Inconsistency in ownership style and behavioural problems in dogs.

 A dog that receives contradictory and paradoxical information can be the root to behavioural disorders of a dog.  What this means is two opposite messages are emitted for  the exact same piece of information. The double message is a source of confusion and leads to disqualification of all the information, or a part of it, or the response by its receiver (Bateson 1971;1987). 

For instance the most common communication problem that I  come across is that the dog is rewarded or punished alternatively for recall, given a treat or alternatively shouted at. This alternating double message teaches the dog not to come when called, because he has no idea what to expect when he comes back.  The owner thinks that punishing him for the delay in recall means that he will come back immediately when called the next time.  However when the dog comes back from his adventures, those adventures are forgotten, he is attending to owner so the dog believes he is being punished for returning.  

Human communication involves verbal, vocal, postural, motor and contextual levels, successful communication ensures that these levels are congruent (Gross et al 2004).  If you call a dog in a soft voice, but your posture is threatening there is no congruence, this will result in a dog becoming anxious, because there is no consistency in the pattern of  human behaviour. 

Another scenario of inconsistency I often come across is between a couple and their dog. One owner is permissive the other a disciplinarian.  Although both owners might be consistent in the way they treat the dog independently it becomes incongruent for the dog when one minute he is allowed to do something and the next he is being punished for it. For example: allowed to get on the sofa one minute by one owner, shouted at to get down by the other. Therefore punishment is  more likely to be unpredictable for the dog. The stress response to an aversive event is influenced by its predictability and controllability (Arhant et al 2010; Gross et al 2004). There is a chance the  dog might learn not to get on the sofa in the presence of the disciplinarian, but also become anxious in the absence of the disciplinarian, because the dog is confused.

References

Arhant, C.  Bubna-Littitz,H.  Bartels,A.  Futschik, A. Troxler, J (2010) Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133 (2010) 131-142

Bateson G.(1971;1987) Steps To An Ecology Of Mind. Collected Essays In Anthropology,Psychiatry, Evolution, And Epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.Northvale, New Jersey London

Gross,R. McIlveen, R. (2004) Psychology A new introduction. Holder and StroughtonEducational.:UK.

How can chewing help with learning and behavioural problems?

Mastication involves rhythmic and voluntary movements of lower jaw by the masticatory muscles. Tooth loss and weakness of masticatory muscles causes impairment of masticatory function and chewing disability (Teixeira et al 2014).

Animal experiments have shown that tooth loss or long-term soft-diet feeding causes a decrease in learning and memory ability (Wanabe et al 2002) Another study also revealed that soft-diet feeding after a weaning period reduces synaptic formation in the cerebral cortex and impairs the ability of spatial learning in the adulthood hypothalamus ( Onozuka et al 2002; Teixeira et al 2014). ). Biting during restraint exposure suppresses stress-induced catecholamine concentrations and therefore responses are reduced. This  implies that masticatory activity induced a positive anti-stress effect in animals (cited in Frota de Almedia. Et al 2012). Therefore if a dog has been exposed to uncontrollable stressors, it might be beneficial to give the dog something to chew on.

Mastication is regulated by a neural population in the brainstem and a neural network including several brain regions. Chewing  has been shown to be associated with increased cerebral blood flow, and several studies have reported increased cerebral activity following gum chewing in humans.  Thus, the beneficial effects of chewing on cerebral activity have been suggested, because chewing uses the same neural pathways as cognition so pathways are less likely to decay if chewing is maintained (Sasaki-Otomaru et al 2012; Onozuka et al 2002).

In epidemiological studies, oral function and status have been shown to be related to physical, mental, and social health. In particular, chewing ability has been shown to influence activities of daily living, cognitive status and quality of life (Frota de Alemdia et al 2012).

Therefore chewing is  a fantastic way to ensure that the dogs  jaw muscles are exercised regularly.

Chewing may have  a relaxing effect for the dog aswell as the other benefits described above.  Play is defined by the oxford dictionary(2014) “to engage in an activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose” therefore the chewing  of can be deemed play,  solitary play, and for interacting with as demonstrated in the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCO4Hj5zbH8

A Kong is flexible dog toy  which the dog can bite down animal experiments have shown this activity induced a positive anti-stress effect in animals (cited in Frota de Almedia. Et al 2012).   Therefore if a dog has been exposed to uncontrollable stressors, it might be beneficial to give the dog a kong to carry with them,  it seems to act as a dummy and can be reassuring to a dog.

References

Frota de Almedia. Et al (2012) Spatial memory decline after masticatory deprivation and aging is associated with alterd laminar distribution of CA1 astrocytes. BMC Neuroscience (2012) volume 13: no 23

Onozuka M, Watanabe K, Fujita M, Tonosaki K, Saito S. (2002) Evidence for involvement of glucocorticoid response in the hippocampal changes in aged molarless SAMP8 mical e. Behavioural Brain Research. 2002;131:125-129

Oxford dictionary  (2014) Oxford Dictionary Of English .version 1.6  Anthony Lewis: Wordweb software.


Sasaki-Otomaru, A. Sakuma, Y Sato, C. (2011) Effect of Regular Gum Chewing on Levels of Anxiety, Mood, and Fatigue in Healthy Young Adults Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 2011, Vol. 7, pp. 133-139.

Teixeira, F. Fernandes, L Noronha, P et al (2014) Masticatory Deficiency as a Risk Factor for Cognitive Dysfunction International Journal of Medical Sciences
2014; 11(2):209-214.

Wanabe Et al  The molarless condition in aged SAMP8 mice attenuates hippocampal Fos induction linked to water maze performance   Behavioural Brain Research 2002; 128:  19-25

Separation Anxiety

The term Separation anxiety has its roots in the work of the ethologist Konrad Lorenz  who studied instinctive behaviour particularly imprinting. which is how bond formation occurs between individuals and groups of  mammalian species and birds. Konrad’s theory states that bonds are instinctive and adaptive in nature ( Gross 2004; Garcia 2005).

Bowlby a psychoanalyst, in the 1950’s was inspired by Konrad and applied ethological theory to human attachments.  The key concepts of this theory was that;-
• innate behaviours are essentially the same in all members of a species.
• Fixed action patterns, which are the complex innate behaviours that promote species survival, for example: the attachment behaviours of infant and mother.
Sensitive periods which are specific periods where an animal is biologically ready to acquire a particular new behaviour (Bowlby 1983: Parthasarathy et al 2005: Davenport 1993 ;Gross Et al  2004; Garcia 2005).

Therefore attachment theory has a strong evolutionary base, although exploratory behaviour in young animals is necessary for them to learn about their physical and social world, wandering too far away from the mother would leave that infant vulnerable to predatory and conspecific attack (Gross et al 2004). Therefore it is of evolutionary benefit for the infant to seek the proximity of its mother when it is afraid, and behaviours such as crying; following; and clinging; facilitates gaining and maintaining proximity .  Bowlby termed this behaviour as Separation Anxiety and was a normal reaction of an infant, to maintain close proximity with the attachment figure (Bowlby 1983).

Bowlby describes how the   infant tries to withdraw or escape from a situation or object that they find alarming, and attempt  to go towards or remain with some person or in some place that makes them feel secure. The first type of behaviour is commonly accompanied by a sense of fright or alarm; the second type of behaviour is, of course, what is termed as attachment behaviour. So long as the required proximity to the attachment-figure can be maintained, no unpleasant feeling is experienced. When, however, proximity cannot be maintained because either the figure is lost or some barrier intervenes, the consequent searching and striving are accompanied by a sense of discomfort, and the same is true when loss is threatened. In this discomfort of separation and at a threat of separation , separation anxiety is termed (Bowlby 1983).

Ainsworth (1978,2014) was further inspired and developed a way to test attachment styles through the ‘stranger situation’ and identified that the quality of attachment relationships between infants and caregivers is dependent, upon the degree to which caregivers serve as a secure base for infants. Further analysis, characterised caregivers’ ability to provide a secure base for their infants as emotional availability. Ainsworth described the emotionally available caregiver as promoting an atmosphere of ‘quiet supportiveness’ for autonomous play, thus encouraging infants’ exploration and  also emphasised caregivers’ emotional availability as an important antecedent factor for infants’ attachment security. According to Ainsworth et al, the emotionally available caregiver is accessible and appropriately responsive as well as tuned in to the infant’s signals (Ainsworth et al (1978; Parthasarathy et al 2005; Davenport 1993 ;Gross Et al 2004; Garcia 2005).
Therefore Separation anxiety is not exclusive to dogs or even to veterinary medicine. It is a psychological term to describe the stress and anxiousness in an individual which is brought on by the leaving (perceived or imagined) of another individual (Davenport 1995; Gross et al 2004;Bowlby 1983: Bowlby 1980; Parthasarathy et al: Garcia 2005; Ainsworth et al 1978; Topal et al 1998; Hett 2008).
A more specific definition of separation anxiety requires ongoing attachment to the maternal or primary caregiver . In the case of a dog, separation anxiety is usually an anxiety brought on by separation from the primary caretaker. it is a normal developmental phase and it is necessary for survival.   Separation anxiety disorder occurs later in development  and interferes with normal activities (Landsberg et al 2013; Overall 2013).

What classifies as a "separation”  varies greatly between dogs : some must have "their person" within their line of sight, other dogs  are fine as long as the owner is within a comfortable distance (i.e. somewhere else in the house), and still others are fine until the owner leaves. Even finer distinctions would be dogs that are fine for a certain period of time after their owner leaves, but then start to show signs of anxiousness some time later ( Topal et al 1998; Parathasay 2006).
Just like the variance in what stresses out each individual, the signs of separation anxiety vary greatly as well, from pacing, to learnt helplessness, to barking and  howling, incontinence, and destructive behaviour, just to name a few (0verall 2013; Landsburg et al 2013).

Separation anxiety in dogs was once thought to be a hyper-attachment to the owner. But studies have shown that dogs with separation anxiety and dogs without separation anxiety displayed same behaviours around owners, i.e. follow owner around the house (Mariti et al 2013; Horn et al 2013). Behaviour modification protocols for separation anxiety that recommend owners ignore their dogs and also the behaviours from the dog  that are designed to promote social contact,  is a harmful recommendation because it damages the human-animal bond and produces anxiety and frustration, because the dog is powerless to initiate social interaction, and the owner is prevented from doing so (Hett et al 2008; Parathasy et al 2006) In addition  the  hyper-attachment behaviour is more likely to be due to an insecure attachment to the owner.  Ainsworth demonstrated in the ‘strange situation’ different forms of attachment.  Secure attachments when the attachment figure was compassionate to the needs of the child; insecure attachments seen in children whose attachment figure was not responsive to the needs of the child, and ambivalent attachments, where children showed no attachment to the attachment figure, due to a caregiver being inconsistent in emotional and physical availability to the child.   Many years ago it was once thought that children should be seen and not heard, that they need to learn to have a backbone, and responding to the childs needs immediately was deemed that the child would become too reliant on the caregivers.
Children brought up this way resulted in a child who cried more, explored less, and clung more to caregivers and were not easily reassured, than the children who had secure attachments to their caregivers (Ziv et al 2013).

The strange situation has been repeated with dogs  and found the same findings secure attachments, insecure attachments as is avoidance and ambivalent attachments  (Topal et al 1998; Hett et al 2008; Mariati et al 2013,Horn et al 2013).

Attachments are not just for caregivers, they can be for place, objects whatever makes mammals feel safe, usually attachments occur first with primary caregivers, which gives the individual the safety and security to  explore their environment, when they become comfortable after exploration, the attachment to that place becomes another  secure base. The BBC episodes Monkey planet aired on the 2nd April 2014 demonstrates a place as an attachment,  the baby gibbon was too scared to leave the safety of the enclosure to go and investigate  the big outside world, mum goes and reasures him, the infant comes out of the enclosure, Mum cuddles him again, and hay presto he is swinging from the trees free, the video clip below is not from that programme and does not demonstrate the cuddle but the calm reassurance from mum, giving the infant the confidence to begin his exploration of the outside world.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT3aLsTxbnQ

Most researchers assume that the acceptance of human beings as conspecific alongside the mother-like and effective security-providing role of humans for distressed puppies are results of domestication. For 10,000 years, artificial selection in dogs favoured socialisation with humans as if they were conspecific.  The genetic changes regarding a dog's capacity for conspecific recognition, might have played a key role in this process that resulted in a preference for humans. A dog's preparedness for forming a bond with humans, a bond that is rooted in the evolutionary past, would be a prerequisite for the development of attachment between a particular person (the owner) and the dog itself (Topal et al 2011).

Although the ability to form attachments is usually associated with an early sensitive period, Gasci et al (2001) demonstrated that in certain conditions a short responsive interaction with an unfamiliar human individual may result in attachment behaviour even in the case of dogs that are more than 1 year old. Gasci et al (2001) study in rescue centres show that dogs of low or restricted contact with humans may retain their ability to form new attachment relationships with humans. Probably the extreme separation from human social contact (i.e., shelter conditions) has a crucial role in this sensitisation process. In other words, dogs living in poor social conditions become more responsive to humans, which results in a remarkable readiness to form attachment relationships. It should be noted that in the case of rhesus monkeys, a similar effect has been shown because most abnormally socialised monkeys could be rehabilitated to a certain extent by appropriate exposure to conspecific groups and individuals (Harlow et al1971).

Panskepp  (2004) looks at the neurocircuitry and neurochemistry of social bonds, and is assumed that the arousal of the panic system is one of the many driving forces that guide the construction of social bonds and identifies that the attachments and bonds increase brain opoids,  and on separation, the neurotransmitters glutamate and corticotrophin releasing hormone are the neurotransmitters that are responsible for the panic response of separation distress.  According to Panskepp the panic system is distinct from the fear system because the administration of  opiates  to new born rat pups proved effective in reducing separation distress but has no effect on fearful behaviours. This nil effect of opoid administration on fearful behaviours was demonstrated when pups were separated from mother and put in a strange environment, so the addition of strange environment provoked the fear system.  The distress calls of young animals are to seek reunion with individuals who help create the feeling of a ‘secure neurochemical base’. Panskepp hypothesises  the distress calls from the infant arouses distress circuits in the parents which facilitates the social bond. Harlow (1971) demonstrated that socially deprived monkeys who’s behaviour to other monkeys was sociopathic could be driven to demonstrate maternal behaviour after incessant separation distress calls from the infant.

Having an understanding and compassion of the legitimate reasons why dogs suffer from separation anxiety and not treating it as a problem behaviour , will go along way to helping the dog be happy alone.
• So if a dog is showing anxiety after separation but is easily settled when owner returns, the owner has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the dog feels safe in their company.
• If a dog is showing anxiety after separation but is not easily settled by the owners return this shows that the dog is insecurely attached to the owner.
• If the dog shows no outward signs of separation anxiety but greets the owner on return from separation, the dog has learnt to be happy alone in his environment , owners done a fantastic job.
If the dog shows no outward signs of separation anxiety and does not greet the owner on return there is no attachment. There has to be an attachment in order for separation anxiety to exist (Bowlby 1983).

So ensure that puppies are well socialised, that the dog has a secure attachment to the owner, and other members of the family,  this is done with quality time spent in each others company, touching, playing feeding etc, once the dogs understands that the owner is the safe base, the dog can explore his environment, and make an attachment to his environment, this environment becomes a secure base (Scott 1958: Morgan 2010).  A routine gives them knowledge that food and walks and cuddles and playtime etc will be always there and life becomes more predicable, eventually they learn to cope with changes in routines, but in order for that to happen the attachments and their safety needs have to be met first.

References


Ainsworth, M; Blehar,M. Waters,E. Wall,S. (1978, 2014) Patterns of attachment. A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology press:USA.

Bowlby,J. (1983)Attachment And Loss Volume I Attachment  2nd edition. Pub: Basic Books; Member of the Perseus Books Group:USA.

Bowlby, J. (1980) Attachment, Loss and depression volume III. Basic Books; Member of the Perseus Books Group:USA.

Davenport, G. (1995) Introducing GCSE Psychology. HarperCollins publishers, London:UK.

Flannigan, G. Dodman. H. (2001) Risk factors and behaviors associated with separation anxiety in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association August 15, 2001, Vol. 219, No. 4, Pages 460-466.

Garcia, A. (2005) Biological bases of personal relationships: the contribution of classical ethology. Revista De Etologia vol 7. No1 pp.25 -38. Publishers: Sociedade Brasileira de Etologia: Portugal

Gácsi, M. Topál,J. Miklósi, A. Dóka, A. Csányi, V. (2001)Attachment Behavior of Adult Dogs (Canis familiaris) Living at Rescue Centers: Forming New Bonds. Journal of Comparative Psychology 2001, Vol. 115, No. 4, 423-431.

Gross,R. McIlveen, R. (2004) Psychology A new introduction. Holder and Stroughton Educational.:UK.

Harlow,H. Suomi,S. (1971) social recovery by isolation reared monkeys  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 68, No. 7, pp. 1534-1538, July 1971

Hett, S,  Estep, D. (2008) The latest on Separation anxiety  Integrative Veterinary Care  Journal issue 2/14  Avaliable to view here:  http://www.ivcjournal.com/articles/1099/

Horn,L. Huber, L. Range, F. (2013) the importance of the secure base effect for domestic dogs – Evidence from a manipulative problem solving task.  Plos one May 2013 vol 8. Iss:5.

Landsberg,G. Hunthausen,W. Ackerman,L. (2013) Behaviour problems of  the dog & cat. Third edition. Saunders Elsevier: China

Mariti, C. Ricci, E. Carlone, B. Moore, J. Sigheri, C. Gazzano, A. (2013) Dog attachment to man: A comparison between pet and working dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research Volume 8, Issue 3, May–June 2013, Pages 135–145

Morgan,P. (2009) towards a developmental theory of place attachment. Journal of environmental psychology  Vol 30(2010) pp 11-22.

Overall, K. (2013) Manual of clinical behavioural medicine for dogs and cats. Mosby and imprint of Elsevier Inc: Canada

Parthasarathy, V. Crowell-Davis, S. (2006) Relationship between attachment to owners and separation anxiety in pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 1, No 3, Nov/Dec.

Topál, J Miklósi, A Csányi, V and Doka, A. (1998) Attachment Behavior in Dogs (Canis familiarise): A New Application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of comparative psychology 1998, Vol. 112, No. 3,219-229.
Topal, J. Gácsi, M, Kubinyi, E.   Dóka, A. Csányi, V, Viranyi, Z. (2005)Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and  differently socialized dog puppies Animal Behaviour, 2005, no 70, pp1367–1375.

Overall, K. (2013) Manual of clinical behavioural medicine for dogs and cats. Mosby and imprint of Elsevier Inc: Canada.

Panksepp,J. (2004) Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press:USA

Scott,J.P. (1958) critical periods in the development of social behavior in puppies. Psychosomatic Medicine. Jan 1958, Vol 20. is. 1

Schore, A. (2000) attachment and the regulation of the right brain. Attachment & human development Vol.2 No.1 april 2000 pp23- 47.

Schwartz, S (2003) Separation anxiety syndrome in dogs and cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association volume 22 no.11June I pp1526-1532

White, J. McBrid, E. Redhead, E. (2010) Relationship between dog owner behavior and dog attachment security in the strange situation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research Volume 5, Issue 1 , Page 47, January 2010.

Ziv,Y, Aviezer, Gini, M. Sagi. A. Koren- Karie, N (2000)Emotional availability in the mother–infant dyad as related to the quality of infant–mother attachment relationship. Attachment & Human Development  Vol. 2 No. 2 September 2000.  pp149–169.