise. If we train a dog in the same way each training session, the defense drive will slowly wane and then die, as the dog sees only a patterned, predictable environment to which it must respond with no real threat to its existence. When trainers and breeders talk about nerve in a dog, it is really the dog's ability to cope with and conquer this stress that distinguishes the outstanding temperament from the rest. Therefore, good protection training must involve new experiences for the dog if it is to maintain a strong defense drive.

It has been my unfortunate experience the past several years, when giving seminars, to have someone say in the beginning, "I understand that you are a defense trainer and my dog really needs defense work". I am always dumbfounded since any person who would only work prey or defense has a very poor understanding of what the working dog sports require. Defense is important for only one reason: the trial rules test defense behavior. If the trainer fails to prepare a dog for these tests, he is guilty of incomplete training. Instead, we should look at defense behavior as something that needs developing, just as much as prey or social behavior. It is the dog that is well balanced in all of these drives that performs well.

Before getting into the more practical applications of theory, it is necessary to examine one more area of behavior in defense, conflict. No defense strategy works in isolation, but constantly changes according to the dog's temperament and circumstances that face it. We have seen that an animal can show one type of behavior and then discard that behavior for another strategy that might work better in the survival game. But, what happens when an animal tries to exercise two strategies at the same time? The results are often strange and even baffling. Conflict only happens when two drives are competing with each other for domination. A dog may try to flee and attack at the same time. In bite training, it may try to stay clean and attack simultaneously and, in fact, this is a common experience in -dog trials. The dog will out and then proceed to nip the helper or sleeve. Here the dog is remembering not to bite, until its other drives overwhelm the control and it nips, only to out and repeat the cycle. Clearly the dog that doesn't out isn't in conflict, but simply so strong in one drive that no other drive or training can control its behavior. But the dog that tries to do two things at once is in conflict. The answer should be only to show the dog the correct behavior and then reinforce the positive result. Once the dog is clear, the conflict should disappear, but in protection training, where drives can get out of control, the trainer must also work on developing the defense drive so the dog can control it. Only in these cases can conflict truly he eliminated.

There is another form of conflict that is not so apparent, with the most common experience being in young dog training. This form of conflict response is called displacement. The behavior results from a dog trying to do two things at once and because it can't satisfactorily do either, it finds some third kind of behavior. A common example is the young dog that, upon seeing the helper approach for protection work, barks strongly when he is at a distance. As the helper gets closer, the dog suddenly stops barking and stares at the sky or sniffs the ground. In this case the dog wants to both run and attack at the same time: an act it cannot do. So it finds this third type of behavior to handle the conflict. Many trainers become disgusted with this performance, preferring to describe it as avoidance or a weak dog. Yet, my impression is just the opposite. Clearly the dog isn't weak, for it barked and acted aggressively when the helper was at a distance. On the other hand, it didn't run away, for its temperament wouldn't allow it to do so. Actually, displacement is usually a good sign in young dog training. Often a young dog starts out showing signs of avoidance and it is the helper's job to make the dog strong with no thought of fleeing. It is not uncommon in later training sessions to see this dog start displacing when the helper comes close. This means that the dog is starting to think about attacking, not avoiding as it has in the past. It is simply a phase that the young dog goes through and, with proper helper work showing the dog the way, the conflict will disappear so the dog learns to think only in terms of aggression. It is another example of the trainer, who doesn't understand behavior, thinking the dog is weak when the response probably shows the dog is gaining strength.
Putting Defense to Work in Training

While the next installment will deal with prey or predatory behavior, it is necessary to introduce a few elements of prey work in this portion. There are a few simple rules of protection work that the trainer must keep in mind when first starting a dog in protection training.

The first is that a dog will willingly continue to work in a way that has brought success in past training. Therefore, if we start training with only bites on the training field, it will soon identify protection training with bite work and the helper will only be the source of this bite training, not a threat by himself. Soon, protection training becomes a series of bite exercises where the dog is only working for the bite.

The second point is that all bite training is essentially prey work. What precedes or follows the bite may bring the defense drive into play, but bite work is founded in prey.
A sport trainer might say, "Okay, what is wrong with that. I want a dog only to bite in trial and if it does fine, why do I have to become involved in any defense training? My response can be only the same as I mentioned earlier. If the rules require defense to be tested and the trainer fails to develop defense properly, then he is guilty of incomplete training.

This seems to leave us with the only alternative of not doing any work on the dog until it fully matures, not something that most trainers would tolerate. The problem with waiting until the dog matures can also be that we, as trainers, might have something important to teach the dog when it is still young, a period of intense learning for any dog. In other words, we may show the dog some of the basics of future protection work, by training in the beginning.

If this still seems impossible, it may be that the trainer believes defense can only come about with direct confrontation between helper and dog. It is true that the temperament of any young dog is too undeveloped for full scale pressure to be applied in training, but there is an alternative where the dog learns to initiate aggressive acts by itself. Remember the earlier example of the bear and the bee hives, where a dog is capable of showing two kinds of defensive aggression. The helper who applies pressure on the young or inexperienced dog, without thought to the problems of what form of defense behavior the dog may show, may end up with a dog that shows only self defense, a reaction full of stress. But, if we can use a method where the dog thinks in terms of only true defense, then its acts are voluntary. Through skilled helper work, the dog voluntary becomes aggressive, and doesn't consider the legitimate alternative of avoidance.

When training any beginning dog, especially young ones, I simply have the handler stand with the dog on the training field while a more advanced dog is working. There is no helper agitation, nor does the handler do anything to encourage the dog. For a time the dog will do little or nothing and then, one day, some noticeable change takes place. Instead of doing nothing, the dog starts to pay attention and even barks. Over time this behavior strengthens to the point where the dog is pulling on the lead and willing to chase a decoy who threatens it at some distance away. What have we taught during this period before a dog even gets its first bite? First, it learns to start the action, not respond to some helper trying to get it to come out through pressure. Secondly, its actions become very similar to true defense reactions, where it postures and is willing to become aggressive against the helper. Thirdly, it sees the helper as a threat and not the source of a bite. It is only after the dog is strongly willing to be aggressive against the helper by chasing him away that we start formal bite training. There are two additional benefits from this work. The dog is doing the work voluntarily; no one is making it bark or become aggressive. Thus the stress that we worry about in young dogs is minimized in this beginning work, yet we are teaching some valuable lessons. The other benefit is that the dog will tell you when it is ready to advance to more demanding training. Since the work is voluntary, its temperament and maturity will clearly show the handler when it is time to move on; there is no guess work. Even though all of this is true, the trainer must be patient and let the dog's maturity dictate when it should move on to bite training. In some cases, handlers have waited through this phase with the dog giving little or no reaction until one day when the dog seemed to have put on a different temperament. The fact that a dog is slow during this early training means nothing and several slow beginners I have trained later became "V" winners in protection.

When the dog starts formal bite training, important elements of defense training come into play. Imagine a large circle with the dog and handler at the center. At some distance from the dog is a point where the dog will become aware of the threat of the helper and raise a warning. Beyond this point, the dog perceives no threat and will not react. This point is on the circle that forms the alert zone and its distance varies from dog to dog depending on maturity and temperament. Because of the earlier training, described above, the dog has learned to start the action by alerting to the helper on the edge of the alert zone. The beginning actions of the dog will be similar to those I described in the earlier example of true defense against a bear. The dog should bark, confront the helper head on and even show strong body posture. If the helper would move toward the dog, in a straight line, from the alert zone, we would see the dog continue to show aggressive like displays until some point where things start to change. The dog might stop barking, stop staring at the helper or even back up. This point, called the critical zone, is where the dog is considering shifting to another type of defense behavior, usually avoidance in the form of backing. We must remember that, to the dog, aggression and flight are legitimate defense responses, with either resulting in success for the dog. Unfortunately, avoidance is not an acceptable alternative for the dog trainer so we must find some way of teaching the dog that aggression is the only acceptable response. But, the trainer who understands defense behavior and the importance of both the alert and critical zones is able to capitalize on what he sees. In the first instance, he recognizes that the initial responses of the dog to the helper on the edge of the alert zone are only bluffing or displays that must change as the threat becomes greater. By carefully reading the dog, the incoming helper can read these changes and adjust his work to keep the dog strong and aggressive. Strangely enough this will involve bringing in prey work, the subject of my next installment.

zimbris

  • Guest
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2010, 07:30:48 AM »
John, is that all you've got..??  :lol:   my goodness.... that's a looooooooooooooooong one!!!!!

zimbris

  • Guest
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2010, 07:57:16 AM »
Promit sa traduc dar va trebui sa fiti ingaduitori cu mine  :grin:

Offline bobo70

  • SchH3
  • Posts: 1178
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2010, 08:25:36 AM »
Lasa glumele si apucate de treaba... Suntem foarte curiosi.  :lol: Mai inteleg eu cate ceva, dar sunt lucruri pe care nu poti le poti interpreta corect daca nu stapanesti bine limba asta, deci la treaba.....    :laugh:

Offline Johnsk9

  • SchH3
  • Posts: 605
    • http://east-german-shepherds.com
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2010, 10:20:57 AM »
The Components of Strong Working Dog Temperament
http://www.workingdogs.com/dom1.htm

Offline Bogdan

  • SchH2
  • Posts: 485
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2010, 12:24:41 PM »
Mai inteleg eu cate ceva, dar sunt lucruri pe care nu poti le poti interpreta corect daca nu stapanesti bine limba asta, deci la treaba.....    :laugh:
Mai trebuie si putin sprijin de specialitate.
Am mai vazut pe undeva articolele astea dar nu am avut rabdare sa le citesc pana la final.

zimbris

  • Guest
Re: Reading on SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2010, 04:27:49 PM »
Lasa glumele si apucate de treaba... Suntem foarte curiosi.  :lol:
Cel mai devreme Sambata.. sper...