1

https://smartdogs.wordpress.com/tag/dog-aggression/

Posts tagged dog aggression
Conflicting Conclusions
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!)
but rather, hmm. thats funny.
Isaac Asimov
Quiz for the day: To prevent or avoid canine aggression problems, should you:
1. Live in the U.S.; spay or neuter your dog and train him without any aversives under the supervision
of a veterinary behaviorist; or
2. Live in Europe; plan ahead to acquire a very large, sexually intact male or spayed female dog;
refrain from spoiling your dog; exercise it regularly and train it yourself using effective corrections?
According to a pair of studies published in 2009 both answers are right.
In the previous post I wrote about Meghan Herron, Frances Shofer, and Ilana Reisners (Herron et
al.) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-
owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. This study has been quoted extensively as proving that
confrontational training methods provoke aggressive responses in dogs.
During the same time period that Herron et als study was published, Joaquin Perez-Guisado and
Andres Munoz-Serrano (PG-MS) published an article in The Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances stating
that owner behavior is the primary factor influencing dominance aggression in dogs. From the abstract:
Modifiable and non-modifiable factors that are associated with higher levels of dominance aggression
and depend on the owner include first time ownership, a lack of obedience training, the owner not being the
main obedience trainer, spoiling the dog, not using physical punishment, acquisition as a present, as a pet,
impulsively, or to guard and spaying female dogs. Modifiable factors have the greatest influence on
dominance aggression in dogs. Dog-dependent factors (gender, breed, age, size and coat color) are fewer
than owner-dependent factors. There was an association between certain dog behavior patterns and higher
level of dominance aggression.
The sample for this study included a very number of dogs trained using confrontational methods.
Dogs that should have reacted aggressively to their owners based on the results reported by Herron et al.
Contrary to Herron et als finding, PG-MSs data indicate that the use of physical corrections was inversely
correlated to dominance aggression. In other words, their data suggest that the use of aversive training
methods prevents aggressive behavior.
How can two groups of scientists study aggression in dogs during the same year and come up with
conflicting findings? Tabulated data werent published in the PG-MS study, so this review will be more limited
than Id like. Still, a closer look at these apparently contradictory studies may provide some valuable insights.
First there were significant differences in the populations sampled. Herron et al.s respondents were
Americans getting advice from a veterinary behavior clinic on existing behavior problems. PG-MSs were
Spaniards taking their dogs for a walk. Herron et al. surveyed 140 dog owners; PG-MS interviewed 711.
In the previous post I said that I believed that there was a significant bias problem in Herron et als
sample because it only included owners who were actively seeking help from a veterinary behavior clinic.
Given this limitation, all dog owners who found that aversive methods worked effectively for them were
removed from Herron et als sample. I stated that I thought this was the most significant problem with the
study and PG-MSs data appear to corroborate my suspicion. In a much larger population without that bias,
the correlation between aggressive behavior and aversive training methods not only disappeared it appears
to have been reversed.
How could this happen?
First of all were comparing two different varieties of apples here. Herron et al stated that their goal
was to assess whether there was a connection between the use of aversive techniques and aggressive
responses. PG-MS focused on the importance of nature versus nurture in the development of dominance
aggression.
Next, I believe that there were significant differences in how the two groups defined aversiveness.
Herron et al. did it subjectively and included what I thought were a rather odd range of interventions in
both the aversive and non-aversive groups. They evaluated hitting and kicking as a training method. Three
different types of verbal corrections were considered separately but the wide array of techniques used in
clicker training were lumped together under a single heading. Two different types of leash corrections are
2


included in the aversive group and avoiding any exposure to triggers is considered training in the neutral
category. This bizarre mish-mash of categories appears to have been put together by someone with little
hands-on experience with dogs.
Instead of using objective criteria (like a measure of the dogs responses) to evaluate aversiveness,
Herron et al. used subjective value judgments to determine which methods were aversive, neutral and non-
aversive. On the other hand, PG-MS dont provide any information on how they assessed the relative
aversiveness of training methods, so there may be problems with their assessment too.
One of the most interesting things I discovered in comparing these studies was that it appears that were all
so sure we know what defines a method as positive or aversive, that scientists dont even feel the need to
clarify their definitions. And that doesnt make any sense. Rewards and punishments are, by definition,
subjective and personal measures of discomfort and pleasure. If trainers and scientists cant find something
other than subjective measures of niceness or not-niceness to define training methods well never agree
on how to use them.
Moving beyond the problem of definitions, I think its important to ask whether the relative
aversiveness or positiveness of a method is the most important factor in dog training.
In an effort to figure out how the dogs involved felt, I took data from tables published in Herron et al.
and, ignoring subjective measures of positive or negativeness, ranked them by percent of positive responses
as evaluated by the dogs owners. Then I plotted that data against the percent of aggressive responses
observed. Heres the chart (click for big).

Theres an inverse relationship between positive effect and aggressive response. In other words,
methods that worked well rarely provoked aggressive responses. You can also see that as positive response
decreased, the degree of correlation became much more erratic. How can we explain this?
If you look at the interventions that elicited the highest percentage of aggressive responses (hit or
kick, growl at, pulling an item out of a dogs mouth, alpha-rolling, holding a dog in a submissive position on
the ground and scruffing it) youll see that these are the kinds of things people are most likely to do when
theyre frustrated with their dogs. As I noted yesterday, I believe it is likely that Herron et als sample
included an anomalously high number of frustrated dog owners.
PG-MSs stated that being a first time pet owner, acquiring a pet on impulse, spending less time with
your dog, a lack of exercise or obedience training, having someone else train your dog for you and spoiling it
were positively correlated with aggressive behavior. In my experience as a dog trainer, these are all good
indicators of a potentially frustrated dog owner.
In Herron et als study, the interventions that elicited the highest percentage of effective responses
(using food to trade for an item, making a dog sit for everything, using food rewards, increasing exercise,
using an attention command, clicker training, leash corrections and use of food-stuffed toys) with few
exceptions* were methods that require a reasonably calm mind and some forethought. PG-MS correlated
3


aggressive behavior to a lack of training, lack of exercise and excess of pampering. These factors dont
generally indicate mindful behavior.
Going back to the quiz we started with; I dont believe that the answer to preventing and curing dog
aggression will be found in subjective, abstract concepts tossed around by people who are more interested in
parsing out behavior than handling and interacting with dogs. Im convinced that the key to preventing and
curing canine aggression is proactive, mindful behavior on the part of dog owners.
In science it often happens that scientists say, You know thats a really good argument; my position
is mistaken, and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.
They really do it. It doesnt happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is
sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in
politics or religion.
Carl Sagan

https://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/that-dogma-wont-hunt/
That Dogma Wont Hunt
January 4, 2010 at 9:01 pm 25 comments
Science is properly more scrupulous than dogma. Dogma gives a charter to mistake, but the very
breath of science is a contest with mistake, and must keep the conscience alive.
- George Eliot, Middlemarch
In the past year theres been a lot of buzz about a University of Pennsylvania study thats been quoted
extensively as proving that confrontational training methods provoke aggressive responses in dogs. All the
cool kids have been citing it, but being a skeptic I couldnt help but wonder does this study really prove
what they say it does?
In the introduction to the study Meghan Herron, Frances Shofer, and Ilana Reisner (Herron et al.)
write that:
The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of use, the recommending source, and the
owner-reported effect on canine behavior of interventions that owners of dogs with undesired behaviors had
used on their dogs. This study also aimed to report aggressive responses from the dogs subsequent to the
use of aversive and non-aversive interventions.
If you jump to the end of the study where the investigators discuss their conclusions youll see that
Herron et al. do not expressly claim to have proved anything. They merely state that an association between
the use of confrontational training methods and aggressive canine responses was observed in the
population sampled. Confusion about that silly cause-effect thingamahickey might have occurred because
some PR hack inflated the results to sex-up a press release. Or it may have come about because
immediately after Herron et al. note that they observed an association, they go on to state that: Ultimately,
reward-based training is less stressful or painful for the dog, and, hence, safer for the owner.
[scratches head] I believe that this is akin to saying: We found that being black in color was
associated with a higher risk of euthanasia in the shelter dog environment. Ultimately, being white in color is
less stressful or dangerous for a dog, and, hence, breeders should strive to produce only white dogs.
How does a simple association suddenly morph into a cause that requires intervention? Correlational
studies indicate the existence of relationships between variables, but they cant prove that one variable
causes a change in another. Correlated variables may not be linked in time, space or function, and factors
that werent considered in the study may be important or even causative. I come from a different world so
maybe Im being picky, but in the physical sciences it is considered quite bad form to use a simple correlation
to imply one has discovered a cause-effect relation.
Unfortunately the biggest problem in science today isnt that its hard to understand its how
distressing easy it has become to use it to advance a personal, economic or political agenda. In some circles,
using science to advance an agenda has become so common that it seems that researchers are engaging in
this kind of misuse of science without even being aware of it. As Dr. Free-Ride wrote over at Adventures in
Ethics and Science:
If they are completely committed to a particular view of the world, fully expect that the evidence will
support that view, and blame mistaken methodology for results that dont support that view indeed, to the
point of openly rejecting evidence-based medicine and scientific standards of proof the problem isnt one
of lying so much as arguing for a different standard of credibility.
Good science and dogma dont mix.
4


And what about the science? Well, to begin with, there are several bias problems in the survey
population. The first one I found, and in my opinion its a rather glaring one, is that the study population only
included owners who were actively seeking help from a veterinary behavior clinic. Given this limitation, all
dog owners who found that aversive methods worked effectively for them would be removed from the study
population.
Herron et al. dont mention anywhere the strong and, I think obvious, likelihood that the population
selected was also likely to include a very high percentage of people who were frustrated with their dogs.
Frustrated owners are a lot more likely to lash out at their dogs in anger something no trainer Ive met
would consider a valid training method. Including this kind of angry, frustrated behavior in the same
category as a thoughtful, well-timed leash correction makes about as much sense as calling free-feeding a
reward-based training method.
Herron et al. also dont discuss how many of the dogs included in the survey exhibited aggressive
behavior before implementation of the training methods. If aggressive behavior preceded implementation of
a training method, that training method should not be considered the cause of the aggressive behavior
because, by definition, cause must occur before effect.
Sampling a non-representative population may not be good science, but it can be a nifty way to
screen results to justify preconceived notions.
The training methods included in the study are described only vaguely and Herron et al. do not state
why each method is considered to be confrontational, neutral or nonconfrontational. For some reason leash
correction and use of a choke or pronged pinch collar are considered separately, as are dominance down
and force down. Three different kinds of verbal corrections are evaluated separately, and two different
trained commands (sit to get everything and the watch attention cue) appear to have been included in
the non-aversive group without considering what kinds of methods were used to train the dogs to obey
these commands.
The discussion section does not present a balanced presentation of the training methods studied.
Detailed discussions on the potential negative aspects of some of the aversive techniques were included, but
for some reason no information was presented on any potential positive effects of these techniques. No
discussion of potential negative or positive effects of the nonconfrontational or neutral methods was included.
The most obvious examples of this is the detailed (and IMO rather convoluted) justification presented
to discredit all use of shock collars. A similar discussion is provided regarding of the use collar corrections.
Im not sure why Herron et al. felt obliged to include detailed discussions on the possible adverse effects of
these methods and no others, though I think it is important to note that leash corrections were ranked by
owners as the fifth most effective method (of the thirty studied) and resulted in aggressive responses in
roughly the same percent of cases as the positive / neutral methods using food to trade for item and
avoidance. The use of shock collars resulted in the same low percentage of aggressive responses (4-6%).
Intended or not, the unbalanced discussion of methods casts a strong appearance of bias on this study.
I found the study to be somewhat confusing because in places the discussion does not appear to
match the results obtained. While Herron et al. describe the use of Cesar Millans characteristic schhhtt
sound and jabbing at the dog in the neck as potentially provocative according to their own data these
methods elicited aggressive responses in the same percentage of cases as the use of food rewards. Given
these results, I do not understand why Millans methods are considered to be provocative and the use of food
rewards is not.
Herron et al. state that owners of dogs with aggression problems who consult dog trainers instead of
veterinarians are at risk because the lack of standardized oversight of many training programs has resulted
in a range of competence and ethical practice of behavior modification and owners may be at risk of receiving
unsafe advice. I find it interesting, given this statement, that so many trainers have latched onto this study
as gospel truth.
In the sentence immediately after the one where Herron et al. recommend that veterinarians be
consulted instead of trainers, they state that the most common intervention recommended by veterinarians is
the use of a muzzle. In an interesting bit of irony this was the method that resulted in the highest
percentage of aggressive responses.
In the conclusions Herron et al. note that confrontational or aversive behavioral interventions applied
by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive
responses in many cases and that reward-based training is less stressful or painful for the dog. I am not at
all convinced that the study demostrated this, and I cant help but wonder if a bias to support positive
methods and condemn aversive ones polluted this study.
5


I find it disturbing that a study with so many obvious holes in it is being touted as accepted science
throughout the media. Herron et als Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-
confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors:
Sampled a heavily biased population;
Includes a discussion section that is heavily slanted against all use of aversive/confrontational
methods even though this opinion does not appear to have been supported by the survey data;
States a conclusion that is not supported by the data; and
Presents correlation as cause, and then uses the inferred cause to manufacture a problem and a sense
of urgency to address it.
Im afraid that instead of presenting a balanced, scientifically rigorous evaluation of the data they
collected, Herron et al. presented the results they wanted and expected to find. Whether you agree with
their philosophy or not, this was not good science. Good science involves a commitment to follow the data,
even when that data leads you in a direction youre not ideologically comfortable with.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
Sherlock Holmes, A Scandal in Bohemia