3 ways to shape your dog's behaviour

Find out how dogs learn in my earlier Blog posts here. So, now we know how Dogs learn behaviour, how do we get them to unlearn some behaviours and teach new ones?

1. Counter conditioning

In practice counter conditioning is to pair ‘the stimulus with something favourable (e.g., treats) to alter the emotional response’ (Stellato, et al, 2019, p.2). Further research has found that dogs were motivated by a larger valued reward such as a piece of chicken over one piece of kibble. Also, variety of a food-based reward over many training sessions has been shown to maintain motivation in dogs (Bremhorst, et al, 2018). By giving food that was better than expected, like a piece of liver when the dog only expected kibble is a positive contrast. But this increase in variety, quality and frequency of a reward is not infinite as a dog has a limited ability to learn.

2. Desensitisation

The process of desensitisation needs to be handled with care, as there is a risk of flooding. Flooding is ‘forced exposure to the frightening stimulus without the possibility of escape’ (Reisner, 2016, p.220). Often people try to lure the dog closer to a scary trigger, but this would not be beneficial and may result in losing trust in their human. Therefore, it is important to take the time to ‘shape’ behaviour by reducing the proximity to the target in the dogs’ own time and building a positive association for example seeing the 'scary' bike from a great distance and rewarding with some liver cake.

3. Extinct

Another way to modify behaviour is to make it extinct, by the X not equalling Y (Herendeen and Shapiro, 1975). For example, picking the dogs lead up to take it for a walk, the conditioned response could be the dog jumping up and biting the lead. However, if that changed to randomly picking up the dog’s lead throughout the day the X of picking up the dog lead now no longer means Y, going for the walk. Therefore, it is possible that the association between the two will be weakened.

Reinforcing a behaviour you want your dog to do

Burrhus Skinner’s (1956) early scientific investigation of the four quadrants of learning which include;

The Big No No's

Negative reinforcement, for instance would be pushing a dog’s behind down and then releasing the force when they perform a sit. Releasing the force is what the dog wants.

Positive punishment could be kicking a dog who jumps up, the dog will not want to be in pain, so they do not jump up next time.

***negative reinforcement, and positive punishment are not advised as these reinforcers can lead to dogs becoming aggressive towards people (Casey et al, 2014). Research has found that, punishment often means dogs will lose trust in people and show an increase in problematic behaviours (Hiby, Rooney and Bradshaw, 2004) and anxiety (Askew, 1996). In turn this leads to people giving their dogs up as they cannot handle these behaviours (Serpell, 1996). Moreover, scientific research has concluded these reinforcers ‘can jeopardise both the physical and mental health of dogs’ (Ziv, 2017, p.50).

The Good Place

On the other hand, modern dog training has moved towards using negative punishment and

positive reinforcement as these are considered a more ethical approach.

Positive reinforcement could include offering a tasty treat to the dog after they perform an act that you like and want them to do again. Whereas, an example of negative punishment could be to stop when the dog begins to pull on the lead, when the dog comes back towards you and lead goes slack, the walk begins again.

Ethical dog trainers will use negative punishment and positive reinforcement by creating games and making training fun by using toys and food rewards, when initially reinforcing a behaviour which has the added benefit of building a trusting human-dog relationship. Verbal praise and strokes are also positive reinforcers, but these can vary in success based on individuals (Cook et al, 2016).

Reward based training has been popularised with a focus on reshaping the expectations of the person and educating them on what could be a better approach for their dog’s wellbeing as ‘training is just as much, if not more, about training humans as it [is] for training dogs’ (Greenebaum, 2010, p. 140). Genetic domestic creatures like dogs, can be manipulated to perform behaviour based on their cognitive abilities, indicates trainers will get the best out of the dog. Due to research, dogs who are engaged to think and be considered as ‘active agents in communication and the socialisation process’ (Greenebaum, 2010, p. 140) will be integrated successfully in modern society. For example, a dog can have the ability to learn the names of 200 different toys (Kaminski et al., 2004). Dogs have a willingness to please their person which was also why the human-dog relationship continues to be so successful (Hens, 2009). A better understanding of dogs has led to a better bond between humans and their dogs with positive reinforcement, ‘thereby promoting positive dog welfare and a humane, ethical, and moral approach to dog training at all times’ (Masson et al, 2018, p.8).

Let dogs be dogs

Part of changing behaviour is accepting and allowing dogs to do dog things, at appropriate times. In the UK, there are regulations and laws, including the Animal Welfare Act (2006) to form a baseline for the welfare of animals. These are the bare minimum of that is required by people caring for animals. In additional and should go without saying, dogs need for kindness, physical and mental fulfilment, and stimulation as well as living in a natural habitat. Enriching dogs with an outlet for their species-specific behaviours, would be ‘the very minimum that the dogs deserve’ (Bauman et al, 2007, p.49). By allowing dogs to perform species fulfilling behaviours such as searching for their food means that they will spend less time displaying unnatural or destructive behaviours (Bauman et al, 2007). Understanding what behaviours are natural and normal for a species to perform then identifies in contrast what behaviours are considered abnormal or issues.

Citations

Animal Welfare Act. 2006. legislation.gov.uk. Viewed: 25/04/2023. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents

Baumans, V., Coke, C., Green, J., Moreau, E., Morton, D., Patterson-Kane, E., Reinhardt, A., Reinhardt, V. and Van Loo, P., 2007. Making lives easier for animals in research labs. Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Bremhorst, A., Bütler, S., Würbel, H. and Riemer, S., 2018. Incentive motivation in pet dogs–preference for constant vs varied food rewards. Scientific reports, 8(1), p.9756.

Casey, R.A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G.J. and Blackwell, E.J., 2014. Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 152, pp.52-63

Cook, P.F., Prichard, A., Spivak, M. and Berns, G.S., 2016. Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(12), pp.1853-1862

Greenebaum, J.B., 2010. Training dogs and training humans: Symbolic interaction and dog training. Anthrozoös, 23(2), pp.129-141.

Hens, K., 2009. Ethical responsibilities towards dogs: An inquiry into the dog–human relationship. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, pp.3-14

Herendeen, D.L. and Shapiro, M.M., 1975. Extinction and food-reinforced inhibition of conditioned salivation in dogs. Animal Learning & Behavior, 3(2), pp.103-106.

Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J. and Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2004. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal welfare, 13(1), pp.63-69.

Masson, S., de la Vega, S., Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Pereira, G.D.G., Halsberghe, C., Leyvraz, A.M., McPeake, K. and Schoening, B., 2018. Electronic training devices: discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 25, pp.71-75.

Reisner, I., 2016. The learning dog: A discussion of training methods. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, 2, pp.211-226.

Serpell, J.A., 1996. Evidence for an association between pet behavior and owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47(1-2), pp.49-60.

Stellato, A., Jajou, S., Dewey, C.E., Widowski, T.M. and Niel, L., 2019. Effect of a standardized four-week desensitization and counter-conditioning training program on pre-existing veterinary fear in companion dogs. Animals, 9(10), p.767.

Skinner, B.F., 1956. A case history in scientific method. American psychologist, 11(5), p.221.

Ziv, G., 2017. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. Journal of veterinary behavior, 19, pp.50-60.