Breaking Down Behavior Labels

The longer I’ve been dog training and consulting, the more I’ve come to realize that as humans we really like to label things. We do this because it makes it easier to explain behavior. It’s easier for us to communicate to our clients more complicated topics in easy punch lines.

However, the problem with consistently explaining behavior in generalized terms is that we start to diminish the quality or actuality of the behaviors we are trying to describe, therefore making it more difficult to actually change underlying behavior and emotional responses.

Before going further, I’d like to mention that I am not an innocent party. I have myself described dogs as “reactive” or “aggressive.” I used to speak in terms of “drives.” But what do these terms actually describe? Well, it depends on who you ask.

From my consulting experience, the term “aggressive,” for instance, can mean a wide variety of behaviors. To some, an “aggressive dog,” may be a dog that growls at their owner for taking a chew toy away, while others may not care if their dog is weary of his toy being taken away. I have met folks who have described their dog as “not aggressive,” but yet the dog has bitten another dog or person multiple times. “He was just being protective…”

Creating labels is a way for us to visualize what something looks like, but when each dog and situation is individualized, labeling behavior actually works against us because we begin to make assumptions.

For example, I was told by someone they were okay boarding my dog because they had a lot of experience working with “fearful” dogs. I explained that she was from a hoarding case. Within a day of being dropped off there was an incident. They had to leave her outside for three hours in the snow because they couldn’t get her back inside. To get her back inside, she had to be barricaded by two people using a fencing panel because she was growling and lunging at them once cornered. I realized my experiences working with dogs from cruelty and neglect situations has skewed my idea of what “fearful” means, compared to what other’s are used to dealing with. My description of her being fearful to the person I spoke with was actually detrimental to her success while boarding.

The term “drive” is often used in the dog world to describe a wide variety of behaviors. Some examples include, but are not limited to, “prey drive,” “social drive,” or “food drive.” The issues with descriptions such as this are vast. Does the dog like to chase the squirrel or eat it once it’s caught? If the dog has a social drive, does that mean he’s friendly towards other dogs and people all of the time? If a dog is food driven, does that mean he’ll eat anything presented at any cost to him? The focus on “drive” diminishes the idea that a dog’s behavior is fluid. It’s assuming that behaviors can be turned on and off, or switched from one to the other. However, in real life, a dog’s behavior changes due to environmental shifts and anticipation of other reinforces or punishers.

If we were to describe humans in the same way, it would sound really funny. Honest! Example: “Hillary was in social drive. She was playing video games with some friends. I wanted to get Hillary into a different state of mind, so I tapped into her food drive by making some nachos for her. Then, the group wanted to go for a run, so we switched into play drive, put on some shoes and took off around the block.” Did Hillary stop wanting to hang out with her friends and only eat Nachos? Could Hillary not eat nachos and also hang out with her friends? Can drives happen simultaneously? Was she playing video games while socializing with her friends?

We have come a long way from describing dogs as “alpha” or dominant” and we need to keeping moving in a forwards direction. Even as “positive reinforcement trainers,” we have to focus on what in the environment is motivating the dog to perform certain behaviors, what is stopping the dog from performing certain behaviors, if genetics are playing a role, and what could be physiologically happening to the dog that could be contributing to behaviors.

In order to breakdown contributing factors, we need to focus on the context of each individual situation. For example, a dog is presented to me from a client as “reactive.” Let’s try and define that - could be pulling on leash and barking, could also be barking through a fence barrier, could also be guarding a resource, could also be shaking and cowering in a corner; to be honest, it could mean anything. What is that particular dog doing and when?

The owner’s response may be, “When he see’s another dog on leash he pulls towards it, barks and lunges.” So then we need to know more details. They conclude, “This happens when we are about 50 feet away from another dog.” More details. “When the other dog moves away, my dog calms down and we continue on our walk.”

So now we know that this dog has a reinforcement history of barking and lunging at other dogs from approximately 50 feet away until they are no longer visually present. This is a real life example of a negative reinforcement learning experience: another dog is presented (antecedent/aversive), gets barked and lunged at by the original dog (behavior), then is moved away by it’s owner (consequence). This reinforces the belief to the original dog that his barking and lunging caused the other dog to no longer be present. The aversive was removed due to the behavior.

Now, what else do we need to know about this dog? History! Is the dog scared of other dogs, or does he want to play with them? Is the leash restricting his ability to move away, forcing him to perform distance decreasing behaviors instead of distance increasing? Is the leash restricting him from getting to something he wants?

Let’s say we find out that this dog was attacked on leash by a dog. When he sees dogs when he’s off leash, he usually moves away from them. We can start to determine that his “reactivity” is fear-induced due to a positive punishment history of being attacked on leash. He’s learned his barking and lunging causes other dogs to move away, and he is continually being reinforced for this naturally though these experiences.

Now I can make a behavior plan to work with respectful/socially appropriate off leash dogs to help reinforce better behavior. We can use praise, food or play to reinforce for distance increasing behaviors such as moving away, sniffing, yawning, looking away, etc. We can build a reinforcement history of these alternate behaviors, and then begin adding in a leash (a contributing antecedent) at a level low enough to counter-condition the initial behavior response around these other dogs.

If I had assumed, that this dog was just “reactive on leash towards other dogs,” I may have focused more on teaching the dog to sit, focus on owners, play find it (all still great DRI and DRA techniques by the way), but I may not have been able to address the actual underlying issue, because I was focused on fixing the perceived behaviors and not the contributing factors.

Had I said to the person at the kennel where I boarded my dog that she would actively avoid and move away from unfamiliar people, would become more agitated if chased, and would growl if cornered or threatened, both them and my dog could have potentially avoided a traumatic experience. Instead I told them she was “very fearful,” and we see where that left us.

In order to communicate more effectively with clients, their veterinarians, other professionals and even the general public, we need to remember that when we are offering advice, guidance and behavior modification, it needs to be thoughtful, intentional and based in fact. We need to be mindful in using labels to assist in describing behaviors. We need to actively work against inhibiting our own assessment and prognosis process by over-generalizing terms and we have to prevent our learner’s training plan from becoming generic and uninventive.