Extra Early Socialization for Puppies Makes a Big Difference

dogs puppies research science socialization

Extra Early Socialization for Puppies Makes a Big Difference

Comment  

Research on a new program for socializing puppies in the nest finds it brings big benefits.

Photo: Sarai da Silva / Shutterstock

A new study by Dr. Helen Vaterlaws-Whiteside and Amandine Hartmann (Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre) (2017) tests an improved program for socializing puppies in the nest from 0 – 6 weeks. The program provides additional socialization in a way that is relatively cheap, easy to implement, and designed to fit with what science tells us about the development of puppies.

In comparison to puppies receiving the regular socialization program, the puppies who got extra socialization got better scores in tests at 6 weeks old. By 8 months of age they were less likely to have separation-related behaviours, general anxiety, be distracted, or have body sensitivity.

In other words, the extra socialization brought important benefits for their behavioural welfare as young adult dogs. These results will be of particular interest to those who breed and train service dogs, but they are important for anyone who cares about dogs – especially those looking to get a puppy.

Dr. Vaterlaws-Whiteside told me in an email,

"The program is designed to provide a highly effective socialisation experience for our puppies that is low cost, quick and easy to complete. The program of specific exercises mirrors puppy physiological and behavioural development and is proven to have a lasting improvement on behaviour. 

"Dogs who do not receive this kind of socialisation as puppies can grow up to be anxious and scared. Therefore, positive early life experiences are critical in helping puppies grow up to be confident, content companions. This program can be used by working dog organisations, pet dog breeders and animal shelters."

The puppies who took part in the study are part of the Guide Dogs for the Blind breeding program. All of the puppies follow a standard program, spending the first 6 weeks in a breeding facility where they experience identical conditions and then having the same socialization program for the first year of their life. Therefore this is the ideal environment in which to test a new, additional, socialization program.

The extra socialization activities took place five days a week during the first 6 weeks. It was designed to include interactions with people and animals as well as visual, auditory and tactile stimulation. In the first week, it took 5 minutes per puppy per day, building up to 15 minutes per puppy per day in weeks 5-6.

Examples of the extra socialization include stroking the puppy gently with the fingers, a towel, and rubber gloves; making a cell phone ring near the puppy; gently examining the puppy’s ears and teeth; and encouraging the puppy to do things like climb over an obstacle or come through a doorway.

All of this was done in a way that was fun for the puppy and the researchers made sure the puppy was comfortable at all times.

The researchers have made a video called play builds confident puppies to explain their findings.

How did they conduct the study on early puppy socialization?

Six litters of puppies took part. Half the puppies in each litter received the extra socialization and half had the standard program. To make sure it wasn’t simply extra time with a person that was causing the results, the puppies in the standard program had someone spend the equivalent time sitting with them and only interacting a little with the puppies that wanted to.

The puppies were either Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, or Labrador-Golden crosses. They were assessed at 6 weeks old, and at 8 months old their handlers completed a survey on their behaviour.

At 8 months, the handlers’ responses showed that puppies who had the extra socialization scored better for separation-related behaviour, distraction, body sensitivity and general anxiety. There was no difference for trainability or energy.

These results suggest they will make better working guide dogs, but more research (and time on the job) is needed to assess this.

The scientists write,

“The additional age-specific stimulation received by puppies given the extra socialization during this study provided increased physical contact, mental challenges and extensive positive interaction with people away from the litter. These stimuli could be considered to be mild stressors and may help explain the reduced anxiety and distraction related behavior observed in the eight-month handler questionnaire.”

The very short periods of time that puppies in the extra-socialization program spent away from the litter and with a person may have helped them to become more resilient to being taken away from the litter, which may in turn have made them more resilient to being left alone. This could account for the differences in scores for separation-related behaviours.

What’s especially remarkable about these results is that the puppies in the standard group were already getting an excellent socialization program that included lots of opportunities to interact with different stimuli. One of the things that is different about the enhanced program is each puppy got to have that kind of interaction away from the other puppies, just in the presence of a person.

What does it mean for dog owners?

This study builds on the existing research on the sensitive period for socialization in puppies and on what we know about puppy development. It has implications for all dog owners because it shows that extra socialization brings additional benefits. If you are getting a puppy, socialization in the home of the breeder makes a difference to the future behaviour of the puppy.

Sadly, many puppies come from places where they do not get good (or any) socialization. This is thought to be one of several reasons why puppies from pet stores are more likely to have behaviour problems such as aggression, fear of dogs, separation-related behaviours, sensitivity to touch and house-soiling.

So do not buy a puppy from a pet store, or from the internet where the puppy will be brought to you. You need to see the puppy interacting with the mom. And you should ask the breeder what they are doing to socialize the puppy. This should include lots of short, positive experiences with a wide range of different stimuli.

"positive early life experiences are critical in helping puppies grow up to be confident, content companions. This program can be used by working dog organisations, pet dog breeders and animal shelters."

Animal shelters and rescues also sometimes have puppies, and you should ask the same questions about socialization.

Of course, you still need to continue to socialize your puppy after you bring it home. The sensitive period for socialization ends at around 12-14 weeks, although it may be earlier in some breeds.  Remember that socialization means positive experiences, so never force your puppy into an interaction and always give them a choice.

Summary of the puppy socialization study

This study shows that additional puppy socialization from 0-6 weeks, on top of an already excellent socialization program, can make a big difference in terms of the dog’s behaviour at 8 months of age.

The paper contains details of the extra socialization program including a table showing what happened and when. This makes it easy for anyone else who wants to follow the program. Breeders of pet dogs, working dog programs and animal shelters in particular may wish to take a look. The paper can be downloaded for free until 15th December via this link.

You can follow The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (UK) on twitter and Facebook.

You can learn more about the classic research into the socialization period in my post, Why you need to socialize your puppy. And if you’d like to know why we call it a sensitive period or how kittens compare to puppies, you might like to read the sensitive period for socialization in puppies and kittens.

For more stories like this, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.


Reference
Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H., & Hartmann, A. (2017). Improving puppy behavior using a new standardized socialization program. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 197, 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.08.003

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 and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Escaping Dogs: Some Fences Are Better Than Others

dogs fences research science

Escaping Dogs: Some Fences Are Better Than Others

Comment  

A physical fence is more secure than an electronic fence, according to a study with important implications for dog owners.

Photo: Cora Mueller (Shutterstock)

The survey, by Dr. Nicole Starinksy (Ohio State University) et al, asked 974 dog owners about how they kept their dogs confined to the yard, whether they had escaped – and whether they had ever bitten someone.

The results showed that an electronic fence was the least effective method of containing a dog: 44% of dogs contained by one had escaped. Dogs were less likely to have escaped from a tether (27%) or from a see-through fence (e.g. chain link or slatted wood) (23%) or a privacy fence that is not see-through (also 23%).

The report states,

“Regardless of their level of training, dogs are never 100% consistent in their responses. An electric shock from an electronic fence system may be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a dog from escaping under normal circumstances, but may not be when the incentive to escape (eg, the chance to chase another dog or person) is particularly high. In addition, electronic fences are liable to fail because of power outages, battery depletion, or other technical problems, potentially leading to an increased rate of escape.”

The method by which the dog was trained on the electronic fence had no effect on the rate of escape. 73% were trained by a trainer from the fencing company, 19% using the manual, and a handful by other trainers or not trained.

The survey found that 4.6% of the dogs had bitten a person in the past, and 7.7% had bitten another dog, according to the owner reports. The type of containment method was not linked to whether or not the dogs had bitten someone.

However, there were some behaviours that were linked to the dog having bitten a person: growling, snarling, and/or trying to bite another person.

The implication for dog owners is that if your dog is displaying any of these behaviours, it would be a good idea to get help before the behaviour escalates to an actual bite.

Don’t punish the dog for growling, because this does not address the underlying reason why the dog is growling and may put people at greater risk. It would be a good idea to seek professional help (see my article on how to choose a dog trainer).

The survey found 12% of owners left their dog alone and unsupervised in the yard when they were not at home. These dogs were more likely to have bitten another person than dogs that were never left unsupervised. Of course, it’s possible some of these dogs had been obtained because of guarding tendencies. Another risk factor for biting was having unknown people come into the yard on an everyday basis.

The scientists write

“To prevent bites to people, owners should consider keeping their dogs indoors when they are not home and unable to supervise their behavior in the yard and prevent frequent uninvited visitors from passing through the yard. Additionally, owners of dogs that display aggressive greeting behaviors should seek professional assistance because these dogs may be more likely to bite.”

Dog owners were recruited for the study at 8 pet stores in Columbus, Ohio, so this is not a representative sample of dog owners, but it is a large one. A physical fence (see-through or not) was the most common method of keeping a dog in the yard (78%). 14% used an electronic fence and just under 8% used a tether.

Photo: dezi (Shutterstock)

While this study found that dogs escape from electronic fences at twice the rate of a physical fence, there are other reasons not to use electronic fences too: other research shows there are welfare concerns with using electronic shock collars on dogs

I think it’s important to note that all of these figures for escapes are quite high. It shows it’s essential for dog owners to ensure their dog has up-to-date identification to help them get re-united in the event of a lost dog. A collar with a tag and a microchip can make all the difference to getting a pet back.

Don’t forget to ensure the microchip company has your up-to-date details. Teaching your dog to come when called is also essential and will help if you happen to witness an escape (more advice on teaching recall here).

In Ohio, where this study took place, there are no laws against tethering a dog, but in many places there are laws against tethering dogs for more than a certain period of time and/or using certain collars (like prong collars) with a tether. For a summary of the law on tethering in US states, see this table provided by Michigan State University’s Animal Legal and Historical Centre.

Dogs that are tethered for any length of time often develop behavioural issues, are restricted in their movements in a way that may interfere with the Five Freedoms, and are at risk of neglect. For more information, see the BC SPCA position statement on tethering of dogs.

For these reasons, even though the escape rate for tethered dogs was not as high as for an electronic fence, it is not a good alternative even if it is legal where you are. A physical fence of some kind had the lowest escape rate and would be a much better choice. A physical fence keeps the dog in, and is also the only way to keep other dogs and wildlife out. Alternately, of course, you could always leave the dog inside the house, which is the best choice of all.

Another finding of note in this study is that there was no association between breed group and bite history. This is in line with previous research that any dog can bite if it is anxious or threatened.

The results of this research suggest a physical fence is the best way to keep your dog in your yard.  To prevent bites, the dog should not be left unsupervised and uninvited people should not have access to the yard.

These results also show the importance of ensuring your dog has up-to-date identification, and of dealing with any aggression problems sooner rather than later.

To learn more about how science can help you have a better relationship with your pet, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

What do you think is the best way to keep your dog in your yard or garden?


Reference
Starinsky, N. S., Lord, L. K., & Herron, M. E. (2017). Escape rates and biting histories of dogs confined to their owner's property through the use of various containment methods. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 250(3), 297-302. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.250.3.297

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 and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Why Do Dogs Play?

dogs play research science

Why Do Dogs Play?

Comment  

A new paper finds there are many reasons why dogs play – and play is not always a sign of good welfare.

There’s nothing cuter than watching puppies play together. But why do they do it? It turns out play has several functions, not just one. A new review, by Rebecca Sommerville (Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh) et al, considers four theories about why dogs play, and finds evidence in support of three of them.

Rebecca Sommerville told me in an email,

“We found, by reviewing a large body of research, that play is not one type of behaviour – there are several types that each serve a different purpose. Despite popular belief, a dog playing is not necessarily a sign that everything is well. Playing alone can be a sign of boredom, whilst play with other dogs has potential to be one sided. Regular, real play between a dog and owner does not revolve around commands, and is important to strengthen their bond.”

Four theories of why dogs play

The paper looks at four different theories of why play has evolved in dogs.

One theory is that play helps puppies learn motor skills. If you look at what dogs do in play, they chase each other, roll around on the floor in play fights, mount, pick up objects with their mouth and tug, bite or shake them. Puppies learn how hard they can bite their playmates (acquired bite inhibition), and to play bow to keep the play going for longer. Through these play activities, they are learning real skills relevant to how to move their bodies, acquire food, and defend themselves in fights. The scientists say this theory explains a lot of things about play, but is not the full story.

Another theory is that play is training for unexpected things to happen: it’s through play that dogs know how to right their bodies when knocked off balance and how to cope when something surprising startles them. According to this theory, changes in the brain and in hormone levels during play help dogs learn how to cope with real-life stressors. This theory explains the fact that dogs like new toys but are cautious of new things that aren’t toys. It also explains the way dogs self-handicap during play and put themselves at a disadvantage; this can be seen as practising behaviour they may need later on as a way to defuse real aggression. But again, this theory only explains some aspects of play.

The third theory they found evidence for is the idea that play promotes social cohesion between dogs. Play helps dogs cooperate as a group, and is about building social relationships – in which humans also feature. Dogs prefer to play with people they know, and they are more likely to approach the winner of a game, but when they win a game against a person it does not lead to increased ‘dominance’. So play is about building cooperative relationships, not social rank. But again, this theory does not explain everything about play.

The fourth theory the scientists considered is that play is just a side-effect of other processes, such as having too much energy or a deprived environment that does not provide stimulation. However, poor environments are linked with the development of stereotypies (repetitive behaviours), rather than play. If play was linked to too much energy, then playfulness wouldn’t be a consistent trait in dogs. Because play is something humans like, it may have been selected for in domestication or have arisen as a result of breeding for other traits, such as neotenic (baby-like) features. But play does not seem to just be a by-product of other things.

Play and welfare in dogs

There is an increasing emphasis on positive welfare and so the paper also considers the welfare implications of different types of play. Individual play with toys is an important enrichment activity that is rewarding in its own right and may reduce stress, but in some cases it may reflect poor welfare (e.g. poor environment, not enough attention from humans).

The scientists say that social play with other dogs is good for canine welfare, although there may be risks of injuries if play turns into aggression. Dogs that do not get enough play opportunities when they are young may show inappropriate behaviour in adult play with dogs or humans. If it is misinterpreted by the owner as actual aggression and the dog is given fewer play opportunities as a result, this may lead to reduced welfare.

Photos: Natalia Fedosova; top, Johan Georg Theron. Both Shutterstock.

Finally, dogs also like to play with humans, and would prefer to play with a human than on their own when there is a toy around. The scientists distinguish between indirect play (when the human moves a toy for the dog – playing with a flirt pole would be an example) and direct play when the human and dog are directly playing together. Play with humans can be rewarding in itself and may also improve the human-canine bond.

However, there are also times when play with a human may not be a sign of good welfare: when dogs make a playful move as a way of avoiding something unpleasant from the human, or in cases where the play itself is stressful, as has been found for games of tug that are also full of commands and discipline rather than being spontaneous and affectionate.

The researchers say that although several studies have looked at different types of reward in dog training, research is needed on the use of play as positive reinforcement. They say that using play to promote the adoption of shelter dogs is another example of using play to improve welfare.

So why do dogs play?

Ultimately, dogs play because it helps them learn motor skills, build social cohesion and prepare for unexpected things to happen so they can cope better when they do. Different stages of play may have different functions, with the beginning and end of a play bout especially important for social cohesion, while the main part of play is most important for learning motor skills and preparing for the unexpected.

"Regular, real play between a dog and owner does not revolve around commands,

and is important to strengthen their bond.”

The review did not find evidence for the idea that play is simply a side-effect of other processes. But it did find that play per se is not necessarily a sign of good welfare; in some cases, it may indicate welfare issues.

The scientists also say that other possible reasons for play need more research, such as whether or not it helps with cognitive development or coping with stress.

This is a fascinating paper. The idea that play is multi-faceted and was probably selected for in domestication is also supported by Bradshaw et al’s (2015) review of play behaviour in adult dogs. I look forward to seeing a lot more research on how and why dogs play!

What does it mean for your dog?

Although the paper does not specifically consider the implications for dog owners, there are some things to bear in mind.

Play fulfils several important functions. So next time you see puppies playing, remember it’s not just fun – they are practising useful skills and building social relationships.

It can be hard for people to find suitable (safe) playmates for new puppies, so a good puppy class should include opportunities for play. This will help your puppy to develop useful skills for later in life. Play should be a positive experience, so expect the dog trainer to monitor it carefully. If at any time you are not sure if your puppy is enjoying it, do a consent test: separate the puppies and see if they both want to return to play or not.

Remember that puppies coming from commercial breeding establishments may not have had many play opportunities with their littermates because of the environment in which they are raised (see: potential causes of problems in pet store puppies). In this case, it may be even more important to have play sessions during puppy class so they can learn appropriate canine social skills. (Note that puppy class is just for puppies, not adult dogs, because of the risks of infection and in case the adult dogs are not well socialized).

If you have one of those adult dogs who is lacking in play skills or bullies other dogs, a good dog trainer will be able to help. Kristi Benson CTC explains how to improve play skills here. Since dog training is not regulated, make sure you find a good dog trainer.

Of course the main take-away for dog owners is that it’s important to play with your dog because it helps to strengthen the human-animal bond.

You can follow the first author, Rebecca Sommerville, on twitter.

For more posts like this, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.

How do you like to play with your dog?



References
Bradshaw, J. W., Pullen, A. J., & Rooney, N. J. (2015). Why do adult dogs ‘play’?. Behavioural processes, 110, 82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.023
Sommerville, R., O’Connor, E. A., & Asher, L. (2017). Why do dogs play? A review of the function of play in the domestic dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.09.007

You might also like:
Playtime after training improves a dogs memory
The function of play bows in dog and wolf puppies

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 and affiliated sites.

Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Dogs Sleep Badly After a Stressful Experience

dogs research science sleep

Dogs Sleep Badly After a Stressful Experience

Comment  

Dogs fall asleep faster but get less deep sleep after a bad experience compared to after a good experience.

Photo: Karen Laventure (Shutterstock)

We all know the feeling when something bad happens in the day and then we just can’t sleep at night. It turns out that, just like humans, dogs’ sleep is affected by bad experiences – but the effects are not quite the same.

A new paper by Dr. Anna Kis (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (including members of the Family Dog Project) took EEG measurements of dogs sleeping after a good or bad experience.

While humans take longer to fall asleep after a bad day, the dogs fell asleep more quickly after a bad experience than after a good one. This is thought to be a protective response to stress. But, just like humans, dogs did not sleep as well after the bad experience, showing their sleep was disturbed.

16 pet dogs took part in the study, which took place over 3 sessions. The first session was a practice one so the dogs could get used to the equipment and being in the lab. In the next two sessions, the dogs had a good or bad experience, followed by 3 hours of sleep. Half the dogs had the good experience first followed by the bad experience, and half the dogs had the bad experience followed by good. At least 5 days elapsed between these two visits to the lab.

The good experience was 6 minutes in which the dog was petted every time it went to the owner, was spoken to nicely, and played fetch or tug depending which it preferred.

The bad experience also lasted 6 minutes and started with the dog having their leash tied to the wall and being left alone in the room. After 2 minutes, the owner came back in and ignored the dog, but did go stand near it. Then an experimenter came in and approached the dog in a threatening manner before stopping, sitting on the ground, and looking at the dog for 3 minutes without responding to it.

After the good or bad experience, the dog was taken to another room and prepared for the sleep measurements. It took about 10 minutes to put on the electrodes for the EEG recordings, and this was done in a manner reasonably consistent with the good or bad experience the dog had just had. So either the dog got lots of petting and nice talk while it happened, or the experimenter ignored the dog as much as they could during the process.

During the three hours after the bad experience, the dogs got an average of 72 minutes sleep and the duration of a sleep cycle was 56 minutes. After the good experience, the dogs took longer to go to sleep, and on average they got 65 minutes sleep with a sleep cycle of 51 minutes.

The different stages of sleep were also affected by the dogs’ experiences. After the negative experience, dogs had a longer period of REM sleep, which is characterized by rapid eye movements (hence the name). The researchers had predicted a change in the amount of REM sleep because it has been associated with emotional processing.

Non-REM sleep was higher after the positive experiences. This is when the deepest sleep occurs, so after negative experiences the dogs got less deep sleep.

The researchers also found that the dogs’ personalities were linked to how they behaved with the owner. For example, dogs that were rated as more agreeable and less open hid behind their owner more when the experimenter was sitting and looking at them in the negative experience. In turn, some of these behaviour differences were linked to changes in the sleep cycle.

What this means is that individual differences in how the dogs responded to the experiences were also reflected in changes in their sleep. The scientists suggest further research on this topic, and on links between sleep and welfare in dogs.

This is the first time that good or bad experiences have been shown to affect how well a dog sleeps.

The paper is open access and you can read it via the link below.


Reference
Kis, A., Gergely, A., Galambos, Á., Abdai, J., Gombos, F., Bódizs, R., & Topál, J. (2017, October). Sleep macrostructure is modulated by positive and negative social experience in adult pet dogs. In Proc. R. Soc. B (Vol. 284, No. 1865, p. 20171883). The Royal Society. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1883

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 and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Shelter Cats Like a Box to Hide In

cats enrichment research science shelter

Shelter Cats Like a Box to Hide In

Comment  

Cats like somewhere to hide - and research shows a cardboard box can be the simple solution.

How do we know what types of enrichment are most important to cats? A new study by Dr. Jacklyn Ellis (University of Prince Edward Island) et al tests shelter cats’ preferences. The results show the importance of a simple cardboard box for kitty cats.

What is environmental enrichment for cats?

Environmental enrichment involves adding something to the cat’s environment that is good for its welfare. Enrichment can be especially important for cats in shelters since the environment is stressful for them, away from their familiar home and with the presence of unknown cats and people, and perhaps with dogs in earshot too. But it's important for our cats at home too.

There are many ways to provide enrichment for cats, including vertical space, olfactory enrichment, food and even cognitive enrichment with clicker training.

How do we know what cats like?

How do we know which types of enrichment cats like best? For example, we know that cats like to be high up, and we also know that cats like to hide, but which is most important to them?

One way to find out is to investigate whether a particular enrichment leads to better physical and behavioural health, as with Gourkow and Phillips (2016) study of clicker training shelter cats.

Another way is to give cats a choice between enrichment items, and see where they choose to spend their time. The study by Dr. Jacklyn Ellis et al uses this method to see which of three types of enrichment shelter cats prefer.

This is a choice test, in which the animal is placed in one chamber with access to other compartments that contain different items, to see which one(s) they access the most. It’s also possible to do a motivational test to see how hard an animal will work to access a particular compartment. These methods have been used with a wide range of animals, including goldfish to see if they prefer real or artificial plants (answer: goldfish like both real and artificial plants).

The study of shelter cats and enrichment choices

The current study aimed to investigate which type(s) of enrichment shelter cats prefer out of a choice between a hiding box, a shelf to perch on, and a prey-like toy (the Mouse Chaser). Since we already know that cats like to hide, to perch in high up places, and to play with toys, it’s interesting to see which one they like best.

Photo: sarikosta; top, kmsh. Both Shutterstock.

26 domestic cats from an animal shelter took part in groups of 3 at a time. On average, the cats had been at the shelter for 6 days. While they took part in the study the cats were housed in a lab that was set up with three choice chambers (one per cat). The cats could not see the other cats, although they could hear them.

The choice chamber consisted of a central space that contained the cat’s food and litter, with four compartments leading off. One was empty as a control, while the other three compartments contained the hiding box, perch, and toy. Access to the compartments was via a cat flap, and after time to acclimate to the central space the cats were taught how to use the cat flaps using wet food, treats or petting as rewards. Once they’d got the hang of that, the experiment itself began.

The cat flaps were set up so that a record was automatically made every time the flap was opened. The researchers measured how often each compartment was accessed over a period of 7 days, and how much time the cats spent in there.

Results of the study

The results show that although there were no differences in how often each chamber was accessed, the cats spent significantly more time in the compartment with the hiding box.  This suggests the hiding box was important to them.

There was also an effect of light, with compartments being visited more often during light hours than dark, and in particular between 8am and midday, suggesting the cats were more active during this time. However light and dark did not affect the amount of time spent per compartment. Individual cats differed a lot in terms of how much time they spent perching on the shelf.


There were no effects of age, sex or whether the cat was a stray or a surrender on the frequency of visits to the compartments. However, cats that had been strays spent less time in the control (empty) compartment than cats that had been surrendered by their owners. The researchers suggest this may be because stray cats either prefer to avoid empty spaces, or to spend more time in close proximity to their resources (given they are used to having to find them for themselves).

The researchers raise the question of whether the hiding box was enrichment or in fact actually a necessity. Some scientists say enrichment is about providing something that brings positive welfare benefits, rather than prevents poor welfare.

The scientists write,

“These authors may contend that the much greater allocation of time to the hiding box may be evidence that not providing an opportunity for these individuals to hide is failing to cater to their basic needs.”

The layout of the room was such that only one of the choice chambers gave cats a view of whether or not a person was approaching; the other chambers could be accessed from more than one angle. In this chamber, the cats tended to spend more time in the compartment from where they could see someone approaching, suggesting they value time with a person.

Over time cats may change their preferences, and as seen with the perches in this study, each cat is an individual. Since only one toy was used in the study, it may be that different types of toy, having a variety of toys, and/or toys that involve interaction with a human might be preferred by particular cats.

The scientists conclude that,

“Although the frequency in which the cats visited each compartment did not differ, they allocated more of their time to the compartment with a box that provided a hiding opportunity. This may be because hiding satisfies a basic need for cats housed short-term in caged conditions.”

Although the study took place in a lab, which may be less stressful than the shelter, it shows that hiding places were still very important to the cats.

Hiding places for shelter cats and owned cats

Many shelters already provide a hiding space for cats. One example is the BCSPCA’s Hide Perch and Go, which provides a hiding space, a perching space and can be used to transport the cat. Another is the Feline Fort from Cats Protection that includes a step and table as well as hiding place and is easy to disinfect.

The research is only about shelter cats and not owned cats, but it has implications for cats at home, who benefit from hiding spaces too. Providing a safe space is one of the five pillars of a healthy feline environment (Ellis et al 2013). Cats are prey animals and can be taken by coyotes etc, and as solitary hunters if they got injured it would have serious consequences for future food acquisition. So cats feel safer when they have places to hide, which may be enclosed, high up, and in a quiet area.

Why not take a look around your home and see which spaces are available for your cat to hide in. Under the bed and under the settee can be good hiding places, but they are still quite large areas, and cats prefer to have smaller cat-sized hiding places where they can feel more enclosed.

The hiding place used in this study is easy to replicate at home, since it was a cardboard box with a hole cut in one side to provide access. Other options include cat trees with enclosed hiding spaces, cat tunnels, cat carriers, or even access to a suitable shelf or cupboard in your house (so long as they can't get trapped there). Leaving the cat carrier out and making it a nice comfy hiding space also has benefits when it comes to taking your cat to the vet.

If you have multiple cats in your home, each one needs access to hiding places without having to compete with the other cats.

The full paper is open access and can be read via the link below.

What kind of hiding places does your cat spend time in?

To stay up to date on what science tells us about our cats and dogs, subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology by email


References
Ellis, J. J., Stryhn, H., Spears, J., & Cockram, M. S. (2017). Environmental enrichment choices of shelter cats. Behavioural Processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.023
Ellis, S. L., Rodan, I., Carney, H. C., Heath, S., Rochlitz, I., Shearburn, L. D., ... & Westropp, J. L. (2013). AAFP and ISFM feline environmental needs guidelines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 15(3), 219-230. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1098612X13477537
Gourkow, N., & Phillips, C. J. (2016). Effect of cognitive enrichment on behavior, mucosal immunity and upper respiratory disease of shelter cats rated as frustrated on arrival. Preventive veterinary medicine, 131, 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.07.012
Sullivan, M., Lawrence, C., & Blache, D. (2016). Why did the fish cross the tank? Objectively measuring the value of enrichment for captive fish. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 174, 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.011

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.

Can Dog Training Books Be Trusted?

dogs training research science

Can Dog Training Books Be Trusted?

Comment  

Researchers assessed five best-selling dog training books for scientific accuracy – and found big variations in the quality of information they provide.

If people are going to spend their money on a dog training book, you would hope they would get advice that is useful, easy to follow, up-to-date and accurate. Unfortunately, some dog training books fall short, according to a review by Dr. Clare Browne (University of Waikato) et al of five best-selling books.

There is a silver lining in this story: some dog training books contain very good information.

But the review found some popular dog training books include information that is inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate or unclear; suggest the use of punishment-based methods despite their association with negative outcomes; and use anthropomorphisms and references to leadership that may interfere with dog owners’ understanding of their pet’s behaviour. This is bad news for animal welfare. It’s also bad news for owners who may struggle with their dog’s behaviour due to following poor advice.

Dr. Clare Browne told me in an email,

“Good dog training books should have information that readers can understand and apply, but the information must also have a scientific basis. This review showed that not all of these popular books (that remained highly-ranked on large retailers' websites for years) meet these functions. This is a concern, because people who read some of these books may not be getting the best information in terms of training efficacy and animal welfare.” 

The review is framed in terms of what dog guardians need to know in order to train their dogs. Given that behaviour problems are a risk for dogs being surrendered to animal shelters, the scientists say, “if people’s training attempts are more successful, fewer dogs may be relinquished.”  There can be real-life consequences to following dog training advice.

The researchers selected five books based on their popularity. The books were initially chosen based on a search of three major online booksellers (Amazon UK and US and Fishpond NZ) in 2009; subsequent searches in 2012 and 2014 showed their continuing popularity.

The books included in the review are: Cesar’s Way by Cesar Millan and Melissa Jo Peltier; The Dog Listener by Jan Fennell; It’s Me or the Dog by Victoria Stilwell; Don’t Shoot the Dog! by Karen Pryor; and How to Be Your Dog’s Best Friend by Monks of New Skete.

The two books that come out of the review best (the silver lining) are It's Me or the Dog by Victoria Stilwell and Don't Shoot the Dog! by Karen Pryor.

The researchers say It’s Me or the Dog has current information about dog behaviour and training, and provides the information in a way that’s accessible and easy for dog owners to follow. The researchers found Don't Shoot the Dog! contains great information and in-depth coverage of learning theory as applied to any species, including humans, although it is not specific to dogs. Both books have an emphasis on positive reinforcement.

Photo: Michael Kraus; top, picsbyst (both Shutterstock)

The Dog Listener is based on the idea that dogs have a hierarchical structure and often compares dogs to wolves. Cesar’s Way is in part autobiography of Cesar Millan, and is based on the ideas of dominance, energy, and being the “pack leader”. How to Be Your Dog’s Best Friend is based on the idea that humans should be the “alpha” and includes a lot about positive punishment.

So are these five books evidence-based? The scientists compared what the books say to what science tells us about how to train a dog.

The books were read thoroughly as well as searched for explanations of aspects of learning theory (e.g. positive reinforcement, positive punishment) and for information relevant to human-dog communication (e.g. body language, tone of voice, and timing). As well as general information, the researchers explicitly looked at how the books suggested people teach their dogs ‘sit’, ‘lie down’ and ‘come’.

The researchers counted how many times particular topics were mentioned as well as the quality of the information (e.g. how well the books defined positive reinforcement compared to a scientific definition).

The tallies for how many times positive reinforcement and positive punishment are mentioned are very interesting. Pryor mentions R+ 46 times and P+ 7 times, and Stilwell mentions R+ 52 times and P+ 9 times. This shows the strong emphasis these authors have on positive reinforcement. Fennell mentions R+ 30 times and P+ 4 times. Millan & Pelltier are the only ones to mention P+ more often than R+ (21 times vs 16 times, respectively). Monks of New Skete mention R+ 59 times and P+ comes up 58 times.

Both the Millan & Peltier book and Monks of New Skete use the word ‘correction’ to refer to some positive punishment, and Monks of New Skete reserve the word ‘punishment’ for more harsh punishments (e.g. jerking on the leash is described as a correction, but shaking and hitting the dog are referred to as punishment). As the scientists point out, inconsistencies in descriptions of reinforcement and punishment may be confusing to dog owners.

In terms of how the books covered learning theory (essential information if you want to train a dog), there was a lot of variation. The researchers say Pryor’s book provided the most comprehensive information, with a primary focus on positive reinforcement. Three of the books did not explain either reinforcement (Millan & Peltier), punishment (Stilwell), or both (Fennell), although they did have examples of them in the book. Monks of New Skete did explain both, but they advise starting with a low level of positive punishment and then increasing it over time. The scientists point out this is not consistent with the scientific literature; studies show that animals can habituate to punishment administered in this way, such that over time high intensity punishment will not stop the behaviour (although it might have been effective if used from the beginning). This is very harsh and not good for animal welfare.

"advising the dog guardian public to use physically aversive training techniques, as suggested in some of these books, may not be the most prudent course of action in terms of safety and animal welfare."

The timing of delivery of reinforcement and/or punishment is crucial, but the scientists found that only Pryor and Stilwell emphasized timing and gave clear, replicable advice.

Although all of the books referred to the use of classical conditioning (except for Pryor, which has a different focus), Stilwell was the only one to explain it.

Only three of the books contained instructions for how to teach dogs to 'sit', 'lie down', and 'come' (it's worth noting the other two do not describe themselves as dog training books, even though they are popular as such). Stilwell contained clear instructions using non-coercive methods; Fennell was also non-coercive, but the researchers felt the instructions sometimes lacked detail. Monks of New Skete had instructions that were easy to follow, but they suggested physically putting the dog in position (negative reinforcement). The researchers say, “this is surprising, as since the 1980s there has been a shift away from physically coercing dogs during training.”

The researchers found Pryor has great information, but by definition, since the book is about any animal, it was not specific to training dogs.

The level of detail about the cues people should use when teaching dogs also varied across the books.

The researchers discuss the literature on dog training methods which suggests potential risks to animal welfare from using confrontational techniques. They say,

“Although a causal link has not been established, it could be argued that punishment-based techniques have been shown to be associated with fewer benefits than reward-based training methods and in fact, have been associated with significant negative effects (e.g., aggressive responses). Considering all of this, advising the dog guardian public to use physically aversive training techniques, as suggested in some of these books, may not be the most prudent course of action in terms of safety and animal welfare."  

This is an important study since it is the first time scientists have investigated the type and quality of information available in best-selling dog training books. It is careful, thorough, and methodical – and to be frank, the results are alarming.

It is especially concerning that books that recommend aversive methods continue to be so popular, given the scientific literature suggests a risk to animal welfare from using these methods (as well as a potential risk to human welfare if the dog is aggressive in response). It shows just how much work needs to be done to teach people how best to train their dogs.

It also shows that as well as choosing a dog trainer wisely, it is important to choose dog training books carefully. Unfortunately many people will be guided by what is on the most popular lists.

In light of the books consistent position on the best-selling lists, the scientists say,

"this indicates the books’ on-going popularity and that they probably contribute significantly to the type of information that is accessed by dog guardians."

This review is a valuable contribution to the literature  on dog training and animal welfare. Given the level of detail, it is not surprising it only considers five books. It would be very interesting to see these methods applied to other popular dog training books too.

You can follow the first author, Dr. Clare Browne, on Facebook.

If you want to read more about the research on dog training methods, you might like to start with a summary of a recent literature review, or you can check out my dog training research resources page.

In addition to It’s Me or the Dog and Don’t Shoot the Dog, my own recommendations for dog training books are Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson, Train Your Dog Like a Pro (also by Donaldson), The Power of Positive Dog Training by Pat Miller, The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell, and Plenty in Life is Free by Kathy Sdao.

Which dog training books do you recommend?


Reference
Browne, C. M., Starkey, N. J., Foster, T. M., & McEwan, J. S. (2017). Examination of the Accuracy and Applicability of Information in Popular Books on Dog Training. Brill. DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341453

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 and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.