Dog Training Methods: The Im Impact of Bio iosemiotics on - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Attachment Formed Through Dog Training Methods: The Im Impact of Bio iosemiotics on Attachment

Alesha Pilon COG468 SUNY Oswego

Research Problem Statement

I am studying how canines derive meaning from the commands of their owners because I want to find out how various aspects of biosemiotics during training is associated with attachment in dogs in order to help my reader understand the impact that reinforcement-based versus punishment-based training methods have on the type of attachment formed between dog and owner.

Definition(s) of Biosemiotics

• The study of signs, of communication, and of information in living
• rganisms (Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,

2006)

• This capacity for containing, replicating, and expressing messages, of

extracting their signification, that, in fact, distinguishes them more from the nonliving… (“What is Biosemiotics?”, n.d.)

• The ability of an organism to both express and derive meaning from

representations in the outside world in order to communicate

• Representations from the outside world serve as the input necessary to

perceive meaning of a given sign (through an organism’s sensory system)

Biosemiotics in Dog Training

• Communicative intentions – The ability to spontaneously and flexibly use

gestures (Hare & Woods, 2013, p. 40)

• Human communicative signs – The various non-verbal signals that humans

use when communicating (Soproni et al., 2001)

• Ex: pointing, nodding, head turning
• Dogs interpret non-verbal signals based on the attention of their owners,

which allows them to effectively use human communicative gestures while ignoring other non-communicative signs

• Humans tend to pair verbal cues with visual signals when teaching dogs

various commands

• The use of both verbal and visual signals for a specific command is thought to

increase likelihood of response, although inconsistent pairing often leads to further miscommunication between dog and owner (McConnell, 2002)

Types of Conditioning

• Classical conditioning – The learning process in which a biological stimulus

and neutral stimulus are paired together to elicit a particular response that

• ccurs as a result of the biological stimulus. Because the stimuli are

repeatedly paired together, eventually the neutral stimulus is all that is necessary to elicit the desired response.

• Operant conditioning – A learning technique where an organism’s

responses to stimuli have consequences referred to as reinforcers, which serve to alter a behavior in some way.

• positive reinforcement: appearance of an appetent stimulus increases behavior
• negative reinforcement: disappearance of an aversive stimulus increases behavior
• positive punishment: appearance of an aversive stimulus decreases behavior
• negative punishment: disappearance of an appetent stimulus decreases behavior
• These psychological learning theories serve as the basis of some of the

most commonly used dog training methods, including positive reinforcement, punishment, clicker training, and the use of shock collars

Dog Training Methods

• Claim: The use of reinforcement-based vs. punishment-based training methods

influences the type of attachment that is formed between dog and owner

• Positive Reinforcement
• Encourages learning and increases ability to learn a novel task; leads to the formation of secure-

base attachment

• “We did detect a significant difference in the dogs’ ability at a novel task; owners who reported

training more tasks using reward-based methods in the past were more successful when training their dog to perform a new task, in this case to touch a specific wooden spoon. This suggests that a past history of reward-based training increases a dog–owner partnerships’ success in future training; possibly by increasing the dog’s motivation and aptitude to learn, because it learns to anticipate rewards.” (Rooney & Cowan, 2011, p. 175)

• Punishment
• Increases occurrence of problem behaviors and distrust in the dog-owner relationship, thus

causing an insecure attachment bond

• “Dogs owned by subjects who reported using a higher proportion of punishment were less likely

to interact with a stranger, and those dogs whose owners favored physical punishment tended to be less playful. However, dogs whose owners reported using more rewards tended to perform better in a novel training task … This study shows clear links between a dog’s current behavior and its owner’s reported training history as well as the owner’s present behavior. High levels of punishment may thus have adverse effects upon a dog’s behavior whilst reward based training may improve a dog’s subsequent ability to learn.” (Rooney & Cowan, 2011, p. 169)

Attachment

• Attachment – the special bond that develops between an infant and its

primary caregiver, usually the mother

• Behaviors associated with attachment (Topal et al., 1998):
• ability to discriminate and respond differentially to the object of attachment (secure-

base effect)

• preference for the attachment figure (proximity and contact seeking)
• response to separation from and reunion with the attachment figure that is distinct

from responses to others

• The 3 behavioral patterns of attachment:
• secure: infants show signs of missing the parent when separated, greets the parent

upon reunion, and is able to return to play

• insecure-avoidant: infant shows little to no distress when separated from the parent

and ignores the caregiver upon reunion

• insecure-resistant: infants are highly distressed when separated from the parent, and

seeks contact upon reunion but is not settled by the caregiver and may show resistance upon contact

The Ainsworth Strange Situation Procedure (ASSP)

ASSP Tested on Dogs

• A counterbalanced version of the ASSP test on infants was used to counter

possible order effects

• Second condition where the order of when the owner and stranger were present

was reversed (Palmer & Custance, 2007)

• Secure-base effects indicated in the study
• Dogs explored, remained passive, played with the stranger, and engaged in individual

play more when in the presence of their owner than when left with the stranger or alone

• The dogs’ behavior provides evidence consistent with the hypothesis that the dog-

human bond constitutes an attachment

• Based on the behavior expressed in the ASSP, dogs could be divided into

different groups resembling the secure-insecure attachment dimensions, further suggesting similarities between the relationship between child- parent and dog-owner (Topál et al., 1998)

The Dog-Human Relationship

• It is imperative to take an interdisciplinary approach in dog training, with the

implementation of biosemiotics in order for dogs to infer meaning and communicate effectively with their owners, as well as the use of basic learning theories like operant conditioning to stimulate learning.

• Dogs understand the communicative intentions of humans through the use of

various human communicative signs, and are able to derive meaning from even the smallest movements that humans unconsciously make when training a specific command.

• The pairing of verbal and visual signals is effective when used consistently; however,

if the owner unintentionally uses different gestures with the same verbal cue, or if there are multiple owners within a household that use differing visual signals, the dog may get confused or misinterpret this sign for a new command altogether. This miscommunication may cause frustration in both the owner and their dog, and can

• ften lead to the use of more aversive training methods.
• Positive reinforcement-based training methods enhance and encourage learning,

thus leading to the formation of a healthy and secure attachment bond between dog and owner. On the other hand, the use of punishment-based training methods has been shown to cause distress in dogs, increase the frequency of problem behaviors, and ultimately lead to distrust in the dog-owner relationship.

Final Thought

“Because aversive training methods have resulted in increased stress and poorer performance of dogs in the presence of their trainers (Haverbeke et al., 2008),

• wner-dog attachment may be adversely affected

when these training methods are implemented. Thus, non-aversive methods of training should have a positive impact on companion dog welfare through effectiveness in teaching desirable behaviors, reduced correlation with the occurrence of problematic behaviors, and a strengthened owner-dog bond. All of the aforementioned can result in a lower rate of relinquishment and euthanasia, and therefore, increased welfare of domestic dogs.” (Kwan & Bain, 2013, p. 170)

References

• Hare, B. & Woods, V. (2013). The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter Than You Think. New York, NY:

Penguin Group.

• Kwan, J. Y., & Bain, M. J. (2013). Owner Attachment and Problem Behaviors Related to Relinquishment and

Training Techniques of Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16(2), 168-183.

• McConnell, P. B. (2002). The Other End of the Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs. New York: The

Random House Publishing Group.

• Palmer, R., & Custance, D. (2007). A counterbalanced version of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure

reveals secure-base effects in dog–human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109, 306–319.

• Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behavior

and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132, 169-177.

• Soproni, K., Miklosi, A., Topal, J., & Csanyi, V. (2001). Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet

dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 122-126.

• Topal, J., Miklosi, A., Csanyi, V., & Doka, A. (1998). Attachment Behavior in Dogs (Canis familiaris): A New

Application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219- 229.

• What is Biosemiotics? (n.d.). International Society for Biosemiotic Studies. Retrieved from

http://www.biosemiotics.org/biosemiotics-introduction/

• (2006). Biosemiotics. In Cammack, R., Atwood, T., Campbell, P., Parish, H., Smith, A., Vella, F., & Stirling,
• J. (Eds.), Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198529170.001.0001/acref9780198529170-e- 2283