ArticlePDF Available

Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team's performances

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

While only a few studies have analysed training methods used on working dogs, a recent survey in 303 Belgian military handlers revealed the use of harsh training methods on military working dogs (MWD). The present work aims at analysing the training methods used on Belgian MWD and the behaviour of handlers to objectify the performances of the dog handlers teams (DH teams) and the welfare of the animals.A standardized evaluation, including obedience and protection work exercises, was conducted on DH teams (n=33). Every evaluation was done twice to assess the reliability of the observation methods. The behaviours of MWD and handlers were recorded on videotape and subsequently analysed. Results showed that handlers rewarded or punished their dogs intermittently. Stroking and patting the dogs were the most frequently used rewards. Pulling on the leash and hanging dogs by their collars were the most commonly used aversive stimuli.The team's performance was influenced by the training method and by the dog's concentration: (1) low-performance dogs received more aversive stimuli than high-performance dogs; (2) dog's distraction influenced the performance: distracted dogs performed less well.Handlers punished more and rewarded less at the second evaluation than at the first one. This suggests that handlers modified their usual behaviour at the first evaluation in view to present themselves in a positive light. During the second evaluation the dogs reacted to this higher frequency of aversive stimuli as they exhibited a lower posture after aversive stimuli. The authors cannot prove that the welfare of these dogs had been hampered, but there is an indication that it was under threat.Low team performances suggest that DH teams should train more regularly and undertake the usefulness of setting a new training system that would rely on: the use of more positive training methods, an increased training frequency, the elaboration of a course on training principles, and an improvement of dog handler relationship.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Training methods of military dog handlers and
their effects on the team’s performances
A. Haverbeke
a,1
, B. Laporte
b
, E. Depiereux
c
,
J.-M. Giffroy
a
, C. Diederich
a,
*
a
Laboratory of Anatomy and Ethology of Domestic Animals, University of Namur (FUNDP),
6 rue Muzet, 5000 Namur, Belgium
b
UMR INRA AgroParisTech, Nutrition Physiology and Feeding, AgroParisTech,
16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
c
Laboratory of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, URBM,
University of Namur (FUNDP), Belgium
Accepted 29 November 2007
Available online 1 February 2008
Abstract
While only a few studies have analysed training methods used on working dogs, a recent survey in 303
Belgian military handlers revealed the use of harsh training methods on military working dogs (MWD). The
present work aims at analysing the training methods used on Belgian MWD and the behaviour of handlers to
objectify the performances of the dog handlers teams (DH teams) and the welfare of the animals.
A standardized evaluation, including obedience and protection work exercises, was conducted on DH
teams (n= 33). Every evaluation was done twice to assess the reliability of the observation methods. The
behaviours of MWD and handlers were recorded on videotape and subsequently analysed. Results showed
that handlers rewarded or punished their dogs intermittently. Stroking and patting the dogs were the most
frequently used rewards. Pulling on the leash and hanging dogs by their collars were the most commonly
used aversive stimuli.
The team’s performance was influenced by the training method and by the dog’s concentration: (1) low-
performance dogs received more aversive stimuli than high-performance dogs; (2) dog’s distraction
influenced the performance: distracted dogs performed less well.
Handlers punished more and rewarded less at the second evaluation than at the first one. This suggests
that handlers modified their usual behaviour at the first evaluation in view to present themselves in a positive
www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim
A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 81 74 05 52; fax: +32 81 72 44 20.
E-mail addresses: anouck.haverbeke@fundp.ac.be (A. Haverbeke), berengerelaporte@yahoo.fr (B. Laporte),
eric.depiereux@fundp.ac.be (E. Depiereux), jean-marie.giffroy@fundp.ac.be (J.M. Giffroy),
claire.diederich@fundp.ac.be (C. Diederich).
1
Belgian Defence, Naamsesteenweg 100, 3053 Oud-Heverlee, Belgium.
0168-1591/$ see front matter #2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.010
light. During the second evaluation the dogs reacted to this higher frequency of aversive stimuli as they
exhibited a lower posture after aversive stimuli. The authors cannot prove that the welfare of these dogs had
been hampered, but there is an indication that it was under threat.
Low team performances suggest that DH teams should train more regularly and undertake the usefulness
of setting a new training system that would rely on: the use of more positive training methods, an increased
training frequency, the elaboration of a course on training principles, and an improvement of dog handler
relationship.
#2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Working dogs; Operant conditioning; Human–animal interaction; Distraction; Training
1. Introduction
The communication between pet dog and owner (Gasci et al., 2004; Miklosi et al., 2003;
Soproni et al., 2001; Viranyi et al., 2004) and the efficiency of some stimuli and their
consequences on behaviour (Hiby et al., 2004; Schilder and Van der Borg, 2004) have recently
received some attention. Few studies have been conducted on human–animal communication in
service dogs (guide-dogs for the blind in Naderi et al., 2001; search dogs in Lit and Crawford,
2005; military working dogs in Lefebvre et al., 2007). Human–dog communication can be
studied through dog training (Schilder and Van der Borg, 2004). In this case, the most usual
method of training is operant conditioning: the animal learns that its response to a command (i.e.
discriminative stimulus) has consequences (i.e. appearance or disappearance of appetitive or
aversive stimulus) (Reid, 1996). For instance, after the command Sit, the dog sits and receives a
treat: the dog has established a link between the command Sit and the relation ‘to sit means that I
receive a treat.’ Depending on its response, four scenarios are possible: the dog will be reinforced
positively(i.e. receiving a treat), reinforced negatively (i.e. stop pulling on a choke collar), punished
positively (i.e. giving an electric shock), or punished negatively (i.e. withdrawal of a treat).
Traditional dog training techniques have mainly used aversive stimuli. Though the use of those
stimuli can be efficient in some situations (Christiansen et al., 2001), serious negative consequences
have been observed: well-being problems (Beerda et al., 1998; Schilder and Van der Borg, 2004)
and an increase in the number of behavioural problems (stereotyped behaviour, fear, intra- and
inter-specific aggression, Tortora, 1983; Roll and Unshelm, 1997; Hiby et al., 2004). Bibliographic
review (e.g. Hiby et al., 2004; Adams and Johnson, 1994; Johnston, 1995) and field observations
suggest that positive training might be more efficient than aversive training. Positive training
methods use positive reinforcement through the presentation of rewards in response to desired
behaviours. Purely positive training can be defined as a training method where aversive stimuli,
either in the form of positive punishment or negative reinforcement, are not used (Booth, 1998).
This move towards more positive training methods has been observed in some institutions using
working patrol dogs. In the Belgian army, preliminary studies in the field did not observe these
tendencies among DH teams. On the contrary, it seems that the dogs that failed an exercise were
punished (change in the tone of voice, pulling on the leash, hitting the hindquarters with the leash,
using the choke or the prong collar, when dogs did not release their bite during protection work:
hanging them by their collar, attaching a second leash around their hindquarters, using the electric
collar, etc.), whereas dogs that carried out an exercise correctly were generally not rewarded (A.H.,
personal observation). Moreover, the training frequency of these DH teams is less frequent than
expected from the military standards (dogs must officially train twice a month).
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 111
The primary aim of this paper was to analyse the different stimuli that operational MWD
(n= 33) received from their handlers during dog training. The authors want to answer the three
following questions: (1) Does the actual training system used for Belgian MWD provide DH
teams up to military standards? (2) Is the team’s performance influenced by handler’s behaviour
and/or dog’s behaviour? (3) What is the welfare status of these dogs during the training sessions?
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
The studied group consisted of 33 DH teams of the Belgian Defence. Dogs were selected as
representative of the Military canine population regarding sex (26 males, 7 females), breed (27 Belgian
shepherds, 6 German shepherds) and housing conditions (18 living in a military kennel, 15 living at the
handler’s home). The animals had at least belonged to the army 3 months before the study and were used as
operational working dogs for maximum 3 years (1.26 0.14 years). The dogs were between 1 and 5 years
old (3.06 0.21 years). According to this sample constitution, effect of sex, breed and duty time have not
been tested. The only factors that have been analysed are age and the housing conditions. Because of the
difficulty in documenting the origin of many dogs acquired by the Belgian Defence, no attempt was made to
distinguish dogs on basis of their provenance. All the dogs were subjected to a clinical examination and were
declared in good health and ready to take part in this study. The average time handlers were operational was
7.92 1.00 years. In this study, all handlers were men.
2.2. Standardized evaluation
A standardized evaluation was worked out to assess the team’s performances. The evaluation was
conducted on a fenced field (length 15 m, width 10 m; Fig. 1). The evaluation included 8 obedience
exercises (Walk-at-heel, Sit, Down, Stand, Positions-at-distance, Recall-to-heel, Down-out-of-view-of-the-
handler, Jump) followed by five protection work exercises (Handler’s-defence, Attack, Attack-with-gun-
shots, Attack-with-threatening-behaviour, Stand-off). These exercises are similar to those given during the
instruction course and the monthly training sessions. The Walk-at-heel exercise (exercise 1) goes as follows:
the handler conducts the dog on leash to cone 1 and stops there. After the Sit command, the dog sits to heel.
After Heel command, the team walks at a normal pace from cone 2 to cone 3 until it arrives back again at
cone 1. At cone 2, the handler gives the Turn command and the dog follows the handler from cone 1 to 3: the
team walks at a slow pace between cone 1 and 8, at a normal pace between 8 and 5 and at a fast pace between
5 and 4. Between cones 3 and 2, the team turns right at a 908angle and stops in middle of line A. After the Sit
command, the dog sits to heel. Descriptions of the other exercises (Annex 1) are available online. Dogs were
held on leash by the handler and wore leather or choke collars. Both evaluations were presented to handlers
as additional training sessions. Authors expected that handlers would behave just like they were used to as
they did not receive any guidelines. Every evaluation was done twice, with 20 days in-between, to assess the
reliability of our observation methods. No training has been realized between these evaluations.
2.3. Observed parameters
The observed parameters were team’s performance, handler’s behaviour, and dog’s behaviour. To analyse
the team’s performance,the number of correct and incorrect exercises, and the score of the team for the
different exercises were calculated. An exercise was considered as correctly done when the team obtained at
least half of the score at the exercise. The scoring method used by the Belgian army was applied (Annex 2).
To analyse handler’s behaviour, the number of appetitive stimulus employed, the number of aversive
stimulus employed and the number of times without a reaction from the handler after dog’s response were
identified per exercise. The term appetitive stimulus was used to define positive reinforcements. The term
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122112
aversive stimulus combines both negative reinforcements and positive punishments. Negative punishment
was never observed during these trainings.
To analyse the dog’s behaviour, their distraction, body posture and training-related behaviours were
identified.
Dogs were not considered as distracted when their head and/or body were oriented towards thehandler or
towards a direction that had an angle inferior to 108compared to the exercise direction. Dogs were
considered as distracted when their head and/or body were oriented in any other direction for more than 1 s
(Fig. 2). The distraction was scored in percentage (duration of distraction/duration of exercise 100). This
was taken into account for all the obedience exercises except the exercise Down–out-view-of-the-handler.
Dog’s posture was scored after the first appetitive and aversive stimulus during every obedience exercise.
Dog’s posture (described by Beerda et al., 1998,Annex 3) was observed for 3 s and the lowest observed
position was scored as an event (Schilder and Van der Borg, 2004). The training-related behaviours were
scored in a number of occurrence/minute during every obedience exercise, as the duration was not the same
for the exercises (min: 10 s; max: 60 s). The observed behaviours were mouth-licking, tongue out, yawning,
lifting front paw, replacement behaviour (including shaking and replacement sniffing), jumping, opening,
and closing mouth (Beerda et al., 1998).
2.4. Statistical analysis
The behaviours of handlers and dogs during the two evaluations were recorded on videotape (Digital
Video Camera Recorder, DCR-TRV27E, Sony
1
). Data were analysed by non-parametric tests (Wil-
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 113
Fig. 1. The evaluation was conducted on a fenced field (length 15 m, width 10 m). Specific material was used (eight
plastic cones, two rope lines, a rope square, a wooden gate and a tent). The observer and the cameraman were in the field.
coxon and Kruskal-Wallis signed rank tests) on the 33 dogs without consideration of sex, breed and duty
time. Deviations are expressed as S.E.M. All the analyses were done by SAS (SAS Institute, 2002–
2005).
Results of the first evaluation (team’s performance, handler’s behaviour, dog’s behaviour, and their link)
are first presented then compared to those of the second evaluation.
3. Results
3.1. Team’s performance
Teams obtained an averaged score of 54.97% 3.00 (327/595 points 17.84). Teams
performed significantly better on obedience exercises than on protection work exercises
(respectively 65.79% 3.24 and 38.96% 4.10, Wilcoxon: z= 4.27, d.f. = 1, p<0.001). Only
21% of the dogs did loose their grip after the first Out command and 19% of the dogs carried out
the Stand-off correctly. Authors could not find any significant influence of age and housing
conditions on the performance of the team.
3.2. Handler’s behaviour
Handlers used significantly more appetitive stimuli (57.12%) than aversive stimuli
(21.88%) or no stimulus (20.98%) (KW: x
2
= 37.94, p<0.001). The appetitive stimuli were in
decreasing order: tactile stimuli (stroking dog (42.51%), patting (12.86%)), verbal praise
(24.14%), toy (2.89%), and food (1.04%). They were frequently observed in combination
(16.53%: stroke and verbal praise, toy and verbal praise, etc.). The aversive stimuli were in
decreasing order: pulling on the leash (47.94%), hanging the dog by its collar (35.61%), verbal
scolding (10.27%), hitting (2.73%), or other (3.42%). No combinations of those stimuli were
observed to punish a dog.
The number of appetitive stimuli did not differ significantly between obedience and protection
work: handlers rewarded correct responses in 67% of both cases. But handlers punished more the
incorrect responses of their dogs during protection work (in 80% of the cases) than during
obedience (in 60% of the cases) (Wilcoxon: z= 4.05, d.f. = 1, p<0.001). Consequently, there
were fewer situations where the handler did nothing instead of punishing or rewarding during
protection work.
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122114
Fig. 2. Dogs were not considered as distracted when their head and/or body were oriented towards the handler or towards
a direction that had an angle inferior to 108compared to the exercise direction. Dogs were considered as distracted when
their head and/or body were oriented in any other direction for more than 1 s.
During protection work handlers used more aversive stimuli (pulling on the leash (Wilcoxon:
z= 3.50, p<0.001) and hanging by the collar (Wilcoxon: z= 4.10, p<0.001)) than during
obedience (Fig. 3).
Authors could not find any significant influence of age and housing conditions on handler’s
behaviour.
3.3. Dog’s behaviour
Dog’s distraction (average: 3.71 0.69%) was observed in decreasing order during following
obedient exercises: Positions-at-distance (7.09 2.81%), Recall-to-heel (6.59 2.40%), Jump
(3.79 2.42%), Walk-at-heel (3.11 1.45%), Down (2.67 0.82%), Sit (1.72 0.76%), and
Stand (0.91 0.47%). No differences of dog’s distraction have been observed between the
obedience exercises (KW: x
2
= 9.40, d.f. = 6, p>0.05).
Dog’s posture after aversive stimulus (0.22 0.19) was significantly lower than after
appetitive stimulus (0.49 0.09) (W: z=3.20, d.f.=1, p<0.01). No differences of body
postures have been observed between the obedience exercises after appetitive (Walk-at- heel:
0.20 0.24;Sit:0.670.29; Down: 0.62 0.29; Stand: 0.75 0.25; Positions-at-distance:
0.25 0.22; Recall-to-heel: 0.41 0.23; Down-out-of-view-of-the-handler: 0.82 0.18
(KW: x
2
=5.66, d.f.=6, p>0.05)) nor after aversive stimulus (Walk-at-heel: 0.20 0.26;
Sit: 1.00 0.00; Down: -1.00 0.00; Stand: 1.00 0.00; Positions-at-distance:
1.00 0.00; Down-out-of-view-of-the-handler: 0.40 0.40 (KW: x
2
= 7.33, d.f. = 5,
p>0.05)).
Different training related behaviours (TRB), scored in number of occurrence/minute, were
observed during obedience (average: 1.13 0.09). Mouth licking (5.03 0.37), tongue out
(2.76 0.43) and fast open and close the mouth (2.27 0.31) were the three most frequent TRB,
followed by yawning (1.73 0.20), replacement behaviour (1.22 0.27), jump (1.12 0.29),
shake (0.30 0.11), lift front paw (0.19 0.10), redirection aggression (0.12 0.07), and snap
(0.09 0.09). No differences of TRB have been observed between the obedience exercises (KW:
x
2
= 6.89, d.f. = 6, p>0.05).
Authors could not find any significant influence of age and housing conditions on dog’s
behaviour.
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 115
Fig. 3. Identification of the aversive stimuli. Mean of each aversive stimuli used by the handlers per exercise (eight
obedience exercises, five protection work exercises) (n= 33 teams) during the first evaluation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01,
***p<0.001.
3.4. Link between team’s performance, handler’s behaviour, and dog’s behaviour
Teams were ranked according to their performance and divided into high-score group (the 16
first teams, average score = 69.41% 11.95) and low-score group (the 17 remaining teams,
average score = 41.38% 7.41). Dogs in the high-score group received less aversive stimuli
from their handlers than dogs in the low-score group (Wilcoxon: z= 3.32, d.f. = 1, p<0.001,
Fig. 4). There was no significant difference between groups for appetitive stimuli (Wilcoxon:
z= 0.93, d.f. = 1, p>0.05) or no stimulus (Wilcoxon: z= 0.00, d.f. = 1, p>0.05). Furthermore
dogs in the high-score group exhibited more training-related behaviours than dogs in the low-
score group (Wilcoxon: z= 1.99, d.f. = 1, p<0.05).
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122116
Fig. 4. Interaction between performance and handler’s behaviour. Mean number of stimuli (appetitive, aversive, no
stimulus) received by dogs of each score group (low-score group and high-score group), during the first evaluation (eight
obedience exercises + five protection work exercises). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Fig. 5. Interaction between handler’s behaviour and dog’s distraction. Mean number of stimuli (appetitive, aversive, no
stimulus) received by the dogs from the different groups (not distracted, little distracted, distracted) during the first
evaluation (eight obedience exercises + five protection work exercises). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Three groups of distracted dogs were identified: not distracted (n= 11), slightly distracted
(n= 11, distracted from 0.8% to 2.7% of the time) and distracted (n= 11, from 4.5% to 18.9% of
the time). Distracted dogs received more aversive stimuli (KW: x
2
= 7.01, d.f. = 2, p<0.05)
(Fig. 5) and had a lower performance than the others (KW: x
2
= 8.5, d.f. = 2, p<0.01). No
significant differences concerning the number of appetitive stimuli or no stimulus were observed.
Age and housing conditions had no effect on the analysed parameters. No interaction between
dog’s posture and the other parameters were found. Aggression related behaviours (i.e. biting or
barking) could not be tested due to a too low number of dogs performing them during obedience
(only one handler was bitten by his dog). During protection work, no aggression related
behaviours were scored (no handler was bitten) and aggression towards decoy (biting, barking)
was considered as acceptable behaviour.
Authors investigated whether handlers used the different stimuli advisedly. Did handlers
reward or punish when they had to? No handler used aversive stimuli when the exercise was
correctly performed (aversive stimuli wrongly given). Nine out of the 33 handlers rewarded their
dog when the exercise was not properly done, once or twice during the 13 exercises (appetitive
stimuli wrongly given). These situations were too anecdotal to study their impact on the dog’s
behaviour. The cases where ‘the handler did nothing’’ after a correct response for the dog could
belong to an intermittent reinforcement training program.
3.5. Reliability of the observations
Team’s performances did not differ significantly between both evaluations in total score
(Wilcoxon: z= 0.006, d.f. = 1, p>0.05), obedience (Wilcoxon: z= 0.089, d.f. = 1, p>0.05),
and protection work (Wilcoxon: z= 0.34, d.f. = 1, p>0.05) (Annex 4).
Differences in handler’s behaviour were observed between both evaluations.
Dogs were significantly less rewarded (Wilcoxon: z= 2.10, d.f. = 1, p<0.05) at the second
evaluation (Fig. 6). Handlers used the same appetitive stimuli during both evaluations and there
was no significant difference in their frequency of appearance.
Dogs were more punished (Wilcoxon: z= 1.91, d.f. = 1, p<0.05) at the second evaluation
(Fig. 6). The same aversive stimuli have been used during both evaluations, and there was
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 117
Fig. 6. Comparison of handler’s behaviour between evaluation 1 and 2. Mean number of stimuli (appetitive, aversive)
received by dogs (n= 33) during each evaluation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
significantly more pulling on the leash (Wilcoxon: z= 3.18, d.f. = 1, p<0.01) and hanging the
dog by its collar (Wilcoxon: z= 3.57, p<0.001) during the second evaluation. The situations
where the handler did nothing instead of punishing or rewarding did not differ between both
evaluations (W: z= 0.30, d.f. = 1, p>0.05).
At the second evaluation, dogs showed a significant lower posture after aversive stimulus
(Wilcoxon: z= 2.91, d.f. = 1, p<0.01) (Fig. 7). Neither dog’s distraction (Wilcoxon: z= 0.79,
d.f. = 1, p>0.05) nor dog’s training-related behaviours (Wilcoxon: z= 1.57, d.f. = 1, p>0.05)
differed significantly between both evaluations.
4. Discussion
The analysis of the handler’s training methods revealed that they rewarded their dogs on an
intermittent reinforcement program (67% of correct responses were rewarded), probably
involuntary, without any intention to make these behaviours more resistant to extinction (Chance,
1979; Landsberg et al., 2003). Should the performance of these teams have been better, then this
program would have been appropriate. But knowing the low performance of the dogs, it seems
appropriate to shift back to a continuous reinforcement program as it was obvious that some dogs
did not know the correct behaviours yet. Concerning aversive stimuli, an intermittent program
was also observed as 60% of incorrect responses were punished during obedience and 80%
during protection work. According to Chance (1979), an intermittent program of punishment is
inefficient to lower the rate of an acquired behaviour.
Appetitive stimuli were significantly more used than aversive stimuli. Stroking and
congratulating the dog have been shown to guide dogs to perform better and to rapidly learn
simple exercises (sitting, lying, paw giving; Fonberg and Kostarczyk, 1980). Only four handlers
used toys to play with their dog after every correct exercise. This reward seems efficient as those
DH teams ranked first, third, fifth and ninth at the total score. Authors conclude that the use of toy
could help to diminish dog’s distraction, parameter affecting the performance negatively.
Handlers used more aversive stimuli (pulling on the leash; hanging dogs by their collar while
biting the decoy, etc.) during protection work than during obedience. Hanging dogs by the collar
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122118
Fig. 7. Comparison of dog’s posture between evaluation 1 and 2. Mean number of dog’s posture after a stimulus
(appetitive and aversive) received by dogs (n= 33) during each evaluation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
to force them to release the sleeve is a rather ‘‘reactive’ training method: rather than forcing the
dog to loose its grip, this stimulus incites the dog to maintain this behaviour. Hanging by the
collar is considered inefficient for the following reasons: (1) low scores of the dogs at protection
work where the stimulus was more often observed; (2) long duration of hanging (several seconds)
before releasing the decoy. This stimulus’ lack of effect can be due to an individual insensitivity
to be hanged or to a high motivation to perform biting (Landsberg et al., 2003). For the training to
be more efficient, authors would first suggest to improve the dog handler relationship to drive
dogs to stand off next their handlers (rather than far away). Secondly to encourage the dog to
release the sleeve (=‘‘real’’ sleeve) more rapidly, it is recommended to present another object
(frequently another sleeve (=‘‘decoy’ sleeve) or toy) next to the dog’s head so that the dog would
release the ‘‘real’ sleeve to bite the ‘‘decoy’ sleeve. The dog’s motivation for releasing the first
sleeve being that he is allowed to bite again (‘‘decoy’’ sleeve).
The first question about the quality of the actual training system has a negative answer as the
present study reveals that this system does not provide DH teams up to military standards. While
the regulations of the Belgian Defence require that a dog must (i) interrupt his bite after handler’s
command, only 20% released their bite after the first command and (ii) stop his attack, only 19%
of the dogs carried out the Stand-off correctly. Suggestions to improve teams performances are
(1) more regular training with emphasis on obedience. As authors have observed, dogs are highly
motivated during protection work and will not be alert to handlers’ commands unless the handler
has a perfect control over the dog. This control can only be obtained with a lot of obedience
training; (2) to elaborate theoretical and practical skills on learning principles patrol dogs are
faced to; (3) to improve the dog handler relationship and the handler motivation to train his dog
with more positive training techniques.
Several factors influencing the team’s performance were identified. This study revealed that
team’s performance, use of aversive stimuli and dog’s distraction are related. Handlers that used
less aversive stimuli on dogs obtained a higher score. Authors know according to their previous
field observations, that these high-performance dogs had been trained with lots of aversive
training methods except for the only four dogs trained with toys (positive training). Those
aversively trained dogs know the exercises of our evaluation and do not need to be punished
anymore (intermittent training program: the dog has learnt that he will be punished if the correct
answer has not been given).
Distracted dogs were more punished and got a lower performance score. Attention reflects dog’s
disposition to learn and vice versa (Lindsay, 2000). In this study, distraction might be explained by
the young age of the dog population (Vas et al., 2006) or by novelty as the training field was
unknown to most of the dogs; or by any other highly motivating stimulus (i.e. the presence of the
decoy). Obviously, motivating and controlling dog’s attention is of huge interest to the trainer/
behaviourist. There are different ways to influence dog’s attention. Vas et al. (2006) found that
training can improve attention skills, as trained dogs were less distracted than the untrained dogs.
McConnell (1990) showed the importance to train in function of dog’s specific preferences,as some
dogs prefer some stimuli to others when learning tasks. Finally it is also possible to act on dog’s
motivation: for example for dogs that enjoy chasing animals ‘natural rewards’ (like a rabbit) are
difficult to control. Motivationallyequivalent rewards may need to be identified and given to the dog
instead (e.g. tug and retrieve games). Finally, authors observed that dog’s concentration is related
with the dog handler relationship: a dog attached to his handler will be very attentive to everything
his handler does or asks (A.H., personal observation). Knowing the importance of dog’s
concentration during training, it remains astonishing to consider how little studies have been
conducted on this topic. More studies on dog’s distraction vs. attention need to be carried out.
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 119
In the present study, dogs with the highest scores presented more ‘training-related
behaviours’’. Previous authors have defined these behaviours as stress-related behaviours
(Beerda et al., 1998). Though, in the present study, these behaviours could all be a result of the
dogs being positively stimulated or aroused rather than stressed. Arousal has been described by
Strain (2004) as a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness of the environment and
implies a generalized increase in the activity of the cerebral cortex.
Henry and Stephens (1977) suggest that there is only stress when there is loss of control and a
reduced predictability of what will happen. So far as there is some action to obtain control with a
high probability of success, there is arousal, but no stress.
The increase in the activity of the cerebral cortex, due to the arousal (Strain, 2004), has
contributed positively to dog’s performance as shown in this study: dogs with high performances
have shown a high number of arousal behaviours, but no stress, which is exactly what is expected
from these working dogs.
Dogs with lower performances are still distracted and show less arousal behaviours. Some dogs
exhibited a very low posture during training. Contrary to author’s expectations, no link between the
postures and the other parameters has been found among this dog population. It might be interesting
to compare this group of dogs to other populations like for example civilian patrol dogs.
The third question wondered about the welfare status of these dogs during the training
sessions. The comparison between both evaluations shows that handlers punish more and reward
less at the second evaluation. The ‘‘Socially Desirable Responding’’, described in social
psychology as being the human tendency to give other people a good image of themselves
(Paulhus, 2002), can be one explanation of this phenomenon. Ignoring the professional
consequences of these assessments, handlers may have modified their usual behaviour in order to
present themselves in a positive light. To ensure that handlers would show the usual behaviour, no
preliminary details on the aim of the project were given. This might have stressed the handlers. At
the second evaluation, handlers realized that these evaluations had no professional consequences
and they showed their usual behaviour by punishing more frequently. Though, a range of other
factors other than SDR could explain these results like e.g. handlers might also be upset to
observe that within 20 days, their dog had not improved his performance and therefore they
punished him more.
Although the comparison between both evaluations showed that dogs exhibited a lower
posture after aversive stimulus at the second evaluations, no increase of other behaviours were
observed. Therefore, authors could not prove that the welfare of these dogs was hampered. But
there is an indication that it was under threat.
This study has shown the necessity to improve the actual training system used in this
population of Belgian Military Working Dogs (DH teams not responding to standards according
to military regulations; use of aversive training methods influencing dogs’ posture negatively;
training principles not known; training frequency too low; no stable relationship between
handlers and their dogs). The suggestions of improvement, brought during the discussion, will
form the basis of a new training system and rely on: the use of more positive training methods, an
increase of the training frequency, the elaboration of a course on training principles, and an
improvement of dog handler relationship.
5. Conclusion
This study has identified the different appetitive and aversive stimuli used during training with
working dogs. Moreover, this study reveals that (1) these DH teams are not efficient according to
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122120
the military regulations, (2) team’s performance, dog’s behaviour and handler’s behaviour are
related, and (3) the welfare status of these dogs was not hampered during the training, but there is
an indication that it was under threat.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the University of Namur and the Belgian Defence (research
programme no. 2001_70-1233-51-20, A. Haverbeke). The authors would like to thank the
Veterinary Service of the Belgian Defence, especially Vet LtCol Miguel Stevens, Vet Cdt Jan
Deroo and Vet Capt Aniek De Smet for their experience and suggestions for adapting the training
methods. The authors would also like to thank Vet Capt Ann Jacob for proof reading the
manuscript and the handlers for their participation in this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.010.
References
Adams, G.J., Johnson, K.G., 1994. Sleep, work and the effects of shift work in drug detection dogs Canis familiaris. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 41, 115–126.
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., Van Hooff, J., De Vries, H., Mol, J., 1998. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate
responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58 (3–4), 365–381.
Booth, S., 1998. Purely Positive Training—Companion to Competition. Podium Publications, Ridgefield, USA, fourth
print.
Chance, P., 1979. Learning and behavior. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Christiansen, F., Bakken, M., Braastad, B., 2001. Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the
second-year confrontation with domestic sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 72 (2), 131–143.
Fonberg, E., Kostarczyk, E., 1980. Motivational role of social reinforcement in dog-man relations. Acta Neurobiol. Exp.
40, 117–136.
Gasci, M., Miklosi, A., Varga, O., Topal, J., Csanyi, V., 2004. Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis
familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim. Cognit. 7, 144–153.
Henry, J.P., Stephens, P.M., 1977. Stress, Health and the Social Environment. A Sociobiological Approach to Medicine.
Springer Verlag, New York.
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2004. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with
behaviour and welfare. Anim. Welf. 13 (1), 63–69.
Johnston, B., 1995. Harnessing Thought. Queen Anne Press, London, UK.
Landsberg, G., Hunthausen, W., Ackerman, L., 2003. Handbook of Behavior Problems of the Dog and Cat, 2nd Edition.
Saunders.
Lefebvre, D., Diederich, C., Delcourt, M., Giffroy, J.M., 2007. The quality of the relation between handler and military
dogs influences efficiency and welfare of dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 104 (1–2), 49–60.
Lindsay, S.R., 2000. Handbook ofApplied Dog Behavior and Training, vol. 1. Adaptation and Learning. Iowa State Press,
Iowa, pp. 273–276.
Lit, L., Crawford, C.A., 2005. Effects of training paradigms on search dog performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 98 (3–4),
277–292.
McConnell, P.B., 1990. Acoustic structure and receiver response in domestic dogs Canis familiaris. Anim. Behav. 39,
897–904.
Miklosi, A., Kubinyi, E., Topal, J., Gasci, M., Viranyi, Z., Csanyi, V., 2003. A simple reason for a big difference: wolves
do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr. Biol. 13, 763–766.
Naderi, Sz., Miklosi, A., Doka, A., Csanyi, V., 2001. Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74, 59–80.
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122 121
Paulhus, D.L., 2002. In: Braun, H.I., Jackson, D.N. (Eds.), The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational
Measurement. D.E. Wiley, p. 49.
Reid, P.J., 1996. Excel—Erated learning. Explaining How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them. James and Kenneth
Publishers, Oakland, CA.
Roll, A., Unshelm, J., 1997. Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 52,
215–242.
SAS OnlineDoc
1
9.1.3. Copyright
#
2002–2005 by SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Schilder, M.B.H., Van der Borg, J.A.M., 2004. Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term
behavioural effects. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 85, 319–334.
Soproni, K., Miklosi, A., Topal, J., Csanyi, V., 2001. Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis
familiaris). J. Comp. Psychol. 115, 122–126.
Strain, G.M., 2004. Dukes’ Physiology of Domestic Animals, chapter 53: Consciousness and Higher Cortical Function,
12th Edition. Comstock Publishing, pp. 935–951.
Tortora, D., 1983. Safety training: the elimination of avoidance-motivated aggression in dogs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 112
(2), 176–214.
Vas, J., Topal, J., Pech, E., Miklosi, A., 2006. Measuring attention deficit and activity in dogs: a new application and
validation of a human ADHD questionnaire. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103 (1–2), 105–117.
Viranyi, Z., Topal, J., Gasci, M., Miklosi, A., Csanyi, V., 2004. Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional
focus. Behav. Process. 66, 161–172.
A. Haverbeke et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 110–122122
... The time spent together training, on missions, and during downtime, as well as the cooperative nature inherent in olfactory tasks, foster bonds within the human-dog dyad. The importance of these bonds and relationships in communication and task performance has been emphasized in the scientific literature (Haverbeke & al., 2008;Szetei & al., 2003;Troisi & al., 2019). The possibility of unintentional influence by the handler during the dog's search for the target odor has been previously studied (DeChant & al., 2020;Lit & al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
The human-dog relationships within the teams working in olfactory search within the French Armed Forces have not been investigated through an exploratory and qualitative approach. In order to expand knowledge on this professional and relational modality, semi-structured interviews were conducted with dog handlers from the French Army (n=16) performing explosive device detection and search and neutralization of individuals. Among the themes and sub-themes identified during thematic analysis, the relationships and interactions between humans and dogs emerge from canine individualities, emotions, and interpersonal bonds. The results suggest that the relationships woven between humans and dogs conducting olfactory searches in the French Army are multifaceted. The human-dog relationship in canine military teams is based on multiple characteristics such as bonds, emotions, affection, trust, communication, care, mutual support, technical learning, cooperation, interdependence, and instrumental factors. This study highlights the importance of valuing moments of closeness between the handler and the dog, outside of training and operational contexts. Furthermore, the opportunity to enhance the emotional skills of handlers is of interest in helping some to regulate their emotions, so as not to disrupt or even to assist their dog.
... In terms of relationships, canine effectiveness and well-being (Arcuri et al., 2022;M. L. Cobb et al., 2021;Haverbeke et al., 2008;Lefebvre et al., 2007;Szetei et al., 2003) and the effects of handler stress (Zubedat et al., 2014) have been investigated. Other studies have explored beliefs and representations impacting canine well-being and performance in scent detection (Chaniotakis et al., 2018;Lit et al., 2011). ...
Article
Studies on the relationships and interactions within human-dog teams in the French Army are scarce. In order to better understand this subject, a qualitative exploratory study was undertaken by conducting semi-structured interviews with dog handlers (n = 16). The interviewees work in the French Army. They are specialized in the detection and neutralization of individuals or explosives. Thematic analysis identified different themes: trust within the team, doubts, interspecific cohesion, and care provided to the dogs. The results highlight the importance of trust within the canine team. It is conceived as a dynamic, constructed process, based on experience, and involving both members of the team. It emerges that trust arises from individual, relational, technical, and experiential factors: the bonds formed, knowledge of one's dog, difficulties related to technical aspects, the reliability of the dog following training, and mission successes. Kindness, support, and mutual protection are also important criteria. A form of interspecific cohesion is envisaged by experienced handlers when affection, knowledge, reliability, mutual assistance, and support are present.
... Further, data indicate that the family dog (Canis familiaris) is a reliable and valid animal model to study complex human functions 23 not only at the behavioural but also at the neural level (for review, see 24,25 ). Training methods 26 , training styles 27,28 , duration and frequency of training sessions 29 , and the type of activity after learning 30,31 have all been reported to influence the dogs' memory performance. Consistent with the human and rodent literature [32][33][34] , in dogs, mild stress enhances 35,36 whereas strong stress impairs learning 28 . ...
Article
Full-text available
In dogs, as in humans, both emotional and learning pretreatment affect subsequent behaviour and sleep. Although learning often occurs in an emotional-social context, the emotion-learning interplay in such context remain mainly unknown. Aims were to assess the effects of Controlling versus Permissive (emotional factors) training (learning factors) styles on dogs’ behaviour, learning performance, and sleep. Family dogs (N = 24) participated in two command learning sessions employing the two training styles with each session followed by assessment of learning performance, a 2-h-long non-invasive sleep EEG measurement, and a retest of learning performance. Pre- to post-sleep improvement in learning performance was evident in dogs that received the Permissive training during the second learning session, indicating that dogs that experienced a more rewarding situation than expected (positive expectancy violation) during the second training session showed improved learning success after their afternoon sleep. These results possibly indicate an interactive effect of expectancy violation and sleep on enhancing learning.
... The hyperflexed posture is often achieved through simultaneous use of strong rein and leg aids (Condon et al., 2021), contrary to evidence-based training principles (McLean & McGreevy, 2010b). Coercive practices diminish the human-animal bond (Haverbeke et al., 2008), and their increasing use highlights equestrians' prioritization of goal achievement and control over the other psychological need proposed by selfdetermination theory: partnership. ...
Article
Full-text available
Many traditional horse keeping and training practices can result in poor horse welfare. To assist reform and identify novel opportunities to facilitate improvements in horse welfare, this study sought to gauge the motivations underlying equestrians’ horse- keeping and training practices. Nineteen amateur equestrians were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Systems thinking and self-determination theory, which proposes humans are intrinsically motivated by three psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), provided the theoretical framework for the study. Using reflexive thematic analysis, four themes were identified: (1) achieving equestrian goals is the primary motivator; (2) equestrians work hard to develop their equestrian knowledge and skills; (3) equestrians are highly motivated to compete and/or participate in club activities; and (4) achieving a financial return on investment is important to many equestrians. Findings suggest that equestrians do not prioritize the three psychological needs proposed by self-determination theory equally. Competence (goal achievement) was the highest priority for equestrians, followed by the need for autonomy (control), and then relatedness (horse–human partnership). The spectrum of equestrians’ motivational priorities suggests that there is an imbalance between horse needs and human needs when selecting horse-keeping and training practices. These insights can be leveraged to develop initiatives that engage all stakeholders, so that meeting human needs and horse needs is more equitably balanced. We also found that equestrians’ practices were highly influenced by their desire to participate in competitive equestrian sport, emphasizing the important role equestrian organizations can play in improving horse welfare through the rules of their sports. These findings contribute to the multifaceted reform needed to solve the complex challenge of improving horse welfare, the outcome of which will determine the long-term future of equestrian sport.
... Further, we must target one of the most problematic and widespread terms in the dog training landscape: obedience. The term may refer to dogs trained in specific skills, for example, military dogs (Haverbeke et al. 2008). Still, it may also refer to every dog living as a companion in a human family who does not need to do any specific taskapart from coping with daily challenges. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Understanding dog and human interaction in all forms is essential to improve the relationship between the two species and further contribute to a fair process of mutual influence. That is fundamental for dog parents/caregivers/ guardians and professionals working with dogs and people at any level. Additionally, dog-human communication, behaviour and training may play a critical role in rediscussing human supremacy, for people follow dog behaviour and training models extensively and worldwide. Countless studies on dog behaviour and cognition have unfolded excellent knowledge in recent decades. However, the psychophysical interface of dog-human interaction needs to be explored further. To investigate this aspect with a multidisciplinary approach, I gather elements from Theatre Anthropology, psychophysiology, cognitive neuroscience and bodymind practices. I introduce the theoretical frame of Canine Anthropology to focus on the psychophysicality of the human bodymind and its canine counterpart when some interactions between the two species occur. I describe the roles of the human “actor” and the canine “spectator” involved in complex events that generate meaning. A human's body position, action, and intention critically impact dog behaviour, and the dog-human interaction acquires a phenomenological significance. As spectators and mediators, dogs can affect human behaviour and flip their roles. They are the receivers and the reciprocators of human synaesthetic transmission. Thus, the dog-human interaction discloses itself as a psychophysical and embodied experience.
Article
Full-text available
Working dogs are an essential part of modern society, and police canines (K9s) in the United States are amongst the most recognizable of all working dogs. Given the dearth of published data on active police canines in the U.S. and the calls for police reform, an interdisciplinary effort is necessary to comprehensively understand how these dogs are best used for the benefit of society. This review paper relies on veterinary public health expertise to present a comprehensive overview of police canine use by municipal law enforcement in the United States, including known impacts and gaps in knowledge. The existing literature from animal-assisted interventions (AAI) provides evidence to ensure working dog well-being, while human–animal bond research contributes to officer safety and canine partnership. Lastly, law enforcement and public health agendas (LEPH) assure the team’s successful efforts in built environments and local neighborhoods. These frameworks acknowledge the complexity of police dog use, spanning from punitive to public relations, which mirrors the role of law enforcement in U.S. society. This paper proposes the use of a One Health framework to ensure police canine contributions to society, including suggested approaches to partner municipal police with veterinary medicine and public health, and integrate One Health in promoting public safety for local communities.
Chapter
After a general reminder of the objectives of therapy, this chapter describes the different types of learning and their particularities. General methods for generating a new behavior or, on the contrary, for suppressing a behavior are detailed, as well as the communication rules and the use of adapted accessories. The therapies for specific disorders are then discussed axis by axis, with the general principles, environmental modifications, and behavioral modifications for each.
Chapter
This chapter explores neurophysiological development and ontogenetic behaviors. The periods of behavioral development and aging are discussed. The ontogeny of attachment, fear reactions, acquisition of self-control, as well as inter- and intraspecific social integration are the subjects of particular attention. The four axes—attachment, fear, self-control, and social integration—constitute the four pillars of development, and, in the course of our work, diseases as well as all behavioral anomalies will be categorized according to these four directions
Article
Full-text available
In Exp I, retrospective data of 92 cases on dangerously aggressive companion dogs demonstrated the avoidance nature of the aggressive response and its intractability to established counterconditioning treatments. In Exp II, safety training, a modified avoidance-learning procedure, resulted in complete and permanent elimination of aggression in all 36 dogs tested. In addition, it produced extinction-resistant prosocial avoidance responses, significant increases in the dogs' emotional stability, an avoidance-learning and safety acquisition response set, and improvements in measures of the dog's "carriage." Exp III (18 Ss) showed how effective safety training is when compared with other behavior modification techniques that, in theory, should have an impact on avoidance-motivated aggression. Exp IV (16 Ss) demonstrated the importance of using the conditioned safety cue as a positive reinforcement. The relationship of avoidance-motivated aggression to other forms of aggression is discussed, the theoretical concepts of behavioral balance and an avoidance-learning set are presented, and suggestions to improve the effectiveness of counterconditioning for human avoidance-motivated pathologies are offered. (90 ref)
Article
Full-text available
Historically, pet dogs were trained using mainly negative reinforcement or punishment, but positive reinforcement using rewards has recently become more popular. The methods used may have different impacts on the dogs’ welfare. We distributed a questionnaire to 364 dog owners in order to examine the relative effectiveness of different training methods and their effects upon a pet dog’s behaviour. When asked how they trained their dog on seven basic tasks, 66% reported using vocal punishment, 12% used physical punishment, 60% praise (social reward), 51% food rewards and 11% play. The owner’s ratings for their dog’s obedience during eight tasks correlated positively with the number of tasks which they trained using rewards (P < 0.01), but not using punishment (P = 0.05). When asked whether their dog exhibited any of 16 common problematic behaviours, the number of problems reported by the owners correlated with the number of tasks for which their dog was trained using punishment (P < 0.001), but not using rewards (P = 0.17). Exhibition of problematic behaviours may be indicative of compromised welfare, because such behaviours can be caused by—or result in—a state of anxiety and may lead to a dog being relinquished or abandoned. Because punishment was associated with an increased incidence of problematic behaviours, we conclude that it may represent a welfare concern without concurrent benefits in obedience. We suggest that positive training methods may be more useful to the pet-owning community
Article
Behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during guard dog training of German shepherd dogs were studied. Direct reactions of 32 dogs to 107 shocks showed reactions (lowering of body posture, high pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirection aggression, tongue flicking) that suggest stress or fear and pain. Most of these immediate reactions lasted only a fraction of a second. The behaviour of 16 dogs that had received shocks in the recent past (S-dogs) was compared with the behaviour of 15 control dogs that had received similar training but never had received shocks (C-dogs) in order to investigate possible effects of a longer duration. Only training sessions were used in which no shocks were delivered and the behaviour of the dogs (position of body, tail and ears, and stress-, pain- and aggression-related behaviours) was recorded in a way that enabled comparison between the groups. During free walking on the training grounds S-dogs showed a lower ear posture and more stress-related behaviours than C-dogs. During obedience training and during manwork (i.e. excercises with a would-be criminal) the same differences were found. Even a comparison between the behaviour of C-dogs with that of S-dogs during free walking and obedience exercises in a park showed similar differences. Differences between the two groups of dogs existed in spite of the fact that C-dogs also were trained in a fairly harsh way. A comparison between the behaviour during free walking with that during obedience exercises and manwork, showed that during training more stress signals were shown and ear positions were lower. The conclusions, therefore are, that being trained is stressful, that receiving shocks is a painful experience to dogs, and that the S-dogs evidently have learned that the presence of their owner (or his commands) announces reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training context. This suggests that the welfare of these shocked dogs is at stake, at least in the presence of their owner.
Article
In two studies, we have investigated the co-operative behaviour between dogs and their owners. We supposed that co-operative behaviour is an inherited trait in dogs, and is a major contributing factor in the development of successful guide dog performance. According to our view, leading a blind person involves complex behaviour where success depends on the ability of the participants to synchronise their actions. In Study I, we observed both British and Hungarian blind owners taking a half-hour walk in their neighbourhood. In Study II, both guide dogs with their blind and pet dogs with their blind-folded owners had to master an obstacle course. Measuring the frequency of initiations of various actions during leading their owners, dogs did not keep the role of the initiator to themselves. However, both dogs and humans were found to initiate more often in some types of actions, for example, guide dogs initialised avoidance or stepping up more often than their owners. Further, the role of the initiator was kept only for short durations, longer sequences of initialising were rare.Despite many differences among groups studied, we observed some qualitative similarities in the co-operative behaviour of dogs. We assume that during domestication, dogs have been selected for the ability to change to-and-fro the role of the initiator that seems to be fundamental in this type of co-operation. In the case of leading the blind, information should not only be provided but also accepted by both parties in the course of the joint actions, therefore, the leadership (the role of the initiator) may vary form one action to the next.
Article
Sleep-wake cycles of six drug detector dogs were video recorded, and the effects on them of shift work assessed. Observations were also recorded of interactions between dogs and their handlers during rest and work. Non-working dogs recorded immediately after work or at the same time of day or night when not scheduled for work, slept for 43 ± 16% (SD) of the 8-h recording sessions. They had 3.8 ± 1.2 sleep sessions per h, each of which lasted 7.2 ± 2.3 min. Active sleep occurred during 6.4% ± 4.8% of the total recorded time; there were 0.6 ± 0.4 active sleep sessions per h, each lasting on average 5.9 ± 3.8 min. The rhythms, duration and nature of active sleep were closely comparable with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep patterns recorded electrophysiologically by other workers; active and REM sleep in dogs are most probably identical. Patterns of sleep-wake cycles were not altered when handler-dog teams worked different day and night shifts. The ability of dogs to cope with changing shifts may be due to their natural brief and frequent sleep-wake cycles which may allow them sufficient and easy adjustment to changing routines. Two dogs examined after extended periods of not working showed a first-day-back-at-work effect in which active sleep on the following night was diminished, and less total time was spent asleep.
Article
Recently more evidence has been found that the dog could serve as a viable model for studying the evolutionary emergence and regulating mechanisms of human behaviour. This approach is of especial importance when someone wants to study the underlying mechanisms of such human behaviour disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using questionnaires is a widely accepted methodology in this field of human behaviour research and recently many reported parallel observations also on dogs (e.g. questionnaire analysis of temperament traits). However, the handicap of this line of studies is, that the psychometric properties (validity) of the animal questionnaires were rarely examined, therefore, the reliability of this methodology remains uncertain.In the present paper a 13-item questionnaire assessing attention skills, impulsivity and motor activity in pet dogs was developed on the basis of a validated one used for evaluating ADHD related problems in children. The primary purpose of this study was to measure reliability and validity of the questionnaire in order to introduce a new method for studying behaviour problems related to attention skills and the levels of activity/impusivity in pet dogs.The owners of a pet dog population (N=220) of many different breeds (69) were involved in the study and the sample was balanced for the dogs’ age, gender and training/qualification. Internal and external validity of the questionnaire were analysed and results supported the relevance of the two subscales predetermined from the items of the questionnaire (inattention and activity–impulsivity). Comparisons of the inattention and activity–impulsivity scores of the different age-, gender- and training-groups showed significant effects of age and training on the attention skills in the dogs. Findings suggest that the application of human ADHD questionnaire (dog-ADHD rating scale) is a reliable and valid method of assessing attention skills and activity in dogs.
Article
The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.
Article
The Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training series provides a coherent and integrated approach to understanding and controlling dog behavior. In Volume 3, various themes introduced in Volumes 1 and 2 are expanded upon, especially causally significant social, biological, and behavioral influences that impact on the etiology of behavior problems and their treatment. Ethological observations, relevant behavioral and neurobiological research, and dog behavior clinical findings are reviewed and critiqued in detail. Many of the training concepts, procedures, and protocols described have not been previously published, making this book a unique contribution to dog behavior and training literature.
Article
Over one year, 206 dog owners were questioned in a veterinary clinic. The survey included two groups: 151 owners who visited the clinic because of an injury to their dog caused by another dog and 55 people who owned dogs that caused injuries to others. The questioning served to compare aggressors and victims of dog fights. The form contained 43 questions concerning the dog, the owner, and the incident of intraspecific aggression.The results reveal that both groups, victim and aggressor, showed regularities regarding the breeds, gender, and process of the fight. Important factors include housing conditions, criteria concerning the selection of a dog, and the dog's training. Significant differences were found comparing the owners of aggressors and their victims, including the owner's gender, profession, age, his/her attitude towards dogs, the selection of a specific breed, training methods, the purpose of keeping a dog, and previous experiences owning a dog.Further conclusions were drawn regarding the time and location of the incidents. Their influence on a potential solution to the problem caused by aggressive dogs is discussed.