In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania
survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods
to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found
that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless
training techniques are modified.
The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal
Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral
training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited
very few aggressive responses.
“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their
pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,”
Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our
study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods,
whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them
with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior
and can elicit aggressive responses.”
The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest
that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated
with such training methods and provide guidance and resources
for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S.
Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department
of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for
dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn
Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had
previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a
positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior
and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they
used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training
technique they employed.
Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation
sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several
confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable
behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent),
“physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth”
(39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the
dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at
or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down”
—- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent)
and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited
an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs
on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the
hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were
more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational
techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training,
which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based
training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques
are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many
dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested
by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training
techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful
or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have
grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the
need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed
by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners
establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.
The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral
effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by
owners of dogs with behavior problems.
