everything about your dogs

Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts

Do Dogs Use Body Language to Calm Us Down?

Are lip licking and looking away signals of discomfort and expressions of peace in the domestic dog?

Guest post by Georgina (Gina) Bishopp (Hartpury College, UK)

Do dogs use body language to calm us down? What it means when a dog licks its lips (like this one) and looks away
Photo: StudioCAXAP


A study by Dr. Angelika Firnkes (Ludwig Maximilians University Munich) et al., 2017 has found that the domestic dog uses appeasement gestures both when feeling threatened and during greetings with humans. For the first time it has now been shown that dogs will use at least two of these signals, the lip lick and look away, to appease their human social companions. Turid Rugaas (2005) had previously described a set of behaviours in dogs, including the lip lick and looking away, through years of working as a behavioural consultant, that she described as ‘Calming Signals’. Rugaas (2005) explained that the dogs would use these ‘Calming Signals’ when feeling uncomfortable and attempting to prevent aggressive responses from their conspecifics and humans. For the first time scientific research has supported this theory in relation to dog-human communication as described by Rugaas.

Many of these behaviours can also be described as appeasement gestures and have been shown to occur during close range dog to dog interactions, (Mariti et al., 2014), almost exclusively when dogs are interacting, (Gazzano et al., 2010). Furthermore, after an aggressive interaction the receiver of the aggression was more likely to show one of these ‘Calming Signals’ and when this occurred aggressive displays from the receiver decreased, (Mariti et al., 2014; Gazzano et al., 2010).

116 dogs over the age of 13 months were accompanied with their owners to perform a standardized behavioural test, (Firnkes et al., 2017). This sample size is good compared to a lot of dog behaviour research where samples tend to be a lot smaller. The human testing the dogs was unfamiliar and subjected the dogs and owners to various stimuli.

The situations that the dogs experienced were either environmental (such as passing a jogger), involved contact (i.e. person walking directly towards dog), or were threatening (i.e. threatening stare at the dog). It is worth noting that the contexts described as threatening were kept safe by using leads and muzzles, and all of the stimuli were very realistic and likely to be experienced by many dogs during their lives (such as a person kicking away a football).

Looking away occurred significantly more in socially direct situations, such as the ‘friendly salutation’ or ‘threatening stare’ stimuli, suggesting that this behaviour is used as a social signal. Lip licking also occurred in a similar way, however did not occur as often as was expected during the ‘threatening screaming’ and ‘physical threat’ [the test human pretended to strike out at the dog] situations. Both did however occur more frequently during friendly interactions after an initial threatening situation, again supporting the theory that these behaviours are used to signal peace and conflict avoidance.

The theory laid out by the authors of this paper for the lack of lip licking and looking away during the very threatening situations is that it is possible that by this point the dogs believed that appeasement was no longer appropriate. Instead they showed clearly submissive behaviour such as the flattened ears, a drawn-in tail and bent joints. This study highlights room for future research to explore the possibility that these behaviours are not intended as signals but are in fact physiological stress responses to the threatening stimuli. This is due to lip licking also occurring during stress responses in dogs to human threat in previous studies.

In this way, I think when a dog looks away or licks its lips they are not signalling to you that they want you to completely back away but are looking for a response that indicates that you too are not looking to aggress. In this way the better human response may be to reduce potential threat through looking away themselves and lowering to the ground, so as not to arch over the dog. In this way the assumption is not being made that dogs showing these signals are overtly stressed by the stimuli or do not want to engage with the stimuli, however that these dogs want to interact with the stimuli in the most peaceful way possible.

Either way, these behaviours are clearly important elements of healthy dog communication with both conspecifics and human caretakers and should not be ignored by those interacting with these animals.

Have you ever experienced lip licking or looking away in your dog? How do you interpret this behaviour?


About the author:


Photo of Georgina (Gina) Bishopp
My name is Georgina (Gina) Bishopp and I am a 23-year-old MRes Animal Behaviour and Welfare student at the University of West England, Hartpury College campus. Since graduating from my first degree (BSc Animal Science with Care and Management) I have worked for the Blue Cross and am now at the RSPCA, primarily working with dogs and cats. I own a horse and have ridden since a child, experiencing every different kind of horse training and management as I have tried to understand which method is best for the horse. Now I use a blend of tradition and new age techniques, and only those that are supported by current scientific understanding of horses themselves or other mammals (including the dog). My academic focus has primarily been with companion animals, primarily dogs, and equines, however my interests are very broad and extend to wildlife and zoo animals welfare as well.

Other posts by Georgina Bishopp: The importance of science in horse training.

References
Gazzano, A.; Mariti, C.; Papi, F.; Falaschi, C; Forti, S. (2010). Are domestic dogs able to calm conspecifics by using visual communication? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 5 (1).
Firnkes, A., Bartels, A., Bidoli, E., Erhard, M., (2017). Appeasement signals used by dogs during dog-human communication. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research.
Mariti, C.; Falaschi, C.; Zilocchi, M.; Carlone, B.; Gazzano, A. (2014). Analysis of calming signals in domestic dogs: Are they signals and are they calming? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 9(6).
Rugaas T. (2005) On Talking Terms With Dogs Calming Signals. Legacy by Mail, Inc. USA.

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Did We Evolve to Love Dogs?

Is part of the reason dogs manage to wrap their paws around our hearts because we're predisposed to love them?

Guest post by Kristi Benson CTC.


A woman and her German Shorthaired Pointer relaxing in a field
"...a tendency in people to seek relationships with the natural world." Photo: Paddlepooch (Shutterstock).


Biophilia means, simply put, a focus on life and living things. Some researchers would even say it’s a love of living things. It has been used to refer to a tendency in people to seek relationships with the natural world: our love of greenspace, of potted plants, of well-tended trees on city boulevards, and maybe even (did you guess where this was going?), our love of animals, wild and domestic alike.

Considering you are reading a blog dedicated to spreading welfare-boosting, scientifically valid information about companion animals, it will not come as a surprise to you that many people find animals to be irresistibly compelling. Naturalist E.O Wilson suggests that this biophilia, this love of living things, has evolutionary roots in humans. That is, he suggests that our long-ago ancestors who loved living things—or at least paid greater attention to them—were more likely to survive than those who did not. Survival means reproduction, so our animal-loving forebears were more likely to pass along their animal-keen genes than people who, due to life’s genetic lotto, were not similarly inclined. Although other biologists and philosophers have questioned the utility, correctness (and lack of falsifiability) of the construct, it is interesting to ponder the idea that we evolved to love living things, and that part of the reason dogs manage to wrap their paws around our hearts is because we’re predisposed to love them.

When I went to school to become an archeologist in the 1990s, it was the vogue to say that everything we humans did, we learned to do from scratch during our lives. Children were considered to be born as blank slates, and learning and culture—and oh, what a fantastic adaptation culture is, when you think about it—explained the totality of our behaviour. We rolled our collective eyes at any inkling of a biological explanation for human behaviour (we had our reasons). As time, and science, (and ethics) have marched on, we have revised our models. There is now evidence that humans, like all the animals we share so much of our DNA with, have both learned and intrinsic behaviours. And it’s even much more richly complicated than that. Our genes provide the scaffolding upon which our life experiences (or even the life experiences of our parents) mould our adult behaviour. All behaviour is the product of complicated interactions between our genes and our experiences.

Did we evolve to love dogs? Thoughts on how much we love dogs
Photo:Stockwithme (Shutterstock).


As we would expect with a behaviour strengthened by evolutionary processes, interest in living things and animals is seen in many cultures and in many places around the globe, although it may look different in different places. In many areas, knowledge of the natural systems that support life continues to be vital to survival. I have been fortunate enough to work with Indigenous communities in Canada’s Northwest Territories, in particular the Gwich’in of Inuvik, Aklavik, Fort McPherson, and Tsiigehtchic, for almost 15 years. Many of the projects I have worked on include recording and mapping information about animals and ecological systems. To say there is a breadth of knowledge about the natural world held by people who live close to it is an understatement. Gwich’in Elders even talk about a time, deep in the mythological past, when people and caribou shared the same language and could even change their animal forms.

The ability and desire to understand the natural world is, and has been, an enormous benefit to people who need to both comprehend and predict natural ecological cycles and animal behaviour. It makes good sense that a love of natural things could provide a survival boost. Both animals and people must be knowledgeable to ‘make a living in the world”.

At first, contemplating that our warm and fuzzy feelings towards dogs may be a product, or byproduct, of our evolutionary history (and even further, based on how useful this knowledge was to the survival of our ancestors) seems a bit… discombobulating. Doesn’t it feel like our affection towards our dogs should be in a special, different package? Certainly not in the same utilitarian category of “useful traits” as binocular eyesight or tool use or blinking or internal, air-breathing, lungs.

But I say, grasp firmly to the coolness of our evolution. How great is it that we even evolved? That we exist, unlike hadrosaurs and the passenger pigeon and all the trilobites? Humans, like dogs, cats, northern pig-tailed macaques, horseshoe crabs, and amoeba, are the product of our long evolutionary history. Without evolution there would be nothing human about us, just like without evolution and it’s human-directed best friend, domestication, there would be nothing dog about dogs. Evolution has tinkered both dogs and humans into existence.

And better yet: if dogs evolved or were domesticated to have a particular focus on humans, as some recent research on dog cognition suggests, then humans evolving to have a particular focus on living things like dogs could just be one more special thing we share. Like a spot on the couch, a love for leftover pizza, and snoozing after a long day.

Also by Kristi: Digging into our common ground with dogs.




About Kristi Benson CTC

Kristi Benson outside with two of her dogs


Kristi Benson is an honours graduate of the prestigious Academy for Dog Trainers, where she earned her Certificate in Training and Counseling (CTC).  She lives and works in the Parkland Region of central Manitoba Canada, where she teaches dog obedience classes and helps dog owners in private consultations – both in-person and via video chat – for a full range of dog problems, from basic obedience to aggressive behaviour. Kristi is on staff at the Academy for Dog Trainers, helping to shape the next generation of canine professionals. Kristi’s dogs are rescue sled dogs, and for fun she runs them with a dog-powered scooter and on skis.

Contact her through her website and check out her blog, Facebook page, or Twitter for training tips, articles about dogs and training, and more.





If you would like to propose a guest post, please read our guidelines first.

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Digging Into Our Common Ground with Dogs

It’s unassailable: we’re truly different than dogs, in really important ways. But that doesn’t mean we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and deny our similarities, either.

Guest post by Kristi Benson CTC.

A black Yorkshire Terrier digs a hole in the sand at the beach... Digging into our common ground with dogs


Much of the information about dogs available to dog owners (even to really thoughtful and careful information ‘consumers’) is uneven at best, and flagrantly damaging to dogs at worst. In fact, dog trainers often have the unenviable and rather delicate task of breaking down some passionately held, well-intentioned, but generally unproductive‒or even counter-productive‒convictions in the very people who have hired us to help them.


We’re different from dogs 


Many of the misconceptions about dog behaviour and in particular, dogs’ motivations, are born from anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism is likely a familiar concept‒it is an (inappropriate, for our purposes) willingness to ascribe human emotions, cognition, or motivation to other animals. Dog trainers regularly greet dog owners who lament that their dogs have some exceedingly human motivations: greed, evil stubbornness, and revenge are certainly in the top ten, but there are many others.

Although dogs’ cognitive abilities are at the centre of a boom in canine research and are much more complex and interesting than we considered even ten years ago, the overwhelming likelihood is that a dog who soils the house is simply not house-trained, rather than angry at the owner for putting her on a diet or for patting another dog at the park. And a dog who digs under the fence and escapes is simply… well, escaping. Because loose time in the neighbourhood is fun, and they’re otherwise bored stiff. Not because the owner’s new boyfriend insists that the dog isn’t welcome on the couch for game day.

We can’t ask dogs if they are feeling particularly piqued at the random couch pronouncements of the owner’s new beau, of course. But the fact remains that if we house-train the one dog, and enrich and tire out the other dog (along with some fence repairs), the problem behaviours will likely go away. Alternatively, if we allow the dog on the couch on game day or stop patting those other dogs, the problems seem to remain. The proof is in the pudding‒dogs are not furry humans with large teeth. Dog trainers get very practised at introducing owners to this gloriously simple new reality: dogs behave in ways that will get them what they want. Every day is the Friday of a long weekend for them.


We’re akin to dogs 


Anthropocentrism is an important mindset to be aware of when interpreting your dog’s behaviour. A house-soiling dog incorrectly labelled as revengeful and back-stabbing will likely get a wholly different treatment than one diagnosed as being in need of some remedial house-training. And it isn’t a long shot to guess that there are welfare implications.

Close-up of a mixed breed dog's face. Digging into our common ground with dogs.
Photo: Anant Kasetsinsombut; top, fongleon356 (both Shutterstock.com)


However, it is certainly possible to go too far on our mission to root out anthropocentrism. Primatologist Frans de Waal suggests that when studying all animals, we must be aware of, and at times wary of, two opposing biases: anthropocentrism on the one hand, and “anthropodenial” on the other.(1) Anthropodenial is the opposite of anthropocentrism: “a blindness to the human-like characteristics of other animals, or the animal-like characteristics of ourselves.”(2) We do share some feelings, abilities, motivations, and experiences with our dogs, after all.

On occasion, dog trainers come up against anthropodenial. In particular, anthropodenial is at work when trainers see dogs who are anxious or flat-out scared, hiding behind the legs of an owner who states baldly that dogs just ‘don’t feel things the same way we do’. Far from being motivated by belligerence, some dogs who soil the house when alone suffer from separation anxiety. This is an urgently sad condition where a dog is terrified to be apart from his human family. When facing clients with fearful dogs and hoping to bring them on board with a humane behaviour modification program, then, it is not usually helpful or even necessary to talk about the neurological or biological processes of fear. It is much more sensible and reasonable to accept, and propose, that fear is indeed a similar state across many animals and compare the dog’s feelings when left alone with something that terrifies us as humans‒spiders, heights, or add in your own secret panic-inducer here. In fact, a whole academic discipline called comparative psychology is predicated on the understanding that one animal can serve usefully as a model for another.

A dog trainer wouldn’t suggest that understanding dogs, or understanding ourselves, is easy. But time and time again, we see that owners who are open to learning about both what we share with dogs and where we differ have more peaceful homes and better behaviour modification outcomes. I’d also propose that they seem to find a more joyful and satisfying relationship with their dogs. And who wouldn’t like that?



About Kristi Benson CTC


Photo of Kristi Benson with two of her dogs in a field

Kristi Benson is an honours graduate of the prestigious Academy for Dog Trainers, where she earned her Certificate in Training and Counseling (CTC).  She lives and works in the Parkland Region of central Manitoba Canada, where she teaches dog obedience classes and helps dog owners in private consultations – both in-person and via video chat – for a full range of dog problems, from basic obedience to aggressive behaviour. Kristi is on staff at the Academy for Dog Trainers, helping to shape the next generation of canine professionals. Kristi’s dogs are rescue sled dogs, and for fun she runs them with a dog-powered scooter and on skis.

Contact her through her website and check out her blog, Facebook page, or Twitter for training tips, articles about dogs and training, and more.






References
1. De Waal, Frans. Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?. WW Norton & Company, 2016.
2. De Waal, F. B. M. "Are we in anthropodenial." Discover 18.7 (1997): 50-53.
If you would like to propose a guest post to Companion Animal Psychology, see our guidelines.


Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Are rabbits lagging behind in basic pet care practices?

A recent study highlights pet rabbit management practices. Although some owners take extra steps to protect their rabbit, many do not.

Guest post by James Oxley (Independent Researcher, UK; Twitter) and Clare Ellis (Moulton College, UK; TwitterWeb).


A pet rabbit with a vase of marguerites on a table


Rabbits sometimes get labelled as an easy pet to keep, and some owners may not consider that common pet care practices used for dogs and cats may also be beneficial for rabbits. In fact, a recent study by Oxley et al. has highlighted how few pet rabbit owners take precautions such as microchipping and pet insurance for their furry bunny friends.

In the UK, it is now a legal requirement to microchip your pet dog and a recent call for compulsory microchipping of cats has been highlighted . Millions of pet owners are microchipping their pets, including dog, cats and smaller commonly kept pets. Compulsory dog microchipping in the UK came about as an effort to increase accountability of dog owners and to reduce the number of stray dogs that end up in rescue centres so that owners may be traced. But what about rabbits?

A recent internet survey explored rabbit management practices of pet rabbit owners to see how many pet rabbits were insured and microchipped and asked the owners for their opinions on the idea of compulsory microchipping for pet rabbits.

Oxley et al (2015) received 1183 responses from pet rabbit owners. They found that 78.3% of rabbit owners do not microchip their rabbits. Given that pet rabbits are commonly kept in some kind of enclosure, it may seem odd to suggest that rabbits would benefit from microchipping as they potentially have less chance to stray than pet dogs and cats might.

The Rabbit Welfare and Association Fund (RWAF) estimates that 67,000 rabbits pass through UK rescue centres each year. This is currently an area which is being researched by PhD student Clare Ellis as part of her PhD at Moulton College.

She states: “It is very difficult to quantify the number of rabbits that are being given up by owners or entering re-homing centres as strays. Research from the USA and my current area of study indicates that large numbers of rabbits are becoming 'stray', as in their owner cannot be traced.
"If more rabbits were microchipped it may help ease the burden on re-homing centres so that escaped pets can be reunited with their owners and the centres can focus more efforts on rabbits in more urgent need of care." 

Oxley, who led the study the rabbit management practice study, suggests that owners may not consider the long-term benefits of microchipping and insuring their pet rabbits.

“Rabbits are a commonly kept pet in many countries these days but the numbers entering rescue centres as strays are large for an animal that should be housed in a secure enclosure or building. Microchipping a pet gives the owner more chance of being reunited if the animal manages to escape the enclosure or garden. And it doesn’t cost as much as some people may think.”
“In comparison to dogs and cats it may be that people are less willing to make the financial commitment to microchip and insure a rabbit or simply not see the potential benefits. I definitely think more work is needed to educate potential pet rabbit owners about the cost and effort involved in having rabbits as pets. They should not be viewed as ‘an easy pet’ to keep.”

To help address this issue, Pets at Home have introduced a policy where all rabbits they sell are to be microchipped (RWAF, Rabbiting on, Winter 2014, p18).

A pet bunny rabbit sits on a window sill
Microchipping, is beneficial for a number of reasons, including tracing owners whilst also being a cheap, safe and permanent method of identification which is quick and generally a pain fee procedure, especially in comparison to other forms of rabbit identification methods such as tattooing or banding.

Furthermore the microchip records can hold a variety of important information such as vet contact details and medical information about the animal.

In comparison to other pet species, rabbits are less likely to be insured (73.9% of 1,174 respondents stated that their rabbits were not insured in Oxley et al). Insurance of pet animals is important to prevent paying large veterinary bills when a rabbit falls ill.

The RSPCA has previously stated that veterinary treatment for rabbits, such as a fractured limb, could cost £1,000 or more (RSPCA, 2012). It is important to ensure that the insurance conditions are read as insurance companies may differ about what they do and do not cover.

If thinking about microchipping and insuring your rabbit, it is important to gain guidance through your local veterinary practice.

Further rabbit related information can be offered through the relevant UK organisations such as the RWAF (Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund), RSPCA (Royal Society for the Protection of Animals), BVA (British Veterinary Association), Animal Welfare Foundation and PDSA (The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals).

Are your rabbits microchipped and insured?


About the authors


Photo of James Oxley

James Andrew Oxley is currently an independent researcher with a broad interest in research relating to human-animal interactions and animal welfare.  He has a BSc (Hons) in Animal Management and a Masters by Research which investigated Dog owners perceptions of English laws relating to dogs.








Clare Frances Ellis MSC BSc (Hons) PGCE is currently a PhD Animal Behaviour and Welfare candidate at the University of Northampton and Moulton College, UK. She is exploring factors surrounding the relinquishment of pet rabbits to re-homing centres in the UK and is developing a tool to assess individual behavioural differences in the species.







References
Oxley, J., Previti, A., Alibrandi, A., Briefer, E., & Passantino, A. (2015). A Preliminary internet survey of pet rabbit owners’ characteristics World Rabbit Science, 23 (4) DOI: 10.4995/wrs.2015.3771
RWAF 2014 Rabbiting On Magazine. Winter 2014. RWAF.
RSPCA. 2012. The time and costs involved in keeping rabbits: RSPCA companion animal pet care factsheet. RSPCA: West Sussex
Photos of rabbits: Francesco83 (top) and Serhii Ostapenko (both Shutterstock.com)
Propose a guest post to Companion Animal Psychology.