The importance of consistency in the training of dogs' - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 26
About This Presentation
Title:

The importance of consistency in the training of dogs'

Description:

Research has shown that use of physical punishment is related to higher level of ... Barking. Social towards strangers. Less. Chasing. Medium obedience ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:77
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: Eske4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The importance of consistency in the training of dogs'


1
The importance of consistency in the training of
dogs.
  • Gry Eskeland
  • Randi Helene Tillung
  • Morten Bakken

2
Background
  • Research has shown that use of physical
    punishment is related to higher level of problem
    behaviours
  • Dog training, general dog owners e.g. Hiby et
    al, 2004
  • Electric training collars, everyday life
    situations Schalke et al, in press
  • Experimental psychology, e.g. Gray, 1987, Azrin
    and Holz, 1966
  • Treating behaviour disorders in humans e.g.
    Lerman and Vorndran, 2002

3
Background
  • Rule structure is an important tool in the
    upbringing of children and dogs
  • Behavioural control Rohner and Kaleque, 2005
  • Learn to earn, Nothing is for free- concepts
    in dog training

4
Background
  • The use of reward is related to higher degree of
    obedience
  • Dog training, dog owners e.g. Hiby et al, 2004
  • Child rearing, Mazur, 2006, Webster-Stratton, 2007

5
Aim of study
  • Is punishment a risk factor for problem
    behaviours?
  • How is reward, punishment, rule structure
    (permissiveness-strictness, consistency) in
    combination related to obedience and specific
    problem behaviours?
  • In addition, is there a difference between men
    and women in how they train dogs?

6
The concept of rule structure
  • Refers to dog owners attempt to regulate and
    manage their dogs behaviour
  • Involves the extent to which parents insist on
    compliance with their demands and rules
  • Rule structure does not, however, imply anything
    about the manner of how owners enforce their
    rules, i.e. whether they use punishment or reward.

7
How was rule structure measured?
  • I see to it that my dog knows exactly what he/she
    may or may not do
  • I always tell my dog how he/she should behave
  • I believe in having a lot of rules and sticking
    to them
  • I give my dog as much freedom as he/she wants
  • I try to insist that my dog does exactly what
    he/she is supposed to do
  • I tell my dog what to do all the time
  • I let my dog do anything he/she wants to do
  • I want to control everything my dog does

8
Materials and methods
  • 935 replies
  • Online open questionnaire (217 questions)
  • Demographics
  • Owners rule structure (PARQ/Control Rohner and
    Khaleque, 2005)
  • Owners training methods (physical punishment and
    reward)
  • Dogs behaviour (obedience and behaviour
    problems) (CBARQ Hsu and Serpell, 2003)

9
Results
  • Rule structure and reward correlates positively
    with obedience and negatively with training
    problems

10
Results
11
Effects of rearing method, combined
  • The dog owners were divided into six groups of
    rearing methods, 2 mainly punishing (P1, P2), 2
    mixture of punishment and reward (PR1, PR2) and 2
    groups mainly rewarding (R1, R2)

12
Main result
  • The two groups with the lowest score on rule
    structure (R2, PR1) is associated with lowest
    obedience and highest level of problem behaviours

13
Results in detail
  • P1 - owners
  • No participants
  • P-Intense, high frequency, unfair, unpredictable,
    inconsistent
  • R- low frequency
  • Rule structure - low
  • P1 dogs
  • No participants

14
  • P2 - owners
  • 14 participants
  • P-Intense, low frequency, fair, predictable,
    consistent
  • R- low frequency
  • Rule structure - firm
  • P2 dogs
  • More
  • Activity/Stereotypes
  • Non-social fear
  • Fear handling
  • Obedience

15
  • R1 - owners
  • 83 participants
  • P-none
  • R-High frequency
  • Rule structure - moderate/firm
  • R1 - dogs
  • More
  • High trainability
  • Obedience
  • Less
  • Stranger-directed aggression
  • Training problems
  • Dog-directed aggression

16
  • R2
  • 141
  • P-none
  • R-High frequency
  • Rule structure low
  • R2 dogs
  • More
  • Stranger-directed aggression and fear
  • Non social fear
  • Attention-seeking behaviour
  • Less
  • Activity/stereotypes
  • Obedience

17
  • PR1 - owners
  • 21 participants
  • P-Low Intensity, Low frequency,
    Unfair,Unpredictable, Inconsistent
  • R- Medium frequency
  • Rule structure - low
  • PR1 dogs
  • More
  • Training problems
  • Owner-directed aggression
  • Less
  • Obedience

18
  • PR2 - owners
  • 185 participants
  • P-Medium intensity, low frequency, fair,
    predictable, consistent
  • R-High frequency
  • Rule structure moderate
  • PR2 dogs
  • More
  • Barking
  • Social towards strangers
  • Less
  • Chasing
  • Medium obedience

19
The two groups with the lowest score on rule
structure (R2, PR1) is associated with lowest
obedience
20
The two groups with the lowest score on rule
structure (R2, PR1) is associated with highest
level of problem behaviours
21
Gender effects
  • The men and women trained their dogs differently.
  • A two-step Cluster Analysis revealed 4 clusters.
  • Low score on rule structure is associated with
    low obedience and high level problem behaviours.

22
(No Transcript)
23
Low score on rule structure is associated with
low obedience
24
Low score on rule structure is associated with
high level problem behaviours.
25
Conclusion
  • High score on rule structure and owners
    consistency was correlated with higher level of
    obedience and less behaviour problems
  • Which factors contribute as cause and effect, are
    not clear
  • If lax rule structure is a cause of low level
    obedience and higher level of behaviour problems,
    and punishment lead to higher level of problems,
    this have implications for how dog owners should
    be instructed to train their dogs from a welfare
    point of view, as well as to increase the quality
    of the human-animal relationship

26
References
  • Azrin N H, Holz W C, 1966, Punishment, in Honig W
    K (ed) Operant behaviour Areas of research and
    application, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
  • Gray J A (1987) The psychology of fear and
    stress.(2nd ed) Cambridge, Cambridge University
    Press
  • Hiby E F, Rooney N J and Bradshaw J W S 2004 Dog
    training methods their use, effectiveness and
    interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal
    Welfare. 13 63-69
  • Hsu Y Y and Serpell J A 2003 Development and
    validation of a questionnaire for measuring
    behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs.
    Journal of American Veterinary Medical
    Association. 223 (9) 1293-1300
  • Lerman D C, Vorndran D M, 2002, On the status of
    knowledge for using punishment Implications for
    treating behaviour disorders. Journal of Applied
    Behaviour Analysis 35, 431-464
  • Marks I M 1987, Fears, Phobias and rituals,
    Oxford University Press, New York
  • Mazur J E, 2006 Learning and Behaviour (6th ed.)
    Pearson Prentice hall, New Jersey
  • Rohner R P and Khaleque A (Eds.). 2005 Handbook
    for the Study of Parental Acceptance and
    Rejection (4th ed.). Rohner Research
    Publications, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
  • Schalke E, Stichnoth J, Ott, S and Jones-Baade R
    Clinical signs caused by the use of electric
    training collars on dogs in everyday life
    situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
    (2006), doi10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002
  • Webster-Stratton, C, 2007 The incredible years
    (7th ed.), Gyldendal, Oslo
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com