Tag Archives: experiment

02/21/19

Socialisation: More is Better

Socialisation: More is Better

You do not have to read my blog for long to know that I’m a big fan of puppy socialisation. If you read my Puppies 2012 series, you can see the kind of effort I put into puppy raising five years ago (though my methods are different – better – today!).

One of the problems we have with puppy socialisation is that it’s difficult to test the kind of socialisation that works outside of controlled conditions. A recent study used a standardised socialisation program in assistance dogs, and measured the effects. This is a rare opportunity to have a control group for puppy socialisation (as they were all raised in the same conditions in the breeding facility). And the results were fairly impressive!

 

Study Basis

Undesirable dog behaviours are problematic. Dogs with problem behaviours may be surrendered to rescue. If they occur in specialised breeding programs (like assistance animals, working animals, or sport animals), then dogs that have unsuitable behaviours are the financial burden of wastage. In the worst case scenario, a dog that is aggressive to people or other animals can cause physical and psychological harms.

In many animals, including dogs, we know that juvenile experiences affect development. Puppyhood may be the time to save adult dogs. For dogs, we know that the crucial social development period is 2-13 weeks of age.

Studies on puppies have suggested that early socialisation causes puppies to:

  • Mature faster
  • Explore more
  • Be more resilient
  • Perform better on problem-solving task
  • Be more successful in training

But there is a paucity in dog research. Many studies only look on the short-term impact on puppy development, and do not look at particular socialisation programs. This study wanted to address this paucity.

 

Study Design

In this study, an assistance dog puppy-raising facility was used. This meant the puppies could be raised in a controlled way. This study used puppies that were golden retrievers, labrador retrievers, or mixes of.

The control group had fourteen puppies who received the centre’s ‘standard’ socialsiation program.

The study group included nineteen puppies who received the standard socialisation program plus ‘extra’ socialisation 5-7 days a week. This extra program took 5 min per puppy in weeks 1-2, 10 minutes per puppy in weeks 3-4, and 15 minutes per puppy in weeks 5-6.

This socialisation program was tailored to the development of the puppies. For example, there’s no point opening and closing an umbrella around a 10 day old puppy. Basically, the socialisation was specific to that age group’s comprehension, and also layered in a way that meant that it wasn’t overwhelming – just appropriate.

It was also important that the program was effective, quick and easy, and low cost.

Below is the programs that the ‘standard socialisation’ and ‘extra socialisation’ puppies were exposed to. It’s actually a little more complicated than this, as there is specific ages that this stimuli should be experienced by the pups, but I went for this simplified version. You can pursue the full text if you really want to know!

Tactile:
-Puppy picked up
-Puppy stroked gently with fingers
-Handle each puppy in the kennel with bitch
-Groom in kennel
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Wearing velcro collar
-Body touched specifically: head, body, tail, legs, paws
-Holding puppy against: woolen jumper, nylon t-shirt, fleece material
-Stroking puppy with soft towel, rubber glove, soft child’s toothbrush
-Puppy encouraged to move over: carpet, rubber matting, reusable shopping bag

Auditory:
-Radio on in the kennel block
-Washing machine sounds
-Plastic bottle with dried pasta inside in kennel with litter
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Sounding near the puppy: a paper bag, a plastic bag, jangling keys, ringing mobile phone, clapping
-Rolling noisy items (e.g. filled toy) in the pen and outside of the pen

Visual:
-Television on in the kennel block
-Push chair in visual range of kennel
-Charity collection box in visual range of the kennel
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Puppy put in front of TV
-Rolling items in and out of the pen
-Hanging items above the stimulation area
-Opening and closing an umbrella
-A mirror (and encouraging exploration of)

Interaction with People:
-Puppy weighed
-Puppy nails clipped
-Puppy carried around block
-Contact with people wearing dress up clothes
-“At least two sessions in a socialisation kennel as a litter”
-Time away from litter
-Grooming on grooming table
The above is standard. Extra ES is:
-Puppy carried around kennel or to socialisation kennel
-Puppy stroked by hand
-Puppy’s teeth and ears examined
-One on one play session for 3 minutes
-Puppy gently restrained for 5-20 seconds
-People wears hat, sun glasses, back pack

Interaction with Environment:
-Empty plastic bottle in kennel with litter
-Toys in kennel to include: soft, plastic, squeaky, rubber, big soft toy
-At least two session on rubber and grass outside areas (that is at least four sessions outside
-Cardboard box in kennel
-Tunnel in kennel
The above is standard. Extra ES is:
-Experience concrete, grass, and rubber surfaces outside
-Puppy encouraged to climb over an obstacle
-Puppy encouraged to move in and out of door ways
-Gently place a towel over puppy and let it find its way out

Then, at six weeks of age and at eight months of age, the puppies were assessed.

At six weeks, the puppies were exposed to six stimuli, and puppy responses were scored on a seven-point scale. It is most desirable for them to get a score of four – but low scores are least desirable. The same trained staff member assessed all puppies, and did so blind (i.e. did not know which puppy was from which program).

Then, at eight weeks, the puppy’s handler was asked to complete a questionnaire of 40 questions, using a bar scale of 0-100. In this tool, low scores were most desirable, except for the trait of trainability. The puppy handler was also blind (i.e. did not know what program their puppy was from).

 

Study results

We could simply say: it worked. This small amount of extra socialisation resulted in better dogs, at least until 8 months of age.

“This is the first socialisation program tailored to the developmental stage of puppies from birth to six weeks of age to demonstrate measurable, long-term effects on individual dog behavioural traits.”

At all stages of testing (6 weeks, 8 weeks, and 8 months), the puppies who were on the extra socialisation program did better.

Puppies on the extra socialisation program scored better on:

  • Separation related behaviours,
  • General anxiety scores,
  • Body sensitivity scores, and
  • Distraction.

Additionally, extra socialisation puppies showed more desirable attachment, excitability, and animal chase scores (but this was not statistically significant). There was no affect on trainability or energy scores.

On the Puppy Profiling Assessment (where the perfect score is 4), puppies in the standard socialisation program had a mean score of 3.1, while the ones on the extra socialisation program had a mean score of 3.8.

A puppy exposed to things at a young age is likely, as an adult dog, to treat those things as benign. This reduction in novelty logically affects how dogs behave – they are less anxious and distracted by stuff they’ve seen before.

 

So what should we do? 

To quote the article, “The program is recommended for working dog [including assistant dogs], pet dog breeders and shelters.” This really says what we always knew - everyone breeding dogs should be socialising their puppies. This studied showed that what happens before 8 weeks of age affects the puppy throughout at least the first 8 months of life but, presumably, even longer than that.

Ultimately, people are responsible for shaping the experiences of puppies in their care. Arguing that someone ‘doesn’t have time’ to raise puppies well is illogical, according to this study. The puppies on the extra socialisation program did not receive a great deal more time with people, it’s just the way that time was utilised that varied.

For working dogs, early experiences are particularly relevant due to expense and wastage that results from failure in socialisation – and those working dogs raised in kennel environments are at greater risk again.

This study suggests the extra socialisation puppies spent more time away from their littermates which may also result in these bettered scores. Perhaps this time away from their family for small bouts meant they developed better ways of coping with the stress of permanent separation at 8 weeks.

Regardless, we know that socialisation matters, and more is better!

“Mildly stressful early life experience and challenging situations make animals more resilient to stress, less susceptible to emotional disturbances, and promote motor and cognitive skills in adulthood.”

 

My Thoughts

This study has a relatively small sample – there are only 33 puppies across the two groups. We need to see this study replicated with larger groups in order to make definitive conclusions.

This study has also put a lot of emphasis on appropriate age of exposure. In a clinical or kennel environment, then this formulaic approach to puppy socialisation is understandable. In more naturalistic settings (i.e. home puppy raisers), I don’t think it’s too important to get fussy about what exactly the puppy is getting exposed to at what age, as long as the puppy is not scared and not oblivious to the stimuli.

The big take home point are: socialisation matters, and it can just take 5-15 minutes a day with a puppy to make a difference to the future adult dog.

 

Further Reading

This study has also been reviewed by:

Giving Puppies Extra Socialization is Beneficial to Them from Psychology Today

Extra Early Socialization for Puppies Makes a Big Difference from Companion Animal Psychology

 

Source

Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H & Hartmann, A 2017, ‘Improving puppy behaviour using a new standardised socialisation program’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 197.

 

Other Blog Posts

Puppy Socialisation Checklist

Television is Good for Puppies

Puppy Socialisation by Dunbar

Socialisation – Not Everything

09/3/14

A Link Between Desexing and Reactivity

ResearchBlogging.orgWhile desexing bitches is a common surgery, I was pleased to see Kim et al. take note that “the side effects of the operation, particularly any changes in behaviour, have been quantified in only few studies”.

That is to say, despite us commissioning vets to take the ovaries and uterus out of a great many bitches, we don’t really have much research about it. It’s a pretty scary state of play.

This particular study took 14 healthy German Shepherd bitches, between 5 and 10 months old. Half of these dogs were spayed, and the other half left entire. (The bitches were assigned to each group randomly, except for litter sisters, which were assigned opposite groups.)

After the spay, and having been given 4-5 months to recover from the surgery, the bitches were filmed in their kennel as a stranger and a dog approached. This footage was then scored based on how reactive the bitch was. A score of ’3′ indicated severe reactivity, and a score of ’0′ indicated no reactivity. The scorer was unaware of whether the bitch was spayed or not.

Photo courtesy of Rachel Willis.

Photo courtesy of Rachel Willis.

The reactivity of each bitch was recorded several times, and the reactivity of each bitch declined over the study. It’s likely that the bitches habituated to the novel stimuli. However, despite this affect, bitches in the ovary-hysterectomy group scored higher throughout the study.

Before generalising these results, there are some matters to consider:

  • Reactivity was only measured in a kennel setting, and how these dogs react in the ‘real world’ may be different. We can’t suppose that our pet dogs are going to respond in the same way as kennel dogs.
     
  • The reactivity of these dogs was not measured at the start of the study. While it is unlikely, perhaps more reactive dogs happened to fall into the treatment group by chance. Without a ‘before desexing’ score, we cannot be sure of this.
     
  • The authors make note that these results are for German Shepherd bitches aged 5-10 months old. We can’t assume dogs of all breeds and ages would respond this way to spays.
     
  • Further, the bitches in this study are working lined German Shepherds, which may be more reactive than the typical pet dog.

 

However, this study notes that other studies on bitch spays have shown that as a group spayed bitches are:

  • More likely to gain weight
  • More aggressive than prior to spay (if they were aggressive prior to spay)
  • More active
  • More likely to have urinary incontinence
  • More likely to be reactive after surgery

 

The authors recommend:

[V]eterinary practitioners should inform owners that a bitch may become more reactive after spaying either because they have lost the calming effects of progesterone or because elevated gonadotropins stimulate release of adrenal androgens.

 
Source:
Kim HH, Yeon SC, Houpt KA, Lee HC, Chang HH, & Lee HJ (2006). Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs. Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 172 (1), 154-9 PMID: 16772140

Further reading:
Desexing: It’s bad for Vizslas too
Is desexing a cult?
Desexed dogs – 2.6 times less likely to bite!
Why would you NOT desex your dog??
Golden Retrievers: Cancer if you do, cancer if you don’t

11/16/12

Research Finds: Hungry Dogs are Hungry

Some Thoughts About Dogs welcomes guest blogger Michael D Anderson from NerdWallet.

Photo © Ruthless Photos.

Biologists at the University of Vienna published a study last month about dogs’ temperament in relation to their owners. The study hypothesized that without their owners, dogs would be more likely to view ambiguous events as negative ones. This is a common feature of human cognition – you’ll often hear that depressed people “see the glass as half-empty.”

The abstract of the study is available here.

The Vienna researchers found that, unlike in humans, when presented with ambiguous stimuli, dogs don’t have a negative judgment bias when they’re in distress. This is a jargon-loaded, awkward way of generalizing on the following: These scientists found that, when hungry, dogs don’t become emotional if their owners are absent—they go right to the bowl of food because, following one of the experiment’s stipulations, these dogs hadn’t eaten in at least three hours.

Experimenters measured how long it took each of 24 dogs to approach a bowl—the study had initially included 32 animals, but the scientists decided to exclude dogs that had unusually extreme separation anxiety.

In training—before the two testing days—the biologists conditioned the dogs to identify one side of the testing room as positive—where a bowl had food—and the other side as negative—where a bowl was empty.

On testing days, they refreshed dog’s memories about the room, but then they changed up locations a bit. They established near-negative (i.e. closer to the original negative location), middle and near-positive locations. At the beginning of each test, they approached one of these new locations with a bowl.

The experimenters then tested for “latency,” or long it took the dogs to approach the bowl, when the owner was present and when he or she was absent. The owner, they said, had an effect. The dogs took longer to approach the near-negative location and shorter to approach the near-positive; in tests without the owner, they approached at the same rate to each respective location.

What I don’t understand is how the biologists so tightly connect dogs’ approach to food—which they measure as “latency”—to their mood. The idea, I think, was that dogs should take longer to approach a bowl—even if the location is near-positive—when the owner isn’t there. The idea is that the dog is distressed without the owner around—they’ll start barking, toileting, or whatever else instead of going right to the bowl.

But these dogs were hungry: as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, owners were asked not to feed their dogs in the 3 hours before the study.

The whole premise of this experiment is odd. What they pose is that dogs are less temperamental than humans: emotional distress or not, they’ll logically discern where the food is. What I think they meant to ask is whether or not dogs behave any different after domestication: Are they still primal? The answer, I think, didn’t even require extensive experiments: yes, they’re hungry, owner be damned.

 

Further reading:

“Animal Behaviour: Cognitive Bias and Affective State”

“Bias in Interpretation of Ambiguous Sentences Related to Threat in Anxiety”

“Dogs Showing Separation-Related Behavior Exhibit a ‘Pessimistic’ Cognitive Bias”

 

This article comes from NerdWallet, a consumer-focused, analysis-driven website dedicated to dissecting the data behind the story.

04/3/11

McGreevy’s Thoughts on Dog Science

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Paul McGreevy spoke a lot about research, and basically reaffirmed my points in my post Paucity in Dog Science.  McGreevy believes that ‘the times are turning’ and dogs are beginning to be a legitimate research topic. There is a lot to be learnt about dogs.

In my post ‘Paucity in Dog Science’, I identified three reasons that dogs are rarely scientifically studied.  Firstly, expense. Secondly, that dogs do not have an official academic field of study. And finally, because humans are self centred and only interested in themselves.

Paul McGreevy identified different issues hindering the research of dogs. Continue reading →

02/26/11

Belyaev’s Fox Experiment – Index

After frequently finding myself encountering references to Belyaev’s fox experiment in a number of dog-related texts, I felt the need to investigate his experiment more thoroughly.  This has resulted in a lot of reading, but a lot of new found knowledge.  From this reading, I hope to have a better understanding of the connection dog-authors are trying to make between dogs and the fox experiment. I hope it also proves useful for my readers.

Part I – Introduction
A summary of the work of Belaev in his ongoing experiment with foxes.

Part II – Changes
Description of the changes observed in Belyaev’s fox experiment.

Part III – Answers
Possible reasons for the changes seen in the foxes in Belyaev’s experiment.

Part IV – Dogs?
Why does the Belyaev fox experiment matter to dogs?

I hope this series has been of interest, as I thoroughly enjoyed researching.  I did cut out some bits and pieces, so please feel free to comment if you feel I haven’t answered a burning question for you! Additionally, if you would like in text referencing, I can provide such.

References: Continue reading →