Puppy socialisation and confidence building

Key principles of puppy training.

Nature vs nurture in developing a well-adjusted, confident canine.

Synopsis

What is required to create “the perfect well-balanced canine”? How is canine behavioural development impacted by hereditary traits, which are essentially breed characteristics manifested mostly through senses and drives, but also the temperament and behaviours inherited from the parents? What role do early and ongoing puppy developmental experiences (socialisation and training methodologies) have in establishing the “well-balanced canine” outcome? Addressing these questions will develop an appreciation of the interplay of nature versus nurture and lead to defining three important keys to successful canine welfare, development and training based on principles of (1) socialisation, (2) appreciating canine problem solving and (3) tailoring to talent.

Introduction

Following the birth of a puppy, the transition period sees the sensory and motor capacities development with the pattern of recognition and relationship to the mother and siblings. After about 3 weeks of age, the development period of socialisation phases in and is very important in terms of establishing positive interactions with canine and human family. This period of socialisation is the very foundation of canine relationship building and why puppies from puppy farms, commonly devoid of human contact and extracted from this environment too early, grow up with less than desirable behaviour patterns, ranging from uncertainty and lack of confidence to fear and reactivity. Even a small amount of contact with siblings and/or humans at these critical early development stages will produce a strong social relationship, which can only be formed late in life by a much longer exposure – if it can be duplicated at all. Equally, bad experiences, because of the emotional sensitivity of the puppy at this early stage, might prove to be critical for permanent psychological damage[1].

If managed correctly – with care and empathy – the rearing of pups after weaning and removal from the mother and siblings at around the 8(+) week age will develop a close and confident relationship between the infant canine and humans, as well as establish general environmental confidence – willingness to explore, move about and engage in play[2]. This is the stage of most delight for families when a new puppy comes into the home. Interestingly, research[3] demonstrated that sensory/mental stimulation from environmental enrichment - such as toys, runs, activities, etc. - led to measurable changes in brain anatomy in just a few weeks (larger/faster synapses; thicker cerebral cortex, larger neurons, increased dendritic branching, etc.). This all means better facilitated learning, retention and problem solving. Notably the largest impact in terms of enrichment was company, important to remember in terms of allowing a pup to meet and play with other pups, always under supervision. However, this can all be reversed through subsequent deprivation – use it or lose it[4].

Building puppy confidence through socialisation

A set of experiments on puppy confidence and socialisation from the 1960’s[5], suggested that puppies showed greater confidence in familiar social settings (e.g., the “home environment” with siblings) than the often-referenced laboratory or special environment experiments (i.e., effectively “constructed artificial psychological tests”). Now, if the puppies had the opportunity to build confidence at repeated exposures to the behaviours and challenges involved in such “laboratory” experiments, then, through principally operant conditioning (and maybe an element of classical conditioning associating certain stimuli predicting/anticipating an outcome)[6] the results may have shown more similarity or parallelism with the home environment observations of behavioural and response outcomes. In any case, this tends to reinforce, firstly, the importance of early learning from experiences with the mother and siblings (and later with nonfamilial conspecifics) but, secondly, the careful development of confidence through repeated low-risk (non-threatening) opportunities to learn and calmly meet the challenge presented[7] without fear or “flooding”[8].

A most interesting correlation in canine behaviour development is the idea that creating confidence, that is, changing canine reaction to stimuli through repeated, non-threatening familiarity, particularly when the pup is young and developing, indirectly changes canine temperament overall[9]. For example, this can be as simple as exposing the puppy to previously unfamiliar environments, sounds, walking surfaces, people, other animals, or as complex as teaching a dog to sit and watch the guardian/handler, rather than eyeballing another dog or some potentially scary stimulus (even an approaching person) which helps the dog to feel calmer and friendlier and more readily able to handle new experiences. Moreover, in the latter confrontational situations, orchestrating these opportunities for behaviour/reaction management will also impact the behavior of the other (approaching) dog/person stimulus, because the approaching dog/person feels less threatened and so will be less threatening. In effect, teaching a dog how to act in managed stressful situations imbues confidence. So, overall, building calm responses to various stimuli via managed desensitization scenarios and (classical) counter-conditioning through positive outcomes when encountering a particular stimulus, as well as abundant appropriate handling and socialization during puppyhood, can set the growing dog up for lifelong success. As a result, a well-balanced dog is “created” through establishing practiced, long-lasting, imbedded behavioral responses, all built on growing self-confidence. This same approach can be used to change less-desirable behaviours and responses.

To explain using a practical, applied dog behavioural development/management example, to address a nervous pup’s concerns about passing or approaching people and dogs, Dunbar[10] sensibly suggests sitting quietly in a park where people and dogs walk by, just allowing the dog to quietly observe (keeping the distance, intensity and frequency to below “threshold/trigger-point”). Over time find a slightly busier spot, and eventually upgrade to a busy area. In all this, we can apply classical conditioning with food treats to build the association of remaining calm when encountering people and dogs by engineering good outcomes and reassuring the dog with calming tones and petting – the guardian/handler remaining unphased and calm no matter what[11].

Why punishment is not effective in puppy training

Punishment, as a fundamental element in puppy raising and dog training, forms the aversive basis of what is referred to as coercive training[12], involving force and/or punishment, or what Scott and Fuller[13] in their treatise, described as inhibitory training[14] and often referred to as “old school pressure escape/avoidance training”. At the extreme, aversive punishment communicates “that’s not what I commanded”, “stop what you are doing” and at the worst it says “freeze – stop everything”[15].

Aversive punishment is rarely (if ever) instructive in terms of what is required instead of what the dog is doing. Lure-reward training is easier and quicker. Aversive punishment-based training requires that, to be effective, punishment (making a behaviour less likely to recur) requires the following: immediate action: consistent application: fit the crime: dogs must understand the rules/requirements: trainers must warn of the upcoming punishment: punishment must be instructive. Apart from the poor logic in applying punishment in puppy training, it is near impossible to get all these six criteria right, but, in any case, why would you base a training regime on punishment principles for your best friend, especially one who is at the beginning of life and just learning how to fit in? Observe bad dog trainers demonstrating how to stop a dog pulling on the leash, suddenly applying a jerk on the lead, a poke in the abdomen, a “hiss or spitting” noise, or a sudden unpredictable change of motion (direction or halt) with a severe leash jerk action without a verbal warning to the dog (“steady/wait/this way/etc.”) so that the poor subject has no idea what is supposed to happen next or what response to offer. That is – no consistency; not fitting the behaviour; no warning; no opportunity for learning or understanding what is expected. The result? Fearful rejection of this handler as a “companion” and mental and emotional shutdown because of not understanding what is required. By comparison, lure-reward training only requires the dog to learn what is required to achieve the reward – and then it becomes self-correcting. Dogs are capable of learning to make choices and this starts in puppyhood.

Positive reinforcement: the non-aversive approach

So, what works better? Positive reinforcement training using body language (usually hand gestures introduced through luring and shaping techniques) and adding verbal cues to the handler’s gestures (or other body language) to instruct and guide a dog into the desired action then bridging/marking[16] and rewarding the dog, encourages that desirable behaviour to occur again on cue - and crowds out undesirable behaviors. Furthermore, this style of learning has been shown to increase the willingness to learn, simply because of the absence of fear of making a mistake and the promise of a positive outcome. This is even the case when working on canine reactivity - rewarding dogs for not doing the wrong thing, for example, effectively for doing nothing when faced with a provocation - that is, for not misbehaving.

Replacing the (apparently common human?) desire to punish for failure with a positive cue (to sit; chew the toy; recall; heel; etc.) not only tells the pup to stop what they were doing (by redirection/diversion – in certain circumstances referred to as a “positive interrupter”) but instructs it what to do instead - and be rewarded. What this means in puppy training, is that the most effective “punishment to stop repetition of an undesirable behaviour” is not a punishment at all, but is verbal instruction and guidance – what Dunbar[17] (ironically) refers to as “non-aversive punishments”, which reduce the recurrence of the undesirable behaviour without causing fear or pain. The reverse concept – that of applying pain or fear as punishment - derives from old laboratory experiments with rats, on which the Skinner Model of teaching heavily relies, were based on caged rats (the infamous “Skinner Box”) and constrained by either delivering treats (dropping food pellets) or electric shocks (pain)[18]. Whereas for dogs the voice (and gestures) can be used instead – communications (warnings) not offered or available to those unfortunate laboratory rats.

Animal training should never have followed that type of laboratory science down the path that promoted pain and especially long-term pain (distress or fear of pain) to change behaviour. In fact, Skinner himself determined that “positive reinforcement (that single quadrant/quarter in the model) is the most effective, lasting teaching methodology, which actually encourages further learning”[19].There is never any reason to use pain to teach basic manners or compliance to a puppy. Language and gestures can be used far more effectively than any aversive procedure.

Note (again) that we are discussing puppy training – manners and what is commonly called “pet training” here (although the principles extend to all dog training aims). We are not describing an emergency or safety situation, which can vary from two family dogs playing and the excitement is elevating to a point of friction, when a firm “Hey – enough – relax you two” is technically aversive but appropriate in the circumstances, through to  a screamed “Drop – don’t run on that road” or “Leave it – don’t eat that rubbish” – again, totally fitting the urgent circumstance even though, strictly, voiced in an aversive manner, but responded to by the dog because of a learning through excellent positive reinforcement training establishing an “associative learning” response[20].

Breed characteristics and the best motivational reward

Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) in their famous research, determined for the chosen breeds tested, that, for breeds like Cocker Spaniels, any sort of threat, such as even a hand gesture, will make the dog cease all activity, although without showing any lasting emotional disturbance. Shelties in the tests those researchers conducted, by comparison, showed long lasting effects and emotional arousal when subject to such inhibition. To add to these observations, unpleasant or aversive stimulation also manifested differing reactions across the other tested breeds. The Basenjis in the studies objected to physical constraint (struggled and vocalised distress) showing high sensitivity to punishment. Social response to humans also varied – Spaniels and Beagles actively sort human contact and play, while Basenjis and Shetland sheep dogs stood aside[21]. All of these elements together are important when choosing a breed for a particular task or job role alongside the human – or as a family pet. Dog guardians/companions are wise to research the nature of the breed (or cross-breed mix) they hope to adopt or already have as a companion, so as to develop/modify their management and training strategy to the greatest effect.

The conclusion from these and subsequent studies can reasonably be that hereditary traits greatly affect expression of emotional behaviour and that different emotional behaviours form a prominent part of the characteristic behaviours of breeds and individuals. This might seem obvious to some who have worked extensively with different breeds and a number of individual dogs, but it is largely overlooked by dog training pundits who make sweeping statements about training methods when they are dealing predominantly with just one or two high-drive breeds – such as (particularly, it seems, on social media) German Shepherds, Malinois or Dobermans – but would have the students of dog training convinced that their methods are universal. Properly considering breed characteristics and the individual differences within a breed (and here size does matter, in that smaller dogs are commonly intimidated by and fearful of larger dogs – not entirely without self-preservation reasons, as many large dogs regard small fluffy dogs as obvious prey) then one understands that much more cognisance needs to be applied to this complex element of dog training responses and behavioural reactions.

A key input into the decisions regarding puppy training methodologies, is understanding what a particular canine finds positively motivating. Variations in degrees of motivation can mostly be closely correlated with canine breed senses, drives and emotional differences – recognising that some variations in degrees of motivation will occur with individuals. Repeated reinforcement of an action or behaviour by a reward (or, as a deterrent, the highly not-recommended, punishment) – leads to increased (or decreased) motivation to act or respond in a certain manner. For example, in the referenced Scott and Fuller studies, they found that Beagles were consistently motivated by food rewards, whereas Shetland Sheepdogs and Basenjis were motivated by the opportunity to explore and sniff. These examples are demonstrations of the “Premack Principle”[22]

To add a personal experience, working with Asian Shepherd dogs and Asian Shepherd crosses (more correctly called the Central Asian Shepherd Dog, but also referred to as the Turkmen Wolf-Hound, Alabai and Alabay - a livestock guardian dog breed),  the handler’s common challenge was that the dogs can be reactive to other (usually large) dogs and their dogs keep sniffing the ground and looking off into the distance (searching the horizon) rather than paying attention to their handler, who was trying to train them in some basic elements of obedience (recall; sit; heel; etc.). These dogs were universally not motivated by food rewards to distract them from their mission, so the handlers were finding the whole basic training experience very frustrating, as they felt they just could not get their dogs to “focus”.

The key was (perhaps obviously, but not easily realised) to appreciate that the dogs were, in fact, laser focussed - on their job. These dogs were simply doing what they were bred for and what comes naturally, they were not being obdurate or (heaven forbid) trying to boss the handler around[23] – they sniffed to check for tracks of wolves or bears (neither common in Australia, by the way, but these dogs were not entirely convinced of that) then checked the horizon to make sure their protectorate was safe – then back to sniffing – a constant cycle of “guardian dog behaviour driven rinse and repeat” [24]. These breeds have unique motivators and rewards, which handlers need to figure out and then devise a means to utilise the rewards in their desired training program. Stopping such breeds from sniffing and checking for danger – especially by forceful, aversive corrections - would be not just silly, but on a “hiding to nothing”, trying to force a dog away from its instinctual drives.

So, the process was, have the dogs focus on the handler for even a few seconds, then apply/allow the reward of sniffing and running towards the edge of the training field with the handler indicating to the dog it should sniff again (checking for the flock they thought to protect and the passage of predators they might need to deal with) consolidating that proper behaviour (not food, in this case but demonstrated pleasure of the handler) then returning to a short handler-focus attention span for training.

As to the inter-canine reactivity of this breed of dog, this is also understandable, if the handler simply realises that the other large dog encountered is taking the role of wolf or bear – a threat to the guardian dog’s herd demesne or the handler themselves. The management and training cycle here is applying desensitisation and counterconditioning[25] – having the dog focus on the handler whenever it perceives an imagined threat to establish what behaviour is appropriate. In a Group Training Class environment, what we established was that if (whenever) the subject dog showed signs of reacting (“arcing up”) to a nearby dog, the handler would call the dog and run to a nearby “shaping box or platform”[26] and cue “Load/Sit”, then bridge (clicker or “yes”) and reward the dog (verbal/physical affection/pleasure) for this good behaviour. Then, as this positive experience both distracted the dog from the “threat”, but in addition confirmed that the handler could be trusted to understand and divert the danger and reward the dog for a positive behaviour, the subject dog soon learned that when it perceived a threat it looked to the handler to check what it should do – a really powerful training outcome[27].

Three further illustrative examples to consider are:

1.     The Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever – imagine the craziness of attempting to teach this pup not to swim across a lake to have the ducks follow it back towards shore by using punishment.

2.     The Lagotto Romagnola dog – imagine trying to train this pup not to sniff the ground on a walk with the handler, especially in an orchard or bush setting, when the dog is certain there will be truffles there.

3.     Can you imagine a guide dog (vision impaired assistant) or service dog aiding a paraplegic, being effective in its dedicated role if puppy training was performed with aversive, punitive methods, rather than positive reinforcement? These dogs are required to not only react appropriately to a large variety of defined cues and practised scenarios, but will encounter variations in situations they had not previously experienced and will need to make choices to assist their wards without fear or apprehension of mistakes. Thus the full range of socialisation of experiential learning – without fear – will be essential.

The over-arching message here is that all breeds can be trained and learning does not strictly adhere to some “hierarchy of intelligence”. Certainly, some breeds show a greater affinity to some tasks and training – the classic example being the affinity Border Collie/Australian Shepherd breeds show for the sport of Agility training. But just watch the Crufts annual Agility trials and see the diversity of breeds highly motivated and successful (and having great fun) in this popular dog sport. On this point of ranking training or apparent speed of learning, the Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) team preferred to call the tests in their experiments “performance tests” rather than “intelligence tests”, as they determined that dogs appear to solve problems in ways other than pure thought or intellect[28]. We will leave amplification of this interesting element to the discussion of nature versus nurture below.

Nature vs nurture – hereditary stereotypical behaviour and being born with a skill set vs developmental experience and training influences

Although genetics and upbringing make every puppy unique, ongoing socialisation and training are critically important in influencing behavior, temperament, manners and quality of the pup’s (and guardian’s) life and welfare. Starting this journey with a puppy makes the outcome easier and more certain. Socialisation of pups is essentially desensitization operating effectively through gradual acclimatization (“habituation”) and learning across the full spectrum of experiences, sights and sounds. This is most effective in the first six months or so of puppy life, but then continues - each time period being important, but perhaps progressively less simple or effective, which means more thought, planning and effort is required by the guardian to achieve the desired outcome. Whatever the breed and age of the dog, sensory and environmental experiences geared with a positive training outcome in mind builds temperament as well as establishing stable emotional/behavioural responses to stimuli.

In their extensive research, Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) determined two general principles of hereditary influence on behaviour:

Principal (1): Genetic differences in behaviour must be produced through the developmental process – behaviour is not fixed (like fur/hair colour) but is rapidly developing through early life and continues to change as the canine grows. Hereditary factors act through developmental processes on such elements as sense organs and physiological processes (the ways in which organ systems, organs, tissues, cells, and biomolecules work together to accomplish the complex goal of sustaining life) - including the process of learning. As a complexity linking back to the above, this forms the bases of social relationships and those with inanimate objects.

Principal (2): The majority of hereditary differences in behaviour are expressed as components of social relationships, with other canines and humans. Note that any social relationship requires two parties, each impacting the relationship.

OK – so what does that all mean?

Principal (1) suggests that although a dog breed does possess hereditary traits, these are overlain by, manifested through and even shaped by the critical elements of development, that is, life experiences and learning.

Principal (2) defines social relationships as being reflective of hereditary traits, although complicated in identification, because social relationships clearly require (at least) a two-party engagement, each with their own unique hereditary traits and developmental experiences.

Hayes[29] was so engrossed with the complexities of hereditary traits versus behaviours learned through experience (the interplay of nature versus nurture) that he hypothesized that the two are interwoven to the point that life experiences effectively underpinned – indeed “created” – animal drives and intellect, all tied to the evolution of the species under consideration. Now, there are as many demonstrations of this intriguing and elaborate theory as there are ways one might choose to pick holes in it, but, as an over-arching or conceptual “meta-theory”, a light comes on as the impact can be seen to be incredibly inciteful and unveiling an important truism in all dog training. This is that:

-        Intervention (in this discussion “intervention” is dog training) can be tailored to each animal’s talents and inclinations (or natural predilections, capabilities, capacities – predominantly senses and drives in the canine world) and so training should have the twin goals of teaching (building-in knowledge) and eliciting (bringing-out talents and inclinations)[30].

As referenced in the companion Article on this website, “Do we unfairly manipulate dogs?” a simple and illustrative way to think about this concept of the interplay of nature and nurture is the way a well-known Kelpie breeder, trainer, instructor and sheepdog trial competitor in SE Victoria (Australia) sees it - I asked him what proportion of his dog’s ability to manage sheep was credited to instinct or training – nature or nurture? His answer was simply “100% of both”. A simple way to put this (in case that was not clear enough) is “play to the dog’s strengths”.

The interplay of experience and elements of animal (including human) development is a fascinating, but convoluted, subject. To stretch the discussion just a little into the realm of social-cognitive theory, Albert Bandura[31] (who in part agreed with Skinner) believed that personality develops through learning the concepts of “reciprocal determinism, observational learning, and self-efficacy”, which all play a part in personality development. Bandura felt that thinking and reasoning are important components of learning and sources of individual differences in personality[32].

Summary and Conclusion

Although genetics (nature) and upbringing (nurture) make every puppy and every dog unique, ongoing socialisation and training are critically important in influencing behavior, temperament, manners and quality of the dog’s (and guardian’s) life and welfare. Starting this journey with a puppy makes the outcome easier and more certain. The rearing of pups after weaning and removal from the mother and siblings at the 8-week age, if done with planning and care, will develop a close and confident relationship between the infant canine and the adopting human companion, as well as establish general environmental confidence – willingness to explore, move about and engage in play with both humans and canines. This “experiential socialisation” (the careful development of confidence through repeated low-risk, non-threatening opportunities to learn and calmly meet the challenges presented) is essentially puppy desensitization through gradual acclimatization and learning across the full spectrum of experiences, sights and sounds. Although critical in the early weeks and months, the good news is that each life stage is important, although possibly progressively less simple or effective in implanting calm responses. Whatever the breed and age of the dog, sensory and environmental experiences geared with a positive training outcome in mind molds temperament, as well as establishing stable emotional/ behavioural responses to stimuli.

Aversive punishment does not tell a puppy what is required instead of what it is doing. Positive reinforcement of the desired action or behaviour, most commonly using lure-reward training, is easier and quicker. So, replacing any desire to punish for failure with a positive cue (to sit; chew the toy; recall; heel; etc.) not only tells the dog to stop what they were doing (by redirection/diversion) but instructs it what to do instead - and be rewarded. What this means in dog training, is that the most effective “punishment to stop repetition of an undesirable behaviour” is not a punishment at all, but is positive instruction and guidance.

A key to training methodologies is understanding what a particular canine finds positively motivating. Variations in degrees of motivation can mostly be closely correlated with canine breed emotional differences – recognising that some variations in degrees of motivation will occur with individuals. Repeated reinforcement of an act by a reward leads to increased motivation to act or respond in a certain manner and, indeed, to learn. All dog breeds can be trained and learning does not strictly adhere to some “hierarchy of intelligence”. Certainly, some breeds show a greater affinity to some tasks and training and that should be determined for any breed and understood.

In conclusion, any dog companion/dog trainer/guardian should bear in mind three important keys to successful canine welfare, development and training, starting in puppyhood:

1.     Establish a solid program of environment/interaction-based socialisation and confidence building from as early as possible in the young canine’s life and ongoing experiential variety throughout life.

2.     Dogs solve problems in ways other than by pure thought or intellect – so be cognisant of this in observing a pup’s learning experiences and provide opportunities for the pup to utilise and develop its problem-solving abilities.

3.     Dog training can be tailored to each animal’s talents and inclinations (or natural capabilities and capacities – senses and drives in the canine world) and so right from the start training should have the twin goals of teaching (building-in knowledge) and eliciting (bringing-out talents and inclinations).

These are truly powerful principles for any dog companion/guardian/trainer to appreciate.

References

 [1] Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. (1965) Genetics and the social behaviour of the dog; Univ. Chicago Press; 506pp; [paperback published 1998] esp. at pp. 117-118 in the paperback.

[2] Hallgren, A (2012); Stress, Anxiety and Aggression in Dogs; Cadmos Publ. Ltd. UK; 143pp: T pp. 86-87 suggests that the later a puppy is adopted into their new family after 8 weeks of age, the greater the risk of neophobia (fear of anything new).

[3] In the 1960’s at UC Berkeley with rats.

[4] Dunbar, I (2023) Barking Up the Right Tree: The Science and Practice of Positive Dog Training;

New World Library, Cal., USA: 363pp.

[5] Scott and Fuller (op.cit.)

[6] Classical conditioning (also known as “Pavlovian conditioning” or “Respondent Conditioning”) occurs when two stimuli are repeatedly paired: a response which is at first elicited by the second stimulus is eventually elicited by the first stimulus alone. Operant conditioning (“instrumental conditioning” or “Skinnerian conditioning”) is a method of learning that uses rewards (likely to be repeated) and punishment (prone to happen less) to modify behavior. Note that the punishment part of the equation is not advocated in this discussion – rather the techniques involve “redirection” of the dog’s focus and emotional response. See companion articles on this website: Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer's perspective. and AVSAB vs Balabanov analysis.

[7] Hallgren, A (op.cit.); pp. 87-88. Note that the “home environment” offers the advantages of familiarity and the safety and comfort of proximity to mother and siblings.

[8] Flooding is essentially forced and inescapable exposure to some challenging or fearful stimulus – like trying to overcome a person’s fear of snakes by locking them in a small room full of snakes, with no possibility of escape – the result – inevitably increased fear and most likely complete “shut-down”.

[9] Temperament refers to an animal’s nature as it shows in its normal reactions to stimuli or predisposition towards certain behaviour. Commonly references “pervasive mood” and the way an animal normally behaves.

[10] Dunbar (op.cit.)

[11] See companion Article on this website “Managing reactive and predatory dog behaviour”, in particular the section “Note on Comforting during stressful events”.

[12] The word "coercion" does not mean simply convincing a dog to do what you want - using treats, petting or mild leash communication/guidance – rather, the strict definition of coercion is "persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".

[13] Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) especially at pp. 203-204 in the 1998 paperback.

[14] For fulsome discussions of the pros and cons of positive reinforcement versus punishment-based training, as well as the complexities of the “balanced training” advocated by many, see companion articles on this website Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer's perspective. and AVSAB vs Balabanov analysis.

[15] Effectively “learned helplessness” – to witness the enforcement of learned helplessness on dogs just watch a couple of Dog Daddy YouTube videos (but have a sick bag handy) and for research look at Overmier, J. B. & Seligman, M. E. (1967) Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding; Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology; 63(1):28-33. For an expose of more recent articles ranging from 2002 to 2021 see URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/learned-helplessness#: [Note that a number of experiments described read as unpleasantly as the aversive techniques being discussed]. Maier, S. F. and Seligman, E.P. (2016) Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience; Psychol Rev. 2016 Jul;123(4):349–367; note that "Passivity in response to shock is not learned. It is the default, unlearned response to prolonged aversive events ... " [available at Nat. Libr. Med. URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4920136/ ].

[16] Bridging (or marking) is simply using a verbal (such as “Yes”) or a clicker sound to “mark” the instant the pup has performed the desired action/behaviour on cue and “bridge” to (predict) the reward, which follows separately – generally within roughly 1 – 3 seconds.

[17] Dunbar, I (op.cit.) especially Ch. 14.

[18] See companion Article on this website “Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer's perspective”,

  in particular the Section 4. The “four quadrants of operant conditioning” and the forthcoming Article on this website “The dog training “quadrants” misdirection”.

[19] Skinner, B. F. (1976) About Behaviourism; Vintage books (Random House) NY; 291pp: Aversive stimuli which generate a host of bodily conditions are the stimuli which function as reinforcers when they are reduced or terminated. Negatively reinforced behaviour may be strengthened to the point that the subject acts compulsively or aggressively, or may move to escape. When behaviour is punished, the punished behaviour is then displaced by incompatible behaviour conditioned as escape or avoidance. A punished person remains inclined to behave in a punishable way, but avoids punishment by doing something else instead, possibly just doing nothing (at p. 68).

[20] “Associative learning” is a catch-term covering classical and operant conditioning as well as “observational learning”- i.e., any process in which a stimulus is linked to an outcome. Timing, context and reinforcement are key elements in effective associative learning.

[21] Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) especially at pp. 387-388 in the 1998 paperback

[22] The Premack Principle, also called the relativity theory of reinforcement and the differential-probability hypothesis (and amusingly referred to as “Grandma’s Principle” – “eat your greens then you get dessert”), states that a more desirable activity can be used to reinforce a less desirable one. For a fuller general discussion refer URL https://www.simplypsychology.org/premack-principle.html.

[23] See companion Article on this website Canine dominance – is it a real thing?

[24] Remember that this is a guardian breed – as opposed to a guard breed – so they look for danger and constantly assess risk, remaining calm but then acting to ward off any threat they detect. They are not necessarily being alerted by a particular visual/auditory trigger, but test the breeze and watch for untoward movement, then mostly reacting by simply “warning-off or getting in the way” of the incoming danger – and only going into “attack-to-defend mode” if and when the threat is activated.

[25] See companion Article on this website “Managing reactive and predatory dog behaviour - “Alternative Behaviour Training”

[26] See YouTube video https://youtu.be/TvU0yhyVObc for pictures, measurements and an explanation of these simple, homemade, training props. The action described quite cleverly combines classical and operant conditioning into a singular outcome.

[27] Results of this were overall very positive – one handler said that, after a single session of the shaping box/platform diversion exercise, he had never seen his dog so calm and that he was moved to tears of joy. For the “permission to sniff and check the horizon”, the main challenge was not whether or not it worked (which it did) but avoiding other training instructors who thought this was giving into a “dominant dog” trying to rule the handler (yes – those archaic ideas are all pervasive) and would insist instead on punishing the dog (lead “pops”, harsh words, pokes). The handlers needed strength of character to decide on what they thought made most sense for their companion and ignore that bad advice.

[28] Scott and Fuller (op.cit.) especially at p.19 in the 1998 paperback.

[29] Hayes, K. J. (1962) Genes, drives and intellect; Psychol. Rept. 10; pp. 299-342. A helpful discussion of Hayes thesis (“an appreciation and extension”) can be found in Bouchard, TJ & Johnson, W 2020, 'Keith Hayes' Experience-Producing Drives: An appreciation and extension', Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110082: and see articles by Ley, J. (et.al.) 2007/2008/2009/etc., e.g. https://www.academia.edu/90012114/Measuring_personality_in_dogs and https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/personality-dimensions-that-emerge-in-companion-canines 

[30] This is an almost direct quote from the conclusions drawn by Bouchard, TJ & Johnson, W (op.cit. at Footnote 27) and is a really important conclusion. Think about the excellent and successful canine trainers you know of who have excelled in various dog sports and note the breeds of dogs they have trained to win prizes and their methods of training – it is very instructive and illustrative of this point.

[31] Numerous writings; refer for example Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191: Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall: Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John Handbook of personality. New York, Guildford Publications: 154-196. Psychological review 106(4), 676.

[32] For a broad review of these and related concepts refer URL https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-ss-151-1/chapter/learning: