Dec 27 2025

Bonding and Attachment in Companion Animals: A Functional–Ethological Analysis

—A Comparative Analysis of Dogs and Horses

Abstract

Bonding is a central feature of social life in many animal species, yet the terms bonding, attachment, and imprinting are often conflated in both scientific and popular discourse. This article examines bonding as a biological and behavioral process, distinguishing its proximate mechanisms from its ultimate evolutionary functions. Focusing on two companion species with contrasting evolutionary ecologies—domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and domestic horses (Equus ferus caballus)—we compare how imprinting, attachment, and broader bonding processes emerge across development and social contexts. Drawing on ethology, comparative studies, and neurobiological research, we show that while early attachment relationships are developmentally constrained and species-specific, enduring social bonds are more flexibly shaped by shared experience, social regulation, and cooperative activity. We further argue that bonding should be understood not merely as an affiliative state, but as a regulatory process that supports coordination, stress regulation, and cooperation. By integrating evolutionary, developmental, and mechanistic perspectives, this comparative analysis clarifies key conceptual distinctions, common principles, and meaningful differences in social bonding across two different species.

**Figure 1.** Shared exposure to demanding and potentially stressful situations can strengthen social bonds through coordination, trust, and reciprocal regulation of behavior and arousal during joint activity. Search-and-rescue handlers and their dogs exemplify such cooperative relationships, which are shaped by repeated joint problem-solving under challenging conditions. Photo: Désirée Mallè, Alpine Rescue Team, and her dog.

Bonding—a Definition

In animal behavior, bonding refers to a biologically grounded process by which individuals—of the same or different species—develop stable, selective social relationships that are maintained over time. The primary adaptive functions of bonding include promoting coordination, cooperation, and mutual tolerance, thereby enhancing individual fitness and, in many cases, inclusive fitness.¹ ²

Bonding is expressed through recurrent interaction patterns that regulate access, proximity, and coordinated activity among partners. Its strength, duration, and symmetry vary widely across species and social contexts, ranging from transient affiliations to enduring, lifelong bonds.

Parent–Offspring Bonding and Attachment

The term attachment is used cautiously in ethology.³ When employed, it represents a functional and descriptive label for a particular regulatory organization of social behavior, rather than as a reference to inferred mental states or subjective experience. Ethological usage has historically emphasized parent–offspring relationships, especially during periods of functional dependency (Hinde, 1982; Bateson, 1994), and has cautioned against unqualified extension of the term to adult social relationships (Hinde, 1976; Silk, 2007).

In the present paper, we treat attachment as a specialized form of bonding, defined ethologically as a pattern of selective proximity regulation and context-dependent separation responses that serves regulatory and adaptive functions. While attachment is often most clearly expressed in filial contexts, it is not defined by age or developmental stage, but by its functional structure.

The most fundamental and extensively studied form of bonding occurs between parents and offspring. In this context, bonding frequently takes the form of attachment. Filial attachment promotes proximity maintenance, contributes to the regulation of distress during separation, and provides a secure base from which juveniles can explore their environment.

Filial attachment is typically most pronounced during periods of dependency and becomes less central as the juvenile attains functional independence. Nevertheless, early attachment-related interactions can exert enduring effects on later social behavior, stress responsiveness, and affiliative tendencies (Bowlby, 1982; Carter, 1998).⁴ ⁵

In domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), a well-documented sensitive period for social attachment occurs approximately between the third and tenth weeks of age. During this phase, puppies readily form selective social relationships with conspecifics and humans. Individuals deprived of typical social contact beyond roughly 14 weeks of age often show persistent alterations in social behavior, including reduced affiliative responsiveness and atypical interaction patterns relative to species- and population-specific norms (Scott & Fuller, 1965; Freedman et al., 1961).

Pair Bonding and Reproductive Cooperation

In many social species, males and females form pair bonds during courtship and mating. These bonds support coordinated reproductive behavior, including shared parental investment, mate guarding, or cooperative resource defense, thereby increasing the likelihood that shared genetic material is successfully transmitted to subsequent generations.

Pair bonding is functionally and evolutionarily favored in species where ecological conditions—e.g., prolonged offspring dependency, biparental care need, mate guarding, or dispersed resources—make sustained cooperation between reproductive partners more likely to increase the survival and reproductive success of their shared offspring, thereby enhancing the direct fitness of both parents (Clutton-Brock, 1991).

Pair bonds may incorporate attachment-like regulatory features, such as selective proximity and partner-specific buffering of stress. Yet, they are functionally distinct from filial attachment in that they primarily serve reproductive coordination rather than developmental dependency (Clutton-Brock, 1991).

Social Bonding Beyond Attachment

Among group-living animals, bonding also arises through repeated interaction, cohabitation, and shared ecological challenges. Such bonds need not involve attachment in the strict sense—that is, they may lack pronounced separation responses or stress-buffering functions—yet they remain stable and functionally significant.

Behaviors such as grooming, play, coalitionary support, and reciprocal food sharing are widespread mechanisms for maintaining social bonds. Shared intense experiences (Fig. 2), including coordinated responses to threats, are particularly effective in strengthening affiliative ties among adults, as they reduce uncertainty regarding partners’ reliability in critical contexts (Silk, 2007).⁶

Bonding should therefore not be understood solely as an affiliative or affective state, but also as a regulatory process emerging from shared coping with challenge and uncertainty, in which moderate, manageable stress can facilitate learning, coordination, and social cohesion (Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001; Abrantes, 2025).

Figure 2. Cooperative interaction among members of Micromys minutus (photo by Cuttestpaw).
Shared, demanding interactions can contribute to the formation and reinforcement of social bonds. Bonding, attachment, and imprinting represent distinct biological processes with different developmental timing and functions (see Table 1).

Neurobiological Substrates of Bonding and Attachment

At a proximate level, affiliative interactions are associated with neuroendocrine processes, notably the release of oxytocin, which modulates defensive responses and facilitates social approach, tolerance, and coordination (Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001). These mechanisms support both broad social bonding and the more specific dynamics of attachment.

Attachment, however, also recruits systems involved in stress regulation and separation responses, including the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, endogenous opioid systems, and associated neural circuits that mediate distress and recovery during separation and reunion. These systems support the regulatory functions of attachment by modulating arousal, persistence, and recovery in the absence of social contact, distinguishing attachment from broader forms of social bonding (Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001).

**Figure 3. Conceptual relationships between bonding, imprinting, and attachment.**
**Bonding** represents the broad class of enduring affiliative social relationships that support cooperation, tolerance, and social regulation. **Attachment** constitutes a functionally specialized subset of bonding, characterized by selective proximity seeking and separation-related regulatory processes, most commonly expressed during periods of dependency but not restricted to them. **Imprinting** is a phase-sensitive learning process that can establish stable social preferences and thereby contribute to bond formation. The overlap between imprinting and attachment (imprinting-based attachment) reflects cases in which early learning supports the emergence of attachment relationships. The diagram emphasizes that bonding encompasses a broader range of social relationships than either imprinting or attachment alone, and that neither imprinting nor attachment is necessary for bonding to occur.

Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Bonding is often discussed alongside imprinting, but the concepts are not interchangeable. While imprinting produces a bond, not all bonding involves imprinting, and not all bonds involve attachment⁷ (see Table 1).

Imprinting refers to a form of phase-sensitive learning that occurs during a restricted developmental window, is rapid, and appears largely independent of the immediate consequences of behavior. Some species are predisposed to acquire specific information—such as caregiver identity or species recognition—during these sensitive periods. This learning reflects evolved developmental programs rather than associative conditioning (Lorenz, 1935; Bateson, 1979).⁸

Attachment, by contrast, develops through ongoing interaction and experience. Although it often emerges during sensitive periods, it remains modifiable and is regulated by feedback from the caregiver–offspring relationship.

At the level of bonding as a general social process, fitness benefits may accrue through both direct and inclusive pathways, depending on whether bonds involve reproductive partners, kin, or non-kin; by contrast, pair bonding specifically enhances direct fitness via increased offspring survival.

Table 1—Terminological Comparison: Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Term	Core Definition	Developmental Timing	Learning Mechanism	Typical Duration	Functional Role	Key References
Bonding	A biologically grounded process through which individuals form stable, selective social relationships maintained over time	Any life stage	Multiple mechanisms: associative learning, repeated interaction, shared experience; neuroendocrine facilitation (e.g., oxytocin)	Variable; from transient to lifelong	Promotes coordination, cooperation, tolerance, and social stability; enhances individual and inclusive fitness	Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001; Silk, 2007
Attachment	A functionally specialized form of bonding characterized by selective proximity regulation and context-dependent separation responses	Not developmentally restricted; often most pronounced during periods of dependency	Experience-dependent learning supporting proximity regulation, stress modulation, and partner-specific responses	Typically long-lasting; expression may change across contexts and life stages	Regulates proximity, buffers stress, and supports adaptive performance under vulnerability	Bowlby, 1969/1982; Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001
Imprinting	A developmentally constrained learning process through which specific stimuli or social partners acquire enduring salience	Restricted sensitive or critical period	Rapid, often non-associative or weakly associative learning; relatively resistant to extinction	Typically long-lasting or irreversible	Biases later recognition, preference, or social orientation; may shape but does not constitute bonding or attachment	Lorenz, 1935; Bateson, 1979; Horn, 2004

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Dogs

In domestic environments, dogs develop social bonds and, in many cases, attachment relationships through everyday interaction. Grooming, resting in proximity, play, coordinated vocal responses, and joint reactions to environmental disturbances contribute to the formation and maintenance of affiliative bonds.

Dogs form attachment relationships not only with conspecifics but also with humans, as evidenced by selective proximity regulation, stress modulation, and differential behavioral responses to familiar versus unfamiliar individuals (Topál et al., 1998; Gácsi et al., 2013). They may also form stable bonds with individuals of other species, such as household cats, reflecting the flexibility of canine social bonding systems.

Beyond early attachment formation, domestic dogs establish stable, selective social bonds with both conspecifics and humans. Preferred social partners, asymmetries in play solicitation, and selective proximity patterns cannot be explained by familiarity alone (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995; Cafazzo et al., 2010). These bonds are associated with measurable stress-buffering effects: the presence of a familiar human or canine partner reduces behavioral indicators of distress and attenuates physiological stress responses in challenging situations (Gácsi et al., 2013; Nagasawa et al., 2015).

Bond strength is not maintained by passive affiliation alone. Coordinated activity under mild challenge, including problem-solving and shared task engagement, appears particularly effective in reinforcing dog–human bonds, consistent with the view that shared regulation under manageable stress promotes durable social bonding (Gácsi et al., 2013; Nagasawa et al., 2015; Abrantes, 2025).

At a proximate level, affiliative interactions between dogs and humans—including mutual gaze, physical contact, and coordinated activity—are associated with increased oxytocin in both partners, supporting a conserved neuroendocrine substrate for social bonding across species (Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003; Nagasawa et al., 2015). While dogs readily form attachment relationships with humans, these attachments remain experience-dependent, shaped by consistency, predictability, and shared activity rather than by imprinting alone, reinforcing the distinction between early phase-sensitive learning and later-developing attachment bonds.

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Horses

Domestic horses (Equus ferus caballus) are highly social, herd-living mammals in which bonding plays a central role in survival and welfare. In both free-ranging and managed populations, horses form stable affiliative relationships, expressed through preferred spatial proximity, synchronized activity, and allogrooming—a behavior closely associated with social tolerance and group cohesion (Waring, 2003; Budiansky, 1997). These bonds support collective vigilance and coordinated responses to potential threats, consistent with the horse’s evolutionary history as a socially obligate prey species.

The most prominent attachment relationship in horses is the mare–foal bond, which develops rapidly after birth and is essential for protection, learning, and early social development. Foals show selective following and behavioral disruption upon separation, while mares provide regulation through proximity and intervention. This attachment is strongest during early dependency and gradually diminishes as juveniles integrate into the wider social group. Evidence indicates that early social deprivation or premature separation can produce long-term effects on social behavior and responses to novelty and handling, highlighting the developmental importance of early attachment in horses (Søndergaard & Jago, 2010).

Beyond early development, adult horses form selective social bonds within the herd. Although these relationships do not necessarily meet strict attachment criteria—such as selective proximity regulation under acute stress—they are persistent and functionally significant. Preferred partners are associated with reduced behavioral indicators of fear and improved coping in challenging situations, suggesting that adult social bonding in horses serves a regulatory and stress-buffering function (Christensen et al., 2008; Lansade et al., 2008). Horses may also form bonds with humans; however, these relationships are best understood as experience-dependent and context-specific, shaped by predictability and shared activity rather than by imprinting or caregiver-style attachment (Waring, 2003; Budiansky, 1997).

In horses, as in dogs, bonding is more reliably reinforced through shared activity and coordinated responses to environmental challenges than through passive contact alone, consistent with a regulatory—rather than purely affiliative—interpretation of social bonding (Christensen et al., 2008; Lansade et al., 2008; Abrantes, 2025).

Comparative Perspective: Dogs and Horses

Dogs and horses illustrate how bonding and attachment processes are shaped by species-specific ecology while relying on shared biological principles (see Table 2). Dogs, as socially flexible carnivores shaped by intensive human-directed selection, readily form attachment relationships with humans that functionally resemble caregiver–offspring systems in key regulatory respects. Horses, as socially obligate prey animals, emphasize herd cohesion, mutual tolerance, and collective regulation, with attachment largely confined to early development and selected interspecific contexts.

In both species, enduring bonds are more reliably strengthened through shared experience and coordinated activity than through passive contact alone. These contrasts underscore the importance of distinguishing ultimate evolutionary function from proximate mechanisms, while demonstrating that bonding remains a general, cross-species process grounded in cooperation, regulation, and survival.

Table 2—Imprinting, Attachment, and Bonding in Domestic Dogs and Horses

Dimension	Dogs (Canis familiaris)	Horses (Equus ferus caballus)
Evolutionary niche	Social carnivore (predator) (Clutton-Brock, 1991)	Social herbivore (prey) (Waring, 2003)
Primary social ecology	Flexible social grouping; high social plasticity (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995)	Stable herd structure; social conservatism (Budiansky, 1997; Waring, 2003)
Imprinting	Clear sensitive period for social orientation (≈3–10 weeks), extendable to humans (Scott & Fuller, 1965; Freedman et al., 1961)	Primarily mare–foal recognition; limited beyond neonatal period (Waring, 2003)
Function of imprinting	Establishes early social orientation toward conspecifics and humans (Scott & Fuller, 1965)	Ensures early maternal recognition and cohesion (Waring, 2003)
Attachment (juvenile)	Strong puppy–caregiver attachment; selective proximity regulation and distress modulation (Topál et al., 1998)	Strong mare–foal attachment; declines with social integration (Søndergaard & Jago, 2010)
Attachment (adult)	Common toward humans; selective proximity regulation and stress buffering toward familiar partners (Topál et al., 1998; Gácsi et al., 2013)	Rare and context-specific; not typically expressed as proximity regulation under stress (Waring, 2003; Budiansky, 1997)
Bonding (conspecifics)	Selective social bonds; play and tolerance asymmetries (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995; Cafazzo et al., 2010)	Selective affiliative bonds; proximity and allogrooming (Waring, 2003)
Bonding (interspecific)	Stable, enduring bonds with humans common (Topál et al., 1998)	Bonds with humans experience-dependent and task-related (Budiansky, 1997)
Stress modulation by social partners	Strong; familiar humans or dogs reduce behavioral and physiological stress (Gácsi et al., 2013; Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003)	Moderate; preferred partners reduce fear responses and improve coping (Christensen et al., 2008; Lansade et al., 2008)
Bonding and stress regulation	Shared exposure to manageable challenges strengthens bonds via mutual regulation (Gácsi et al., 2013; Abrantes, 2025)	Shared coping and coordinated activity strengthen bonds via stress buffering (Christensen et al., 2008; Abrantes, 2025)
Neuroendocrine correlates	Oxytocin associated with human–dog bonding and stress modulation (Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003; Nagasawa et al., 2015)	Less directly studied; stress modulation inferred behaviorally and physiologically (Lansade et al., 2008)
Role of shared activity	Central to bond strengthening (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995; Abrantes, 2025)	Central to bond strengthening (Budiansky, 1997; Abrantes, 2025)
Risk of anthropomorphic misinterpretation	High if attachment inferred beyond demonstrated regulatory criteria (Topál et al., 1998)	High if attachment inferred without evidence of proximity regulation under stress (Waring, 2003)

Note. References listed in each cell are representative primary or synthetic sources supporting the stated patterns, not an exhaustive review. The table contrasts dominant tendencies shaped by species-specific ecology (predator vs. prey) and domestication history; individual variation and contextual effects are expected in both species.

Practical Implications for Human–Animal Interaction

The distinctions developed in this paper—between bonding, imprinting, and attachment—have direct implications for how humans interact with companion animals in everyday contexts. First, recognizing that imprinting is developmentally constrained, while attachment and bonding are not, underscores the importance of early social experience, particularly in dogs and in the mare–foal relationship in horses. In dogs, early social deprivation during sensitive periods has been shown to produce long-lasting deficits in social behavior and adaptability (Freedman et al., 1961; Scott & Fuller, 1965), while in horses, early handling and the quality of the mare–foal relationship significantly influence later responses to humans and novel situations (Søndergaard & Jago, 2010). These findings indicate that missed or impoverished early social exposure cannot be fully compensated for later by affiliative contact alone.

Second, understanding bonding as an experience-dependent and regulatory process shifts the emphasis from passive affiliative gestures to shared activity. While behaviors such as petting or eye contact can support short-term social engagement, empirical work in dogs shows that attachment-related stress buffering and proximity regulation are more robustly expressed in contexts involving coordinated interaction and human participation (Topál et al., 1998; Gácsi et al., 2013). Similarly, studies in horses indicate that social buffering effects are most evident when animals face challenges in the presence of a familiar partner, rather than through proximity alone (Christensen et al., 2008; Lansade et al., 2008).

Third, the role of manageable stress and challenge in bonding suggests that optimal interaction does not require eliminating all difficulty. Moderate stress, when predictably regulated and socially mediated, can facilitate learning and social cohesion rather than undermine it (Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001). This interpretation is consistent with comparative evidence showing that shared coping with environmental or task-related challenges strengthens affiliative relationships in both dogs and horses (Gácsi et al., 2013; Christensen et al., 2008), and aligns with a regulatory rather than hedonic understanding of bonding (Abrantes, 2025).

Finally, distinguishing bonding from attachment helps prevent anthropomorphic expectations. Dogs readily form attachment relationships with human partners that meet established behavioral criteria, including selective proximity regulation and stress buffering (Topál et al., 1998; Gácsi et al., 2013), whereas horses typically do not exhibit attachment patterns that map onto caregiver–offspring models, despite forming stable and meaningful social bonds (Waring, 2003; Budiansky, 1997). Recognizing these species-specific differences allows humans to interact more effectively and more respectfully with each animal, aligning expectations with biological and ecological realities rather than with human social norms (Clutton-Brock, 1991).

Conclusion

This analysis has aimed to clarify the concept of bonding by situating it within a comparative and evolutionary framework, while carefully distinguishing it from attachment and imprinting. Using domestic dogs and horses as case studies, we have shown that bonding is neither reducible to early phase-sensitive learning nor synonymous with attachment relationships, even when these processes overlap in development and function (Bateson, 1979; Bowlby, 1982). Rather, bonding emerges as a flexible, experience-dependent process grounded in repeated interaction, shared activity, and social regulation (Carter, 1998; Insel & Young, 2001).

The comparison between dogs and horses illustrates how species-specific ecology and domestication history shape the expression of social relationships. Dogs, as socially plastic carnivores selected for close cooperation with humans, readily form attachment relationships with human partners that persist into adulthood and meet established regulatory criteria (Topál et al., 1998; Gácsi et al., 2013). Horses, by contrast, as socially obligate prey animals, emphasize herd cohesion and selective affiliative bonds, with attachment most clearly expressed in early developmental contexts and selected interspecific situations (Waring, 2003; Budiansky, 1997). Despite these differences, both species demonstrate that enduring bonds are strengthened more by coordinated action and shared coping with challenge than by passive affiliation (Christensen et al., 2008; Gácsi et al., 2013).

More broadly, distinguishing ultimate evolutionary explanations from proximate bonding mechanisms helps avoid both anthropomorphism and unwarranted generalization (Hamilton, 1964; Tinbergen, 1963). Bonding can be favored by natural selection in species where it promotes cooperation, tolerance, survival, and reproductive success. Yet, it is instantiated through learning, social experience, and physiological regulation rather than through intention or moral sentiment. Recognizing this multi-level structure allows for a more precise and biologically grounded understanding of social relationships in companion animals. It provides a model that can be extended—cautiously and explicitly—to other social species.

Footnotes

Inclusive fitness refers to the total genetic contribution an individual makes to subsequent generations, including both direct reproduction and effects on the reproductive success of genetically related individuals, weighted by degree of relatedness. This concept explains how social behaviors that appear altruistic at the individual level can be favored by natural selection when they enhance the transmission of shared genes (Hamilton, 1964). ↩︎
Inclusive fitness provides an ultimate, evolutionary explanation for why bonding can be favored by natural selection; the formation and maintenance of bonds themselves depend on proximate mechanisms, including development, learning, social experience, and neuroendocrine regulation. ↩︎
Psychological frameworks of attachment, including the Strange Situation paradigm (Ainsworth et al., 1978) and its application to dogs by Topál et al. (1998), are cited here solely for their operational separation–reunion criteria. These approaches originate in human developmental psychology and have generated ongoing discussion regarding their scope and interpretation when applied across species or beyond early developmental contexts (Hinde, 1982; Wynne, 2004; Buller, 2005). In the present paper, their use is restricted to clearly defined behavioral patterns, without theoretical commitments concerning mental states or emotional experience. ↩︎
Bowlby explicitly characterizes attachment in biological terms: “Attachment behaviour is regarded as a class of social behaviour of an importance equivalent to that of mating behaviour and parental behaviour. It is held to have a biological function specific to itself […]” (Bowlby, 1982, p. 223). This formulation treats attachment as an evolved behavioral system defined by function rather than by species-specific expression. ↩︎
Carter summarizes the functional role of social attachment as follows: “[…] social attachments function to facilitate reproduction, provide a sense of security and reduce feelings of stress or anxiety” (Carter, 1998, p. 779). ↩︎
As a general evolutionary principle, Silk defines the conditions under which sociality evolves as follows: “[…] sociality evolves when the net benefits of close association with conspecifics exceed the costs” (Silk, 2007, p. 539). This formulation provides the ultimate-level framework within which affiliative behaviors such as grooming, play, and cooperative defense can be understood as mechanisms that increase the reliability and benefits of social partners. ↩︎
The statement that imprinting produces a bond refers to the fact that imprinting establishes a stable social preference or orientation toward a particular individual, class of individuals, or stimulus, thereby generating an affiliative relation. However, imprinting is only one possible developmental pathway to bonding. Many bonds—such as adult affiliative relationships, cooperative partnerships, or interspecific social bonds—arise through repeated interaction, shared experience, and social regulation outside any restricted sensitive period. Conversely, not all bonds involve attachment in the strict sense defined by selective proximity seeking and distress regulation under separation. Attachment represents a specific subset of bonds, typically associated with dependency and security regulation, whereas bonding is the broader category encompassing a range of affiliative and cooperative social relationships (Bowlby, 1982; Bateson, 1979; Carter, 1998). ↩︎
The term imprinting (original German Prägung) was introduced by Konrad Lorenz to describe a distinctive form of early learning observed in birds, characterized by rapid acquisition, restricted to a sensitive developmental period, and relatively independent of reinforcement (Lorenz, 1935). Early formulations emphasized the apparent irreversibility of imprinting effects; however, subsequent research has shown that while imprinting outcomes are often highly stable, they are not invariably permanent and may be modifiable under certain conditions, particularly with later experience or altered social environments (Bateson, 1979; Horn, 2004). Significantly, this qualification does not undermine the core concept. Instead, it reflects a broader shift away from rigid dichotomies between innate and learned behavior toward a developmental perspective in which evolved predispositions interact with experience. Although the term imprinting has declined in frequency relative to broader constructs such as early learning or developmental plasticity, it remains scientifically relevant as a label for phase-sensitive learning processes that are rapid, time-constrained, and shaped by species-specific developmental programs rather than by associative conditioning alone. ↩︎

References

Abrantes, R. (2025, November 24). Stress helps learning and bonding.
https://rogerabrantes.com/2025/11/24/stress-helps-learning-and-bonding/

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 9780470267079

Bateson, P. (1979). How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Animal Behaviour, 27(2), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90184-2

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969). ISBN 9780465005437

Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Nott, H. M. R. (1995). Social and communication behaviour of companion dogs. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (pp. 115–130). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521415293

Budiansky, S. (1997). The nature of horses: Exploring equine evolution, intelligence, and behavior. Free Press. ISBN 9780684827681

Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262524608

Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P., Bonanni, R., & Natoli, E. (2010). Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq001

Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(98)00055-9

Christensen, J. W., Malmkvist, J., Nielsen, B. L., & Keeling, L. J. (2008). Effects of a calm companion on fear reactions in naïve test horses. Equine Veterinary Journal, 40(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.2746/042516408X245171

Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691024685

Freedman, D. G., King, J. A., & Elliot, O. (1961). Critical period in the social development of dogs. Science, 133(3457), 1016–1017. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.133.3457.1016

Gácsi, M., Maros, K., Sernkvist, S., Faragó, T., & Miklósi, Á. (2013). Human analogue safe haven effect of the owner: Behavioural and heart rate response to stressful social stimuli in dogs. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58475. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058475

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6

Horn, G. (2004). Pathways of the past: The imprint of memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(2), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1324

Insel, T. R., & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/35053579

Lansade, L., Bouissou, M.-F., & Erhard, H. W. (2008). Fearfulness in horses: A temperament trait stable across time and situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109(2–4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.06.011

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83, 137–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01905355

Nagasawa, M., Mitsui, S., En, S., et al. (2015). Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human–dog bonds. Science, 348(6232), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261022

Odendaal, J. S. J., & Meintjes, R. A. (2003). Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 165(3), 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X

Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226743430

Silk, J. B. (2007). The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1994

Søndergaard, E., & Jago, J. G. (2010). The effect of early handling of foals on their reaction to handling, humans and novelty, and the foal–mare relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 123(3–4), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.006

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x

Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219

Waring, G. H. (2003). Horse behavior (2nd ed.). William Andrew Publishing. ISBN 9780815514871

Wynne, C. D. L. (2004). Do animals think? Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691118650

Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Nov 10 2025

Muzzle Grasp Behavior in Canids

Dog muzzle grab. — *Dogs also exhibit the muzzle grasp behavior (photo by Marco de Kloet).*

A “Muzzle grasp” (or muzzle grab) is a common behavior shown by social canines, e.g., wolves (Canis lupus lupus), dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). The primary function of this behavior is to confirm a relationship rather than to settle a dispute. The more self-confident or higher-ranking individual will muzzle-grasp a more insecure or lower-ranking partner to assert its social position. The more insecure individual does not resist the grasp; on the contrary, it often displays submissive behavior, literally inviting its partner to muzzle-grasp it. Even though we sometimes see this behavior at the end of a dispute, wolves and dogs only use it toward individuals they know well—pack members—as a kind of saying, “You’re still a cub (pup).” The dispute itself tends not to be serious, merely a low-key challenge, often over access to a resource. Youngsters, cubs, and pups sometimes solicit adults to muzzle-grasp them. This behavior appears reassuring to them.

The muzzle-grasp behavior emerges early in development. Canine mothers muzzle-grasp their puppies (sometimes accompanied by a growl) to deter them from suckling during weaning. Field observations confirm this mechanism. As Packard, Mech, and Ream (1992, p. 1274) report, “In the context of playing, begging, and sharing, pups did not leave when another wolf muzzled, snapped, or lunged. In contrast, the muzzling by the nurser in the context of suckling terminated the pups’ attempts to gain access to nipples.” This observation illustrates the early communicative value of the muzzle contact as both a mild inhibitory and relational signal. Cubs and pups also muzzle-grasp one another during play, typically between six and nine weeks of age. They probably learn through play that the muzzle-grasp is an effective way of stopping an opponent from doing something, while also learning bite inhibition. If they bite too hard, they elicit a fight and risk injury. A muzzle-grasp, therefore, does not involve biting, only grasping. This behavior helps develop a relationship of trust between both parties—“we don’t hurt one another.”

Similar tactile interactions, including muzzle-to-muzzle contact, also occur in post-conflict and affiliative contexts among wolves. Cordoni and Palagi (2019) describe reciprocal muzzle-licking between adults and immature pack members following mild conflicts—acts that function as “consolation” and reinforce social bonds. Although a muzzle-grasp differs mechanically from muzzle-licking, both share an underlying functional value: the restoration or affirmation of trust within a dyad. These tactile gestures exemplify the nuanced physical vocabulary through which canids maintain cohesion and mitigate tension within the pack.

Classic naturalist observations (Zimen, 1981) describe frequent muzzle-to-muzzle contacts and note adults seizing pups’ muzzles during play and weaning; together with quantitative field data (Packard, Mech, & Ream, 1992), this supports the view that muzzle contact is an early-emerging, ritualised tactile signal rather than an aggressive act.

When used to settle a dispute, a muzzle-grasp may appear more violent and usually ends with the individual being muzzle-grasped exhibiting passive, submissive behavior. Yet participants very seldom, if ever, get hurt, an occurrence that would undermine the behavior’s function.

Left: Cubs and pups muzzle grasp one another during play. Right: Muzzle grasp in adult wolves (photos by Monty Sloan).

A muzzle-grasp requires self-control. Higher-ranking wolves and dogs muzzle-grasp their pack members (teammates) and, by doing so, confirm their rank while displaying restraint. Lower-ranking wolves and dogs often engage in muzzle-grasping behavior to affirm their social position and reassure themselves that they remain included in the group.

The muzzle-grasp behavior probably originated as both a form of maternal (and later paternal) control and as a play behavior among cubs. As it appears to have been beneficial to all parties involved, it may have become a factor favored by natural selection, spreading from generation to generation and evolving as any other trait that enhances the fitness of individuals within cohesive social groups.

In domestic dogs, when puppies are about five to seven weeks old, their mother regularly muzzle-grasps them to deter suckling. At first, her behavior frightens them, and they may whimper excessively, even though she does not harm them. Later, when grasped by the muzzle, the puppy immediately shows passive submissive behavior—lying on its back and exposing its ventral side. Previously, it was assumed that the mother needed to pin the puppy to the ground; however, Packard et al. (1992) observed that, in wolves, in practice, “[…] on the occasions when the nurser winced or muzzled the pups, the pups did not persist” and that “[…] counter-tactics for overcoming nurser rejection did not occur (pp. 1271–1272).” Most puppies submit voluntarily. Over time, this behavior pattern assumes variations. Wolf cubs and puppies often invite the alpha male (the leader of the pack and, in wolves, usually their father) as well as other adults to grasp them by the muzzle, thereby soliciting a demonstration of their elders’ superiority and self-control while simultaneously showing their own acceptance and submissiveness. This is among the most reassuring behaviors an adult can show a youngster.

Domestic dogs sometimes approach their owners puffing gently with their noses. By gently placing a hand around their muzzle, we may reassure them of acceptance, demonstrate self-control, and convey that they can trust us. That is speaking dog-language to the best of our abilities. After being muzzle-grasped for a while, the dog will usually show a nose-lick, perhaps yawn, and then walk calmly away. It is as if the dog were saying, “I’m still your puppy,” and the owner replied, “I know—and I’ll take good care of you.”

The muzzle-grasp behavior can be challenging to classify. Some researchers see it as social or affiliative, others as agonistic, and still others as pacifying. Because its primary function is to confirm and maintain relationships, it may best be considered a social behavior—a ritualized, low-intensity interaction that reinforces trust and cohesion within the group.

Next time your dog gently nudges or invites a muzzle‑grasp, pause for a moment—what you see as a simple dog behavior is, in canine language, a subtle conversation of trust and understanding.

References

Abrantes, R. (1987). Hundesprog. Borgen Forlag, Copenhagen.

Abrantes, R. (1997). The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Naperville, IL: Wakan Tanka Publishers.

Abrantes, R. (2011, December 11). Dominance—Making sense of the nonsense. Roger Abrantes Blog. https://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/

Cordoni, G., & Palagi, E. (2019). Back to the future: A glance over wolf social behavior to understand dog–human relationship. Animals, 9(11), 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110991

Packard, J. M., Mech, L. D., & Ream, R. R. (1992). Weaning in an Arctic wolf pack: Behavioral mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(7), 1269–1275. https://doi.org/10.1139/z92-177. USGS+1 PDF (scanned article, pages shown above): https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/172weaningarcticwolf.pdf

Zimen, E. (1981). The wolf: His place in the natural world. Souvenir Press Ltd. ISBN 9780285624115

Note: I first wrote about the muzzle grasp behavior in canids in my Danish book Hundesprog (1987), where I called it “mund om snuden,” which translates directly as “mouth around the snout.” This term became “muzzle grasp” in the first English edition of the book, titled Dog Language. I later wrote Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids on April 25, 2012. Two years afterward, on March 13, 2014, I revised it as Canine Muzzle Grasp Behavior—Advanced Dog Language. True to my philosophy of updating articles and papers as new evidence emerges, I have once again revised this work. The latest version, published in November 2025, appears here under the title Muzzle Grasp Behavior in Canids.

Apr 12 2017

The Function of Champing Behaviour: An Ethological Account in Canines

Abstract

Champing refers to a conspicuous chewing or jaw-working motion performed in the absence of food and observed in social contexts in dogs and other canids. This short paper provides a descriptive ethological account of champing, interprets its function as a pacifying signal, and places it within established frameworks of social interaction and ontogenetic development. The behaviour is defined as a distinct ethological category based on the author’s long-term observations and comparative analysis.

Champing (also termed chomping) refers to a conspicuous, often audible chewing or jaw-working motion performed in the absence of food. In dogs and other canids, this behaviour is typically observed in social contexts. It is associated with affiliative intent, pacifying, insecurity, or submissiveness, depending on its intensity, timing, and accompanying signals.¹

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this behaviour has not previously been described or formally defined as a distinct ethological category, despite being intermittently observed and subsumed under broader classes of pacifying or displacement behaviours.²

Across contexts, champing possesses a clear pacifying function. Pacifying behaviour (from Latin pacificare, pax = peace, facere = to make) comprises actions whose function is to reduce social tension, inhibit aggressive or dominant behaviour in another individual, or restore a state of social calm, as defined within an interactional framework of social behaviour (Hinde, 1976). In dogs, commonly described pacifying behaviours include licking, muzzle nudging, nose touching, pawing, yawning, body twisting, and head turning, all of which may be directed toward conspecifics or humans.

Champing is widely employed by canids in situations ranging from mild uncertainty to more pronounced social stress. Its acoustic and rhythmic properties appear to contribute to its communicative value, functioning as a low-risk, non-confrontational signal that advertises non-threatening intent (Lorenz, 1966).

janegoodallandchimp1 — *Jane Goodall used to break a branch and pretend to chomp on it to pacify chimpanzees, showing some unease (photo by Derek Bryceson/National Geographic Creative).*

Ontogenetically, champing has a plausible developmental basis. One of the earliest repetitive oral sounds in mammalian neonates is produced during suckling and is closely linked to satisfaction, warmth, and social contact. In puppies, early oral motor patterns tied to nursing occur in a context of comfort and need fulfilment. As development continues, elements of this behaviour are redirected into social functions, where champing helps turn uncomfortable or ambiguous interactions into more benign ones. Initially, the behaviour is closely tied to hunger reduction; later, it becomes separate from feeding and acquires a distinct communicative function (Hinde, 1982).

In adult dogs, champing is a clear and effective signal of affiliative or conciliatory intent. Similar patterns appear across mammals, where oral behaviours linked to nursing and sucking are associated with reduced arousal and resting states. This suggests early sensory–motor associations may keep a tension-reducing function throughout life.³

Comparable observations exist in primates. Jane Goodall reported deliberately mimicking chewing movements—such as breaking a twig and pretending to chew it—to pacify chimpanzees displaying signs of unease (Goodall, 1971).

In applied animal contexts, the author has often used champing with apparent success when interacting with dogs or horses, consistent with its proposed pacifying function.

Footnotes

In ethology, the formal identification and naming of behavioural patterns commonly precede their experimental isolation or quantification. Descriptive classification based on repeated observation, functional context, and comparative consistency has historically been a primary means by which distinct behavioural units are recognised, refined, and later subjected to experimental analysis. ↩︎
The present account is based on the author’s long-term ethological observations and comparative analyses of canine social behaviour, first described in Dog Language (Abrantes, 1986 and 1997). It is descriptive and functional in scope and does not claim experimental isolation, quantitative prevalence estimates, or phylogenetic exclusivity for champing behaviour. In the absence of prior formal treatment of this behaviour as a distinct category, these observations constitute the primary empirical basis for the description and interpretation presented here. ↩︎
Evidence for the calming or arousal-reducing effects of suckling and related oral behaviours in mammals is well established in the developmental and comparative literature. Studies of non-nutritive sucking and nursing behaviour report associations with reduced behavioural arousal and increased resting or quiet states in a range of species (e.g. Blass, 1980; Veissier et al., 2002). While these works do not address champing or later social signalling directly, they provide developmental support for the inference that early oral sensory–motor patterns may retain residual tension-reducing properties when redeployed in other behavioural contexts. ↩︎

References

Abrantes, R. (1997). Dog language: An encyclopedia of canine behaviour. Wakan Tanka, Publishers. (Original work published as Hundesprog in 1986).

Blass, E. M. (1980). Suckling. Science, 210(4472), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6997992

Goodall, J. (1971). In the shadow of man. London: Collins.

Hinde, R. A. (1976). Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2800384

Hinde, R. A. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with other sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. London: Methuen.

Veissier, I., de Passillé, A. M., Després, G., Rushen, J., Charpentier, I., Ramirez de la Fe, A. R., & Pradel, P. (2002). Does nutritive and non-nutritive sucking reduce other oral behaviors and stimulate rest in calves? Journal of Animal Science, 80(10), 2574–2587. https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/80.10.2574

Featured image: Champing behaviour has a pacifying function—attempting to turn an unpleasant situation into a pleasant one.

This article is originally written on April 12, 2017 and slightly edited on January 2, 2026.

Nov 11 2014

Canine Maternal Behavior

Canine maternal behavior is more than just feeding the pups. It is also to teach them dog language (Illustration by Alice Rasmussen from “Dog Language” by Roger Abrantes).

Watching dog mothers take care of their pups continues to fascinate me, and the large populations of village dogs in Africa and Thailand, where I spent and spend a great deal of my time, provides me with plenty of opportunities to do it. Village dogs are domestic dogs, not wild dogs. Often classified as stray dogs by the inept, ignorant eye of the western tourist, these dogs perform an important task in their communities of humans and their domestic animals.

Maternal behavior is behavior shown by a mother toward her offspring. In most species, it is the mother that primarily takes care of the youngsters, and the dog is no exception. Natural selection has favored the evolution of this particular behavior of the females.

In wild canids, although it is mostly the female that takes care of the puppies, the father (also called the alpha male) and other adults do become interested in the feeding and raising of the puppies when they begin emerging from the den. In the studies my team did in the 80s, our dogs showed the same pattern in a domestic set-up.

Maternal behavior is, thus, almost identical in wild a canids and domestic dogs. Immediately after birth, the mother dries the puppies, keeps them warm, feeds them and licks them clean. The maternal behavior right after birth is controlled by hormonal processes and problems may occur if the female gives birth too early. On the other hand, pseudo-pregnancy causes females to undergo hormonal changes which may elicit maternal behavior in various degrees. Maternal behavior seems to be self-reinforcing. Studies show that the levels of dopamine increase in the nucleus accumbens (a region of the brain) when a female displays maternal behavior.

When the puppies become older, the mother begins to educate them. She gives them the first lessons in dog language about the time weaning begins. Growling, snarling and the various pacifying behaviors are inborn, but the puppies need to learn their function.

The canine mother has three main tasks: (1) to feed the puppies, first with her own milk, then by regurgitation, (2) to keep them clean and warm, especially when they are very young, and (3) to educate the puppies.

A good canine mother is patient and diligent. When the puppies grow, dog owners often misunderstand the mother’s apparently more violent educational methods. She may growl at them and even attack them, but she never harms them. Muzzle grabbing (see illustrations) is fairly common. Without the mother’s intervention, the puppies would never become capable social animals and would not be able to function properly in a pack (a group of wild dogs living together is in English called a pack). When the puppies are about 8-10 weeks old, the mother seems to lose some of her earlier interest in them. In normal circumstances, the rest of the pack, then, takes over the continuing education of the puppies, their social integration in the group (which probably mostly consists of relatives) and their protection.

Dog owners sometimes report problems, e.g. that the mother has no interest in her puppies, or is too violent towards them. These problems are mainly due to our selective breeding (we select for beauty and utility while nature selects for overall fitness, hereby included adequate maternal behavior) and to our lack of understanding of the mother’s needs during and after birth, which often result in the female showing stress, insecurity or aggressive behavior.

Maternal effect is the mother’s influence on her puppies. It can have such an impact on certain behavior patterns that it can be difficult to distinguish between maternal effect and the effect of genetics. For example, observations have shown that a female reacting too nervously or fearfully toward certain sounds may affect her puppies into developing sound phobias beyond what we would expect given the puppies’ specific genotype. The strong influence of the maternal effect on the behavior of her puppies is the main reason why it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess the hereditary coefficient for particular traits.

Bottom-line: Do not breed females that you suspect will not show reliable maternal behavior. Do not disturb a female with her pups more than absolutely necessary. A good canine mother knows better than you what’s best for her pups.

As always, enjoy a peaceful day,

Vertebrates Share Ancient Neural Circuitry for Complex Social Behaviors, Biologists Find (thesciencebulletin.wordpress.com)
Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids (dogs, wolf, behavior) 2012.04.25
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (aggression, behavior, biology, dogs, dominance, fear, genetics, hierarchy, submission, social, wolf) 2011.12.11
The Spectrum of Behavior (aggression, behavior, dominance, fear, submission) 2011.09.09

References

Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
Abrantes, R. 1997. Dog Language. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Scribner.
Darwin, C. 1872. The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. John Murray (the original edition).
Fox, M. 1972. Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs, and Related Canids. Harper and Row.
Lopez, Barry H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men. J. M. Dent and Sons Limited.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday Publishing Co., New York.
Mech, L. David (1981). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press.
Mech, L. D. 1988. The arctic wolf: living with the pack. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minn.
Mech. L. D. and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.
Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. 1998. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press.
Zimen, E. 1975. Social dynamics of the wolf pack. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 336-368.
Zimen, E. 1982. A wolf pack sociogram. In Wolves of the world. Edited by F. H. Harrington, and P. C. Paquet. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, NJ.

May 10 2014

Does Your Dog Show Allelomimetic Behavior?

Does your dog show allelomimetic behavior? I’m sure it does, but don’t worry, it’s not dangerous, except when it is, and yes, it is contagious. Confused? Keep reading.

Allelomimetic behavior is doing what others do. Some behaviors have a strong probability of influencing others to do the same. Animals in constant contact with one another will inevitably develop allelomimetic behavior.

Dogs exhibit various allelomimetic behaviors—walking, running, sitting, lying down, getting up, sleeping, barking, and howling—each of which has a strong tendency to stimulate others to do the same.

Social predators increase their hunting success when they hunt in unison. One individual setting after the prey is likely to trigger the same response in the whole group.

More often than we think, it is our own behavior that triggers our dog’s allelomimetic behavior (photo by SunVilla).

The wolf’s howl is allelomimetic, one more behavior our domestic dogs share with their wild cousins. Howling together functions as social bonding. When one wolf howls, the whole pack may join in, especially if a high-ranking wolf started it. I bet that if you go down on your knees, turn your head up, and howl (provided you are a half-decent howler), your dog will join you; then, it will attempt to show its team spirit by licking your face.

Sleeping and eating are examples of allelomimetic behavior. Dogs and cats tend to sleep and eat at the same time. Barking is also contagious. One barking dog can set the whole neighborhood’s dogs barking.

Synchronizing behavior may be a lifesaver. In prey animals like the deer, zebra, or wildebeest, one individual can trigger the whole herd to flee. This trait is so crucial for self-preservation that farm animals like sheep, cows, and horses still keep it. Grazing also occurs at the same time.

Running after a running child is more often an example of canine allelomimetic behavior than hunting or herding as many dog owners erroneously presume.

Allelomimetic behavior is not restricted to animals of the same species. Animals of different species that live together often exhibit allelomimetic behavior. Dogs can read body language and respond to certain behaviors of their owners without further instruction. An alerted owner triggers his dog’s alertness more often than not.

Puppies show allelomimetic behavior at about five weeks of age. It is an intrinsic part of your dog’s behavior to adjust to the behavior of its companions. Your behavior influences your dog’s behavior in many more instances than you realize.

At the neurological level, when we watch someone perform an action, our own motor system often “echoes” it—a process known as motor resonance. This effect is made possible by mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we do something and when we see another individual doing the same. Research suggests that dogs may share this ability: their tendency to move, look, or react in sync with humans may stem from similar neural mirroring processes (Lamontagne & Gaunet, 2024).

From an evolutionary and behavioral standpoint, because we have selected and bred our dogs to be highly sociable and socially promiscuous, they exhibit extended allelomimetic behavior, i.e., not only copying the behavior of their closest companions but also that of others. Next time you walk in the park and your dog runs after running children, you can casually comment, “Typical instance of allelomimetic behavior.” Not that it will solve any problem, if there is one, but you’ll be right, and I bet you will impress more than a few of your fellow park walkers.

__________________

References

Abrantes, R. (1997). Dog language: An encyclopedia of canine behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.

Lamontagne, A., & Gaunet, F. (2024). Behavioural synchronisation between dogs and humans: Unveiling interspecific motor resonance? Animals, 14(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040548

Scott, J. P., & Marston, M. V. (1950). Social facilitation and allelomimetic behavior in dogs. II. The effects of unfamiliarity. Behaviour, 2(3), 135–143. Retrieved from https://mouseion.jax.org/stfb1950_1959/19/

Vogel, H. H., Scott, J. P., & Marston, M. V. (1950). Social facilitation and allelomimetic behavior in dogs. I. Social facilitation in a non-competitive situation. Behaviour, 2(3), 121–134. Retrieved from https://mouseion.jax.org/stfb1950_1959/24/

__________________

Note: Careful ethological observation sometimes anticipates neurobehavioral discoveries by decades. I described canine allelomimetic behavior in my 1987 book Hundesprog (later published in English as Dog Language, 1997)—a phenomenon that would only gain neurobiological support 34 years later with the findings of Lamontagne and Gaunet (2024), which strongly suggest the potential existence of interspecific motor resonance.

Mar 8 2013

Les 20 principes que tous les entraîneurs d’animaux doivent connaître

Traduit par Marie-France Langlois (from the original in English “The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know“).

En supplément : « Seize principes à l’intention des entraîneurs expérimentés » et « Les pratiques exemplaires »

“The 20 Principles All Animals Trainers Must Know”

C’est la première fois qu’un de mes livres est publié en français et c’est avec grand plaisir que j’offre à mes lecteurs francophones un livre dans leur propre langue.

Ce petit livre de seulement 51 pages comprend des définitions, des explications et des exemples des processus impliqués dans l’entraînement des animaux. Aux « 20 principes fondamentaux » j’ai ajouté un supplément de 16 principes à l’intention des entraîneurs expérimentés. Bien sûr l’apprentissage chez les animaux ne se réduit pas à ces 36 principes, mais en pratique l’entraîneur qui les comprend et peut les appliquer correctement, réussira sans doute.

Comme toujours, je vais corriger et améliorer ce livre dès que je découvre des erreurs ou de meilleures façons d’expression. Donc, je vous recommande de consulter cette page régulièrement.

Première édition.

J’espère que vous passerez un bon moment avec votre lecture.

R—

PS—Ce livre est gratuit pour votre lecture online sur votre ordinateur. S’il vous plaît, ne me demandez pas d’ajouter la possibilité d’impression; j’aime des livres, mais j’aime aussi bien les arbres de notre planète. Nous prévoyons des versions pour iPad et Kindle bientôt.

Cliquez sur le « icône mode plein écran » pour une meilleure lisibilité . Zoom avant et arrière comme vous le souhaitez.

Sorry, this book is no longer available here. Please, visit Ethology Institute’s Online Bookstore.

Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Mar 5 2013

Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer

Traduzido pelo autor e Nor Abrantes (from the original in English “The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know“).

com os suplementos “Mais 16 princípios para o treinador avançado” e “Melhor prática”

“Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer”

É a primeira vez que um livro meu, se bem que pequeno, aparece traduzido em português. É para mim razão de contentamento poder oferecer ao meus leitores um livro na língua dos meus ancestrais.

Este livro é um livro de ciência; não é um livro de moral ou ética. Tudo o que encontrará aqui não reflete uma atitude moral, uma escola de pensamento, nem a minha opinião pessoal. Eu dou-lhe o que a ciência descobriu e sabe sobre a aprendizagem animal tão objetivamente como possível. Cabe a si decidir se intende usar um processo ou outro, formar a sua própria “melhor prática,” resolver os seus conflitos éticos e desenvolver o seu estilo pessoal.

Como sempre, irei corrigir e melhorar este livro assim que descobrir erros ou melhores modos de expressão. Aconselho-o, portanto, a voltar regularmente a esta página.

Esta é a primeira edição.

Espero que passe umas boas horas com a sua leitura.

R—

PS—Este livro é grátis para ler no seu computador online. Por favor, não me peça para adicionar a possibilidade de o imprimir; por muito que goste de livros, também gosto muito das árvores do nosso planeta. Estamos a planear versões para iPad e Kindle para breve.

Clique o “full-screen view icon” para uma melhor leitura. Zoom in and out como deseja.

Sorry, this book is no longer available here. Please, visit Ethology Institute’s Online Bookstore.

The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Feb 28 2013

E così vorresti diventare un buon educatore cinofilo!

Tradotto da Paolo Terrile (from the original in English “So you want to be a good dog trainer!“)

Il lancio dei Guinea Pig Camps ha attirato l’attenzione di molti amanti degli animali, in particolare degli educatori cinofili. Due specifiche domande mi sono state fatte ripetutamente: (1) in che modo addestrare un porcellino d’India mi può far diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo? (2) Cosa c’entrano i porcellini d’India con i cani?

Un porcellino d’India su una palizzata. I porcellini non sono particolarmente agili, ma amano le sfide. Un buon addestratore può insegnare loro parecchi trucchi.

La abilità di base per addestrare un cane solo le stesse che servono per addestrare qualsiasi animale. L’unica differenza è che – evidentemente – un cane è un cane e non un cavallo, o un porcellino d’India. Il che è un aspetto positivo poiché (a motivo della storia che abbiamo in comune con i cani) non c’è animale più facile da addestrare di un cane. Al tempo stesso, proprio perché i cani ci rendono la vita più semplice, c’è un limite a ciò che possiamo imparare se addestriamo solo cani e mai altri animali.

I cani perdonano i nostri errori e sono praticamente sempre disponibili a cooperare con noi. Altre specie animali invece ci considerano con maggior attenzione e esigono che guadagniamo la loro fiducia. Se non si fidano di noi, non seguiranno i nostri insegnamenti e quindi non potremo addestrarli.

Un cavallo non vi seguirà se non si fida di voi e serve molto per ottenere la fiducia di un cavallo (e solo un attimo per perderla completamente). Potete dargli quante carote volete, ma se decide che non si può fidare di voi, le migliori carote del mondo saranno inutili.

Un gatto ammiccherà a voi ed al cibo che gli state offrendo almeno un paio di volte, prima di considerare persino la possibilità di avvicinarsi. Dopodiché, se considererà la vostra richiesta adeguata in cambio del cibo che gli state offrendo, potrà accettare le vostre attenzioni. Altrimenti, ammiccherà ancora una volta (se siete fortunati), prima di rimettersi a sonnecchiare.

Un cane e un porcellino d’India insieme. Addestrare un porcellino d’India può farsi diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo (foto letsbefriends.blogspot.com).

Il porcellino d’India – un piccolo animale sociale, di aspetto accattivante – è per natura pauroso e diffidente, essendo la preda favorita di molti predatori, tra cui anche l’uomo. A differenza del cane, l’uomo non condivide col porcellino d’India una comune storia evolutiva e, pertanto, questo animale non vi concederà alcunché senza qualcosa in cambio. Dovrete lavorare per ottenere la fiducia del porcellino d’India e dimostrargli che cooperare con voi è vantaggioso nel breve e nel lungo termine.

Addestrare i porcellini d’India vi insegnerà molte tra le questioni teoriche dell’apprendimento animale, che trovereste noioso leggere in un libro; per contro, le apprenderete in modo divertente poiché ne avrete esperienza immediata e diretta. Dovrete essere precisi ed applicare i metodi corretti per ottenere il giusto comportamento. Avrete inoltre la possibilità di applicare l’intera gamma del condizionamento operante, migliorando quindi le vostre capacità pratiche.

I cani sono animali eccezionali e siamo fortunati perché sono (quasi) sempre attenti a ciò che facciamo e sono ottimi osservatori. Come diceva a lezione il Professor Lorenz, “i cani sono etologi migliori di quanto lo siamo noi”. Non è invece questo il caso dei porcellini d’India, che non hanno una storia di co-evoluzione comune con noi. Hanno certamente ottime capacità di osservazione, ma non sono particolarmente attenti al nostro comportamento. Dovrete essere quindi voi stessi degli osservatori molto attenti per individuare il momento giusto per mettere in atto il metodo corretto per ottenere il comportamento desiderato; in questo modo, potrete sviluppare la vostra capacità di osservazione, il che indubbiamente farà di voi un miglior educatore cinofilo.

Siamo così abituati alla presenza dei cani che tendiamo ad interpretarne il comportamento come se fossero umani, commettendo così un grave errore per il quale, spesso, non subiamo conseguenze. Con i porcellini d’India, impariamo invece ad osservare, analizzare ed interpretare il comportamento in maniera oggettiva.

Animali di specie diverse possono sviluppare ottime relazioni e vivere tra loro in armonia (foto Dashawk).

Potete insegnare molte cose ai cani anche senza aver prima pianificato l’addestramento. Sono infatti così attivi e desiderosi di compiacere che, prima o poi, faranno qualcosa che vi piace e che potrete rinforzare. Questo però non accade invece con i porcellini d’India. Dovrete pianificare in anticipo l’addestramento, definire in modo chiaro i vostri obiettivi and preparare un piano di intervento. Con i cani, possiamo andare a braccio, ma ciò non è possibile con altri animali. Addestrare porcellini d’India vi insegnerà inoltre ad essere pronti per gli imprevisti, a preparare piani alternativi, predisponendo un piano B quando il piano A non funziona nel modo atteso. Una volta che avrete appreso questa capacità, il vostro cane sarà il primo a ringraziarvi se condurrete per le vostre sessioni di addestramento definendo in anticipo il piano di intervento.

Siete certamente consapevoli che il senso del tempo è essenziale quando educate il vostro cane, ma – in modo abbastanza sorprendente – avrete comunque risultati accettabili anche quando il rinforzo non arriva al momento giusto. Con i cani è come canticchiare alla buona un motivetto, che i vostri amici riconosceranno comunque. Con i porcellini d’India bisogna essere intonati e cantare senza errori, o altrimenti vi suggeriranno di prepararvi meglio, prima di ripresentarvi. Dopo aver addestrato i porcellini d’India, il vostro senso del tempo sarà molto più preciso.

Molte persone non riescono a percepire completamente quello che accade intorno a loro, perché sono eccessivamente preoccupate dei loro sentimenti ed emozioni. Possiamo permetterci questo tipo di distrazioni con i cani, ma non invece con altri animali e, quindi, addestrare i porcellini d’India vi aiuterà a focalizzare la vostra attenzione sull’animale che state addestrando ed a sviluppare una maggiore attenzione per i particolari. Ciò aumenterà anche la consapevolezza di voi stessi, il che vi renderà non solo un ottimo addestratore di porcellini d’India, ma anche un educatore cinofilo migliore – influendo positivamente sulla vostra vita in senso più generale.

Nei nostri seminari, lavorerete in squadre di tre. Ciascuna squadra pianificherà un piano di intervento, che sarà stilato in anticipo, verrà ripreso in video durante la sua esecuzione, analizzato successivamente, modificato e quindi eseguito. I membri della squadra si avvicenderanno nell’addestramento, nella registrazione delle sessioni e nelle riprese. Migliorerete le vostre capacità di lavorare in gruppo, una capacità che vi sarà utile non soltanto quando tornerete ad educare i cani, ma in tutti i settori della vostra vita.

Adesso potete comprendere come addestrare un piccolo e piacevole porcellino d’India potrà farvi diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo, di cani, di gatti o addirittura un miglior collega di lavoro migliorando la vostra capacità di osservazione, il senso del tempo e l’abilità di lavorare in gruppo. Mentre i vostri colleghi potranno metterci un po’ per apprezzare i miglioramenti, il vostro cane se ne accorgerà subito, ve lo prometto. Potreste anche un fumetto sopra la sua testa, mentre dice “Che bello! Cosa ho fatto per meritarmi ciò? È come avere un proprietario nuovo di zecca!”

Police guinea pig? Not exactly yet, but who knows. You could be the trainer of the first Guinea Pig tobacco and gunpowder detector.

Se vi piace il lavoro di discriminazione olfattiva, addestrare un porcellino d’India è la cosa migliore che possiate fare e vi insegnerà molto. Hanno un buon senso dell’olfatto, ma dovrete essere bravi a motivarli e ad avere un ottimo senso del tempo.

In un certo senso, un guinea pig camp è un mini corso di etologia (la scienza del comportamento animale). La maggior parte dei proprietari e anche molti addestratori non sono in grado di distinguere tra le quattro categorie di comportamenti che gli animali sociali hanno sviluppato nel corso dell’evoluzione: i c.d. comportamenti aggressivi, di paura, dominanti e di sottomissione. Confondere il comportamento aggressivo con quello dominante, come pure quello di paura con quello di sottomissione è uno spiacevole errore, peraltro ancora troppo comune, nonostante il fatto che ciascuno di questi comportamenti possiede funzioni ed espressioni specifiche.

Quando addestrate un porcellino d’India, non è importante che riusciate o meno a distinguere i comportamenti dominanti e di sottomissione dai comportamenti aggressivi o di paura, anche se si tratta di comportamenti normali per i porcellini d’India. Tuttavia, non esiste alcuna possibilità che voi entriate a far parte del branco dei porcellini d’India. Sarete sempre lo straniero, ma potrete decidere se essere uno straniero amichevole e meritevole di fiducia, oppure uno straniero angosciante e inaffidabile. Sarà una vostra scelta, che non è difficile da mettere in pratica, ma che richiede di pensare attentamente a quello che state facendo.

Così come i cavali, anche i porcellini d’India nel dubbio reagiscono con paura (un comportamento chiave per la loro sopravvivenza nella storia della loro evoluzione). Mostrare un atteggiamento composto e sicuro di sé funziona bene, ma ogni comportamento maggiormente assertivo può essere controproducente. I cani, animali sempre più sorprendenti, vi daranno sempre una seconda possibilità (e vi perdoneranno l’accento strano con cui parlate il loro linguaggio); un cavallo o un porcellino d’India difficilmente lo faranno. Se pensate di poter in qualche modo costringere un porcellino d’India a fare quello che voi volete, reagirà con paura e si immobilizzerà persino per mezz’ora, un disastro per qualsiasi aspirante addestratore.

Imparerete presto che la coercizione non è assolutamente il modo giusto di procedere. Così, imparerete i segreti della motivazione e la bellezza di saperla utilizzare (anche nel vostro ambiente), piuttosto che cercare di controllarla; e ciò, da solo, potrà condurvi a risultati inattesi e molto ben accetti.

Se potessero, sono sicuro che il vostro cane e il vostro cavallo ringrazierebbero i porcellini d’India per quello che vi insegneranno mentre li addestrate, perché senza dubbio diventerete un addestratore molto più attento e preciso. Avrete un maggior controllo di voi stessi piuttosto che dell’animale, imparerete a motivare piuttosto che a costringere, a mostrare ciò che volete piuttosto che arrivarci per caso, a raggiungere risultati intervenendo in misura minima (e talvolta persino impercettibile) sul normale comportamento del vostro animale preferito.

La vita è meravigliosa, non è vero?

R—

SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Guinea Pig Camp (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The 20 Principles That All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Feb 12 2013

So you want to be a good dog trainer!

The launch of Guinea Pig Camps has attracted the attention of many animal lovers, particularly dog trainers. I have been asked repeatedly two particular questions: (1) how can training guinea pigs make me a better dog trainer? (2) What have guinea pigs got to do with dogs?

Guinea Pig using the A-frame. They are not especially agile but enjoy challenges. A good trainer can teach them lots of tricks.

The basic skills you need to train a dog are the same as those you need to train any other animal. The only difference is a dog is a dog and not a horse, or a cat, or a guinea pig, as you well know. This is good news for you as (mainly due to our common history) there is no other animal as easy to train as a dog. On the other side, and precisely because dogs makes it easy for us, there is a limit to how much we learn if we only train dogs and never other animals.

Dogs forgive our mistakes and are nearly always motivated to cooperate with us. Other species scrutinize us far more thoroughly and demand that we earn their trust. If they don’t trust us, they will not follow our teaching, and we’ll have a problem.

A horse will not follow you if it doesn’t trust you and it takes a lot to earn the trust of a horse (and only a moment to lose it completely). You can offer it as many carrots as you like, but if it decides you are not someone to be trusted, the best carrots in the world will be redundant.

A cat will blink at you and the treat you offer at least twice, before even considering moving into your direction. Then, if it deems your request reasonable in exchange for food, it may just indulge you. Otherwise, it will just blink again, if you’re lucky, before resuming its catnap.

Dog and guinea pig together. Training a guinea pig can make you a better dog trainer (photo letsbefriends.blogspot.com).

The guinea pig, a small, rather cute, social animal, is fearful by nature, as it is a favorite prey of many predators, including humans. Humans don’t share a common evolutionary history with the guinea pig like with the dog, so you won’t get anything for free. You’ll have to work to gain your guinea pig’s trust and show it that co-operating with you is profitable in both the short and long term.

Training guinea pigs will teach you many of the theoretical aspects of animal learning that you may find boring to read in a book; and will do so in a fun way because you will be learning hands-on. You’ll have to be very precise and apply the right methods to produce the right behavior. You’ll explore the whole spectrum of operant conditioning and thus improve your practical skills.

Dogs are exceptional animals and as trainers we are lucky because they are (almost) always attentive to what we’re doing and they are great observers. As Professor Lorenz once said in a class, “dogs are better ethologists than we are.” This is not the case with guinea pigs as they lack that common evolutionary history with us. They have good observational skills, they’re just not particularly attuned to human behavior. You’ll have to be a keen observer your self to determine the right moment to implement the right method to achieve the right behavior; thus, you will develop your own observational skills, which in itself will undoubtedly make you a better dog trainer.

We are so familiar with dogs that we tend to interpret their behavior as if they were humans, a grave mistake indeed, but we mostly get away with it. With guinea pigs, you learn to observe, analyze and interpret behavior objectively.

Animals of different species can develop good relationships and live together in harmony (photo by Dashawk).

You can teach dogs many things without a proper plan. They are so active and eager to please that, sooner or later, they will do something you like, which you can then reinforce. However, this is not the case with guinea pigs. You’ll need to plan in advance, clearly defining your goal and drawing up a plan of action. With dogs, we can play by ear and sing along, but this is not sufficient with other animals. Training guinea pigs teaches you to be prepared for eventualities, to plan alternatives, to prepare a plan B for when plan A doesn’t work as you expect. Once you’ve learned this skill, your dog will be the first to thank you for having a plan for your training sessions.

You are aware that timing is important when you train your dog, but surprisingly enough, you’ll still achieve acceptable results even if the reinforcer is not precisely timed. With dogs, it’s like singing a melody out of tune and your friends still recognizing it. With guinea pigs, you’d better sing in tune or they will tacitly suggest you get your act together before going back to them. After training guinea pigs, your sense of timing will be much more precise.

Some people have problems registering what’s happening around them because they are overly preoccupied with their own feelings and emotions. We can afford this kind of distraction with our dogs, but not with other animals and so training guinea pigs will help you focus on the animal you train and develop your eye for detail. This will increase your self-awareness, which will not only turn you into a successful guinea pig trainer, but also a much better dog trainer—and will perhaps help you in your life beyond dog training too.

At our guinea pig camps, you work in a team of three. Each team designs a plan of action, which they then register, film, analyze, modify and implement. All three members of the team will take turns at training, registering and filming the sessions. You’ll improve your ability to work in a team, a skill that will be helpful, not only when you go back to training dogs, but in all spheres of your life.

So now you see how training a cute, little guinea pig can make you a better dog trainer, horse trainer, cat trainer or even a better work colleague due to your improved observational skills, refined sense of timing and finer team work. Your colleagues may take a little time to realize that you have improved but your dog will notice it right away, I promise you. You might even be able to see a bubble above your dog’s head saying, “Wow, what have I done to deserve this? This is like having a completely new owner!”

If you like nose work with dogs, training a guinea to do detection work is the right thing for you and will teach you a lot. They have a good nose, but you’ll have to be good at motivating them and have a great sense of timing.

In a sense, a guinea pig camp is a mini course in ethology (the science of animal behavior). Most animal owners, and many trainers too, can’t distinguish between four fundamental behaviors that social animals have evolved: the so-called aggressive, fearful, dominant and submissive behaviors. Confusing aggressive and dominant behavior, as well as fearful and submissive behavior is unfortunate, yet only too common despite the fact each of these behaviors has its own particular function and expressions.

When training guinea pigs, it is not important whether or not you can distinguish dominant and submissive behavior from aggressive and fearful behavior, even though they are common guinea pig behaviors. There’s no way you can be part of a guinea pig herd. You will always be the stranger, but you can choose whether you’ll be a nice, trustful stranger, or a distressing, unreliable one. It’s up to you and it’s not difficult but it requires you think carefully about what you do.

Much like horses, guinea pigs tend to react fearfully when in doubt (the key to their survival throughout their evolutionary history). Displaying composed, self-confident behavior works well, but anything more assertive than that will backfire on you. Dogs, these evermore amazing animals, give you a second chance (and understand our bad “accents” in dog language); a horse or a guinea pig hardly ever do so. If you as much as think of trying to bully a guinea pig into doing what you want, it will react fearfully and can freeze for up to 30 minutes, which is a disaster for any aspiring trainer.

You’ll soon learn that coercion is not the way to go at all. Thus, you’ll learn the secrets of motivation and the beauty of working within and with your environment, rather than attempting to control it; and that in itself will lead you to unexpected and welcomed results.

If they could, I’m sure your dog and your horse would thank the guinea pigs for what they teach you when you train them, for you will be, undoubtedly, a much more subtle and balanced trainer. You’ll be in control of yourself rather than the animal, motivating rather than forcing, showing the way rather than fumbling about, achieving results with the least (sometimes even imperceptible) amount of intrusion into your favorite animal’s normal behavior.

Isn’t life beautiful?

R—

SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Guinea Pig Camp (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The 20 Principles That All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Feb 4 2013

The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know

with “16 More Principles For The Advanced Animal Trainer” and “Best Practice”

“The 20 Principles All Animals Trainers Must Know”

This is the first edition of “The 20 Principles That All Animal Trainers Must Know.” This booklet is in a way a super concentrated course in animal learning and, although only 28 pages long, it will take you time to read and digest. Don’t rush thru it.

I wrote “The 20 Principles” in plain English so it should be accessible to all readers. Of course, I use technical terms, but they shouldn’t pose any problem for any reader because I define them all carefully and with examples.

I will update this booklet as necessary. Come back regularly to check if there are any updates.

v. 3 uploaded 09.03.13: clarification of the difference between conditional/unconditional and conditioned/unconditioned.

v. 2 uploaded 04.03.13: new cover and back cover, minor text improvements to improve clarity.

First edition v. 1 uploaded 04.02.13

Enjoy your reading!

R—

PS—This is a free e-book for you to read on your computer. Please, don’t ask me for the possibility to print it, for as much as I love books, I also care for the trees of our planet. We’re planning versions for iPad and Kindle to be available soon.

Click the full-screen view icon for better reading. Zoom in and out as you please.

Sorry, this book is no longer available here. Please, visit Ethology Institute’s Online Bookstore.

SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Jan 3 2013

Guinea Pig Camps, los talleres de entrenamiento con cobayas

Traducido por Victor Ros Pueo.

Bienvenidos a los Guinea Pig Camps, los talleres de entrenamiento con cobayas!

Las cobayas, Cavia porcellus, son comúnmente conocidos como “conejillos de indias”.

Así que te gusta el trabajo de detección y los trucos de agility, que está fascinado por la detección de minas terrestres de los “Hero Rats”, y te gustaría aprender algunos trucos para mejorar como entrenador de perros. No te voy a enseñar a entrenar un perro de detección de la policía, o una rata para la detección de minas, eso está reservado para los profesionales en esas áreas, pero te indicará cómo entrenar a una cobaya para detectar el tabaco y pólvora, y para realizar trucos de agility.

Guinea pig policía ? Todavía no, pero quién sabe! Puedes ser el entrenador del primero guinea pig detector de tabaco y pólvora.

¿Por qué deberían los entrenadores de perros entrenar cobayas?

Entrenar perros es fácil comparado con entrenar otros especies debido a la especial relación entre los seres humanos y perros. Los perros tienden a pasar por alto la mayor parte de nuestros errores y nos suelen dar una segunda oportunidad. Los animales que no tienen una relación tan estrecha con los seres humanos son mucho menos tolerantes por lo que es una alta prioridad ser precisos, para planificar su entrenamiento, para desarrollar tus habilidades de observación y de tener un plan B disponible. Entrenando cobayas te ayudará ser mejor entrenador de perros; más atento a los perros, más atento a los detalles y más receptivo a la retroalimentación que su perro le ofrece.

Otra ventaja de entrenar cobayas es que no tendrá un fuerte vínculo con la cobaya que entrena y por lo tanto serás más objetivo que en el entrenamiento de tu perro. No se han desarrollado malos hábitos, ya que el entrenamiento de cobayas será nuevo para ti. No te identificaras con la cobaya de la misma manera que los dueños de perros se identifican con sus perros, por lo que no te sentirás avergonzado si tu cobaya comete un error.

El entrenamiento de cobayas mejorará tus conocimientos teóricos, así como tus habilidades mecánicas. Te sorprenderás de lo mucho que se puede enseñar a una cobaya en apenas cuatro días!

Guinea Pig, Cavia porcellus, also called Cavies.

El Guinea Pig, Cavia porcellus, es un animal social. Su vista no es tan buena como la nuestra, pero tiene buen sentido del oído, el olfato y el tacto.

Las Cobayas y equipos

Cada equipo de tres estudiantes tendrá una cobaya para entrenar, una caja de entrenamiento, los obstáculos de agility, golosinas y un silbato (o clicker). Cada estudiante dentro de su equipo se turnará para ser entrenador, observador y operador de cámara. Los entrenadores entrenan, el observador registra la sesión y asegura que sigue el previamente diseñado POA (Plan de Acción), y el operador de cámara graba todas las sesiones. Puesto que los tres seguirán un plan cuidadosamente diseñado, no hay ningún problema para que los tres puedan tunarse para entrenar la misma cobaya.

El entrenamiento del equipo será en su mayoría consistente, pero, en caso de producirse pequeñas variaciones, los vamos a considerar como una ventaja, y una oportunidad de comparar factores que pueden haber influido en el entrenamiento. Es por eso que todas las sesiones son filmadas.

Un día en el campamento

Un día comienza a las 9 am y termina a las 17:00. El almuerzo será 12:00-13:00. Los equipos decidirán cuándo tomar un descanso.

Alrededor del 60% del curso se compone de una formación práctica y el 40% restante es dedicado a los problemas teóricos tales como el diseño de los POA, la revisión de las sesiones de entrenamiento, estudiando videos, briefing y debriefing equipos.

El número máximo de alumnos es de treinta (diez equipos).

Requisitos previos

Haber leído “Los 20 principios que todos los entrenadores de animales deben saber.” Haga clic en el enlace (próximamente) para acceder al manual gratuito (traducciones al francés, español e italiano estará disponible en breve).

Guinea Pig: vocalization is their primary means of communication.

La vocalización es el principal medio de comunicación del conejillo de Indias. En nuestro campo se aprende a distinguir entre diferentes sonidos.

Honorarios

Como queremos ofrecer a todos la oportunidad de asistir a un campamento de Guinea Pig, mantenemos los honorarios bajos: 395 euros (en Europa), USD 495 (en los EE.UU.), AUS 495 (en Australia), CND 495 (en Canadá) y JPY 44,500 (en Japón). Esta tarifa no incluye el alojamiento, el transporte o las comidas.

Los organizadores del evento puede que necesiten ajustar estas tasas ligeramente para adaptarse a las condiciones locales (por favor, ver sus sitios web individuales).

Fechas, lugares y registro

Para registrarse, por favor, utilice los datos de contacto de abajo.

Mar 14-17, Italia (Fabrizio Ruffinatto, www.centrocinofilo4zampe.com, info@centrocinofilo4zampe.com)
Mar 21-24, España (Victor Ros, www.equilibregaia.com, equilibregaia@gmail.com)
Mar 28-31, Francia (Manuel Castaneda, www.caniscool.com, admin @caniscool.com)
Abr 04-07, Florida, USA (Teena Patel, www.doglando.com, info@doglando.com)
May 09-12, Países Bajos (Adrienne van’t Wout, adrienne@martingaus.nl, www.martingausacademie.nl)
May 30-Jun 02, Portugal (nunopaixao@hospvetcentral.pt, www.hospvetcentral.pt)
Oct 17-20, Adelaide, Australia (Amy van Dyk, advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au, amy@advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au)
2014 (para anunciar), Canada (Jean Lessard, www.jeanlessard.com, info@jeanlessard.com)
2014 (para anunciar), Japón (para anunciar)

Hasta pronto

Nuestros Guinea Pig Camps es algo que tendrás que experimentar. Es increíble lo mucho que estas pequeñas y lindas criaturas pueden aprender, y lo mucho que nos pueden enseñar. No te preocupes si te enamoras con tu cobaya, te lo podrás llevar a casa después del taller, es decir, si te lo permiten sus compañeros de equipo.

En los Guinea Pig Camps se trata de aprender, disfrutar del trabajo en equipo y divertirse!

Roger Abrantes

Jan 3 2013

Campo de treino de porquinhos da Índia

Bem-vindo ao campo dos porquinhos da Índia!

Gosta de trabalho de detecção e de agility e acha fascinante o trabalho dos “Hero Rats” que detectam minas terrestres e tuberculose? Gostaria de aprender pormenores que o poderiam ajudar a tornar-se um melhor treinador de animais? Não irei ensinar-lhe a treinar um cão de policia ou um rato de detecção—o que é reservado aos profissionais nessas áreas—mas ensinár-lhe-ei a treinar um porquinho da Índia a detectar tabaco e pólvora e habilidades de agility.

Porquinho da Índia policial? Ainda não, mas quem sabe! Poderá ser o treinador do primeiro porquinho da Índia detector de tabaco e pólvora.

Que benefícios terão treinadores de cães em treinar porquinhos da Índia?

Treinar cães é fácil comparado com treinar outras espécies devido à relação especial que temos com o cão. O cão tende a ignorar a maioria dos nossos erros e dá-nos uma segunda oportunidade. Os animais que não têm a mesma relação intima connosco são bem menos flexíveis, o que implica que devemos ser mais exactos, planear bem o nosso treino, desenvolver a nossa capacidade de observação e ter um plano B à nossa disposição. O treino dos porquinhos da Índia contribuirá para melhorar o seu poder de observação; ensinar-lhe-á a estar mais atento a pormenores e mais receptivo a feedback do animal que treina.

Treinar porquinhos da Índia tem várias vantagens. Uma deriva do facto da sua relação com este animal não ser tão forte como a que tem com o seu cão; em princípio, será mais objectivo do que no seu treino de cães. Não terá, também, criado hábitos maus porque o treino de porquinhos da Índia será uma área nova para si. Não se identificará com o porquinho da Índia do mesmo modo como os donos de cães se identificam com os seus cães; e os erros do seu porquinho da Índia não serão embaraçosos para si.

Treinar porquinhos da Índia melhorará o seu conhecimento teórico assim como a sua mecânica em aplicar os princípios de aprendizagem. Ficará surpreendido com a capacidade de aprendizagem deste animal!

O porquinho da Índia, Cavia porcellus, é um animal social. A sua vista não é tão boa como a nossa, mas possui bons sentidos de audição, olfacto e tacto.

Os porquinhos da Índia e as equipas

Cada equipa consiste num porquinho da Índia e três participantes, que terão à sua disposição uma mesa de treino, equipamento de agility e detecção, comida para reforços e um apito ou clíquer. Cada participante funcionará, em turnos, como treinador, observador e operador de câmara. O treinador treina, o observador registra a sessão e confere que o treino segue o plano de acção prèviamente desenhado e o operador de câmara filma a sessão. Todos os três aplicam o mesmo plano de acção anteriormente desenhado em detalhe; não existirá, assim, problema nenhum a serem três treinadores a treinar o mesmo animal. Os métodos aplicados pelos três companheiros de equipa serão consistentes, mas caso ocorram variações, serão um bónus e a nossa possibilidade de comparar factores que possam influenciar os resultados—por isso a razão de filmarmos as sessões.

Um dia no campo de treino

Um dia começa às 10 e termina as 18 horas. O almoço será entre as 13 as 14 horas. As equipas decidem quando tomar o almoço.

Aproximadamente 60% do curso será trabalho prático com os restantes 40% dedicados ao desenho de planos de acção, estudo de filmes e briefing/debriefing.

O número máximo de participantes é trinta (dez equipas).

Pré requisitos

É obrigatório a leitura de “Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer.” Clique link para ter acesso (disponível em breve).

A vocalização é o primeiro meio de comunicação do porquinho da Índia. No nosso campo aprenderá a distinguir entre os diversos sons.

Preço

O nosso objectivo é dar a todos os interessados a possibilidade de participar, o que se reflecte nos baixos preços que seguem: EUR 395 (na Europa, excepto Portugal EUR 295), USD 495 (nos EUA), AUS 495 (na Austrália), CND 495 (no Canadá) e JPY 44,500 (no Japão). Este preço não inclui acomodação, transporte e refeições.

Os organizadores poderão ser obrigados a ajustar ligeiramente os seus preços devido a condições locais (visite, por favor, as suas respectivas páginas na web).

Datas, locais e registro

Para se registrar, contacte por favor o organizador da sua escolha.

Mar 14-17, Itália (Fabrizio Ruffinatto, www.centrocinofilo4zampe.com, info@centrocinofilo4zampe.com)
Mar 21-24, Espanha (Victor Ros, www.equilibregaia.com, equilibregaia@gmail.com)
Mar 28-31, França (Manuel Castaneda, www.caniscool.com, admin@caniscool.com)
Abr 04-07, Flórida, USA (Teena Patel, www.doglando.com, info@doglando.com)
Mai 09-12, Países Baixos (Adrienne van’t Wout, adrienne@martingaus.nl, www.martingausacademie.nl.
Mai 30-Jun 02, Portugal (nunopaixao@hospvetcentral.pt, http://www.hospvetcentral.pt)
Out 17-20, Adelaide, Austrália (Amy van Dyk, advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au, amy@advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au)
2014 (a anunciar), Canadá (Jean Lessard, www.jeanlessard.com, info@jeanlessard.com)
2014 (a anunciar), Japão (organizador e local a anunciar)

Até breve

O nosso campo de porquinhos da Índia não se pode contar, tem que ser vivido. É espantoso o quanto estas pequenas e mimosas criaturas conseguem aprender e quanto o nos conseguem ensinar. Não se preocupe: se se apaixonar pelo seu porquinho da Índia, poderá levá-lo para casa depois do curso—quer dizer, se os seus companheiros de equipa o permitirem).

Nos campos dos porquinhos da Índia é tudo sobre aprendizagem, desfrutar de bom trabalho de equipa e divertir-se.

Roger Abrantes

Jan 1 2013

Guinea Pig Camp—migliora le tue capacità di addestratore di animali

Tradotto da Paolo Terrile.

BENVENUTI AL GUINEA PIG CAMP!

Ti piacciono il lavoro di ricerca olfattiva e gli esercizi di agilità, sei affascinato dagli ‘Hero Rats’ che scoprono le mine antiuomo, e vorresti imparare alcune accortezze che possono farti diventare un miglior addestratore cinofilo? Non ti insegnerò come si addestra un cane poliziotto o un topo che localizza le mine antiuomo – è un lavoro riservato ai professionisti che si occupano di queste attività – ma ti insegnerò come addestrare un porcellino d’India a segnalare la presenza di tabacco e polvere da sparo e ad eseguire esercizi di agilità.

Porcellino d’India poliziotto? Non ancora, ma chi può dire? Potresti essere tu l’addestratore del primo porcellino d’India impiegato nella ricerca di tabacco e polvere da sparo.

PERCHÉ UN ADDESTRATORE CINOFILO DOVREBBE ADDESTRARE UN PORCELLINO D’INDIA?

È più facile addestrare i cani che altri animali, a motivo della relazione speciale tra il cane e l’uomo. I cani ci perdonano la maggior parte degli errori, dandoci una seconda possibilità. Gli animali con cui non abbiamo una relazione così stretta sono meno inclini a perdonare gli errori: è quindi importante essere precisi, progettare l’addestramento, sviluppare ottime capacità di osservazione ed avere sempre pronto un piano alternativo. Addestrare i porcellini d’India ti aiuterà a diventare un addestratore cinofilo migliore e più attento, più concentrato sui dettagli e pronto a recepire i feedback del tuo cane.

Un altro vantaggio di addestrare i porcellini d’India è l’assenza di un legame col porcellino che addestrerai, il che ti permetterà di essere più obiettivo di quanto saresti addestrando il tuo cane. Poiché l’addestramento del porcellino sarà un’esperienza nuova, non avrai abitudini errate da correggere. Non ti sentirai in imbarazzo quando il porcellino sbaglierà, poiché non ti identificherai con lui nel modo in cui i proprietari si identificano col loro cane.

Addestrare un porcellino d’India migliorerà le tue conoscenze teoriche e le tue abilità pratiche. Ti sorprenderai di quante cose si possano insegnare ad un porcellino d’India in soli quattro giorni.

I porcellini d’India, Cavia porcellus, chiamati anche cavie, sono roditori sociali. La loro vista non è paragonabile a quella dell’uomo, ma i sensi dell’udito, dell’olfatto e del tatto sono molto ben sviluppati.

I PORCELLINI D’INDIA

Ogni gruppo di tre persone addestrerà un porcellino, utilizzando una cassa per l’addestramento (training box), ostacoli per gli esercizi di agilità, premi alimentari ed un fischietto (o un clicker). I membri del gruppo assumeranno a turno il ruolo di addestratore, osservatore e videoperatore. L’addestratore addestrerà il porcellino, l’osservatore registrerà la sessione e si assicurerà che sia rispettato il piano di addestramento, mentre il videoperatore riprenderà la sessione. Poiché tutti e tre membri del gruppo seguiranno un piano di addestramento pianificato in anticipo, avvicendarsi nell’addestramento non creerà inconvenienti. L’addestramento compiuto dal gruppo sarà quindi per la maggior parte coerente ma, ove si verificassero piccole variazioni, le stesse saranno un vantaggio ed un’opportunità di esaminare i fattori che possono influenzare l’addestramento. Questa è tra l’altro la ragione per cui tutte le sessioni di lavoro verranno filmate.

UNA GIORNATA AL CAMP

La giornata inizierà alle 9 e finisce alle 17, con pranzo dalle 12 alle 13. Ogni gruppo potrà decidere quando fare le pause. Snack, acqua, bibite, thè e caffè saranno a disposizione dei partecipanti.

Il corso si concentrerà per il 60% sulle attività pratiche di addestramento e per il 40% su aspetti teorici, come la progettazione dei piani di addestramento, la revisione delle sessioni di addestramento, l’esame dei video, la discussione all’interno di ciascun gruppo prima e dopo ciascuna sessione.

Il numero massimo di partecipanti è 30 suddivisi (10 gruppi).

PREREQUISITI

I partecipanti devono aver letto il manuale “Mission SMAF—Bringing Scientific Precision Into Animal Training.” Fai click sul link per accedere gratuitamente al manuale in inglese (la traduzione in francese, spagnolo ed italiano sarà presto disponibile).

La vocalizzazione è il principale mezzo di comunicazione del porcellino d’India. Potrai imparare la differenza tra i diversi segnali vocali con cui questi animali comunicano.

QUOTA DI ISCRIZIONE

Poiché vogliamo offrire al maggior numero di persone l’opportunità di partecipare al Guinea Pig Camp, abbiamo contenuto la quota di iscrizione in EUR 395 (In Europa), USD 495 (negli USA), AUS 495 (in Australia), CND 495 (in Canada), JPY 44.500 (in Giappone). La quota di iscrizione non comprende l’alloggio, i trasporti e i pasti prima delle 9 e dopo le 17.

Gli organizzatori dei singoli Camp potrebbero modificare lievemente la quota di iscrizione (verifica le informazioni pubblicate dai singoli organizzatori).

DATE, LOCALITÀ E ISCRIZIONI

Mar 14-17, Italia (Fabrizio Ruffinatto, www.centrocinofilo4zampe.com, info@centrocinofilo4zampe.com)
Mar 21-24, Spagna (Victor Ros, www.equilibregaia.com, equilibregaia@gmail.com)
Mar 28-31, Francia (Manuel Castaneda, www.caniscool.com, admin @caniscool.com)
Apr 04-07, Florida, USA (Teena Patel, www.doglando.com, info@doglando.com)
Oct 17-20, Adelaide, Australia (Amy van Dyk, advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au, amy@advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au)
2014 (date da definire), Canada (Jean Lessard, www.jeanlessard.com, info@jeanlessard.com)
2014 (date da definire), Japan (luogo da definire)

CI VEDIAMO PRESTO!

Il Guinea Pig Camp è un’esperienza che devi provare. È sorprendente quante cose possano imparare queste piccole simpatiche creature e quante ne possano insegnare. Non preoccuparti se ti dovessi innamorare del tuo porcellino d’India – alla fine del Camp potrai portarlo a casa con te, sempre che i tuoi compagni di gruppo siano d’accordo!

I Guinea Pig Camp sono un’occasione di apprendimento, di lavoro di gruppo e di divertimento!

Roger Abrantes

Dec 28 2012

Guinea Pig Camp

Welcome to Guinea Pig Camp!

So you like detection work and agility tricks, you are fascinated by the Hero Rats detecting landmines and you’d like to learn some tricks that could make you a better dog trainer. I’m not going to teach you to train a police detection dog or a landmine-detecting rat—that is reserved for the professionals in those areas—but I will instruct you how to train a guinea pig to detect tobacco and gunpowder, and to perform agility tricks.

Police guinea pig? Not just yet, but who knows. You could be the trainer of the first tobacco and gunpowder detecting guinea pig.

Why should dog trainers train guinea pigs?

Training dogs is easy compared to training other species due to the special relationship between humans and dogs. Dogs tend to overlook most of our mistakes and give us a second chance. Animals that don’t have such a close relationship with humans are far less forgiving so it is a high priority to be precise, to plan your training, to develop your observation skills and to have a plan B available. Training guinea pigs will help make you a better, more observant dog trainer; more attentive to detail and more receptive to the feedback your dog gives you.

Another advantage of training guinea pigs is that you won’t have a strong bond with the guinea pig you train and you will therefore be more objective than in your dog training. You will not have developed any bad habits, as training guinea pigs will be novel to you. You won’t identify with the guinea pig you train in the same way dog owners identify with their dogs, so you will not feel embarrassed if your guinea pig makes a mistake.

Training a guinea pig will improve your theoretical knowledge as well as your mechanical skills. You will be amazed at how much you can teach a guinea pig in just four days!

Guinea pigs, Cavia porcellus, also called cavies, are social rodents. Their sight is not as good as that of humans, but they have well-developed senses of hearing, smell and touch.

The Guinea Pigs

Each team of three students will have a guinea pig to train, a training box, agility obstacles, food treats and a whistle (or clicker). Each student within a team will take turns to be trainer, observer and camera operator. The trainer trains, the observer registers the session and ensures it follows the previously designed POA (Plan Of Action), and the camera operator films the session. Since all three will follow a carefully designed plan, there is no problem in taking turns at training the same guinea pig. The team’s training will be mostly consistent but, should small variations occur, we will regard them as a bonus and an opportunity to compare factors that may influence training. That’s why all the sessions are filmed.

A day at camp

A day starts at 9am and ends at 5pm. Lunch will be between 12pm and 1pm. Teams decide when to take a break.

About 60% of the coursework comprises of hands-on training and 40% of theoretical issues such as designing POAs, reviewing training sessions, studying videos, briefing and debriefing teams.

The maximum number of students is thirty (ten teams).

Prerequisites

You must have read “The 20 Principles that All Animal Trainers Must Know.” Click the link (available soon, also in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian) to access the free manual.

Vocalization is the guinea pig’s primary means of communication. At Guinea Pig Camp, you’ll learn the differences between a wheek, purring, rumbling, whining, chattering, squealing and chirping.

Fees

As we want to offer everyone the opportunity to attend a Guinea Pig Camp, we keep the fees low: EUR 395 (in Europe, except Portugal EUR 295), USD 495 (in the USA), AUS 495 (in Australia), CND 495 (in Canada) and JPY 44,500 (in Japan). This fee does not include accommodation, transportation and meals.

Event organizers may need to adjust these fees slightly to accommodate particular local conditions (please see their individual websites).

Dates, locations and registration

To register, please use the contact details below.

Mar 14-17, Italy (Fabrizio Ruffinatto, www.centrocinofilo4zampe.com, info@centrocinofilo4zampe.com)
Mar 21-24, Spain (Victor Ros, www.equilibregaia.com, equilibregaia@gmail.com)
Mar 28-31, France (Manuel Castaneda, www.caniscool.com, admin @caniscool.com)
Apr 04-07, Florida, USA (Teena Patel, www.doglando.com, info@doglando.com)
May 09-12, The Netherlands (Adrienne van’t Wout, adrienne@martingaus.nl, www.martingausacademie.nl.
May 30-Jun 02, Portugal (nunopaixao@hospvetcentral.pt, www.hospvetcentral.pt)
Oct 17-20, Adelaide, Australia (Amy van Dyk, advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au, amy@advancebehaviouraltraining.com.au)
2014 (TBA), Canada (Jean Lessard, www.jeanlessard.com, info@jeanlessard.com)
2014 (TBA), Japan (host and contact details TBA)

See you soon

Our Guinea Pig Camp is something you’ll have to experience. It’s amazing how much these cute, little creatures can learn and how much they can teach us. Don’t worry if you fall in love with your guinea pig—you can take it home after the workshop, that is, if your teammates allow you.

Guinea Pig Camps are about learning, enjoying teamwork and having fun!

Roger Abrantes

Sep 10 2012

Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!

“Whether you (or I) follow a particular line of morality is not a necessary consequence of any model of social behavior. Moral stances are solely your (or my) decision” (Picture by Lisa J. Bains).

The dog trainers’ dispute about training methods blazes on unabated, with the erroneous and emotive use of terms such as dominance, punishment and leadership only adding fuel to the fire. There is no rational argumentation between the two main factions, one of which advocates a “naturalistic” approach and the other a “moralistic” stance. The term ‘dominance’ generates particular controversy and is often misinterpreted. We can detect, in the line of arguing about this topic, the same fundamental mistakes committed in many other discussions. By taking the controversy over dominant behavior as my example, I shall attempt to put an end to the feud by proving that neither side is right and by presenting a solution to the problem. Plus ratio quam vis—let reason prevail over force!

I shall demonstrate that the dispute is caused by:

(1) Blurring the boundaries between science and ethics. While ethics and morality deal with normative statements, science deals with factual, descriptive statements. Scientific statements are not morally right or wrong, good or bad.

(2) Unclear definitions. We cannot have a rational discussion without clear definitions of the terms used. Both sides in the dispute use unclear, incomplete definitions or none at all.

(3) Logical fallacies. The opposing sides commit either the ‘naturalistic fallacy,’ ‘the moralistic fallacy,’ or both. We cannot glean normative statements from descriptive premises, nor can we deduce facts from norms. The fact that something is does not imply that it ought to be; conversely, just because something ought to be does not mean that it is.

(4) Social conditioning and emotional load. As a result of inevitable social conditioning and emotional load, some terms develop connotations that can affect whether we like or dislike, accept or reject them, independent of their true meaning.

(5) Unclear grammar. The term dominance (an abstract noun) leads us to believe it is a characteristic of certain individuals, not an attribute of behavior. The correct use of the term in the behavioral sciences is as an adjective to describe a behavior, hence dominant behavior.

Bottom line: We need to define terms clearly and use them consistently; otherwise rational discussion is not possible. We must separate descriptive and normative statements, as we cannot derive what is from what ought to be or vice versa. Therefore, we cannot use the scientific concept of dominant behavior (or any descriptive statement) to validate an ethical principle. Our morality, what we think is right or wrong, is a personal choice; what is, or is not, is independent of our beliefs and wishes (we don’t have a choice).

Solution to the problem: The present dispute focuses on whether we believe it is right or wrong to dominate others (as in, totally control, have mastery over, command). It is a discussion of how to achieve a particular goal, about means and ends. It is a moral dispute, not a scientific quest. If both sides have similar goals in training their dogs, one way of settling the dispute is to prove that one strategy is more efficient than the other. If they are equally efficient, the dispute concerns the acceptability of the means. However, if either side has different goals, it is impossible to compare strategies.

My own solution of the problem: I cannot argue with people who believe it is right to dominate others (including non-human animals) as, even though I can illustrate how dominating others does not lead to harmony, I can’t make anyone choose harmony or define it in a particular way. I cannot argue with people who think it acceptable to hurt others in order to achieve their goals because such means are inadmissible to me. I cannot argue with people who deny or affirm a particular matter of fact as a means of justifying their moral conduct, because my mind rejects invalid, unsound arguments. With time, the rational principles that govern my mind and the moral principles that regulate my conduct may prove to be the fittest. Meanwhile, as a result of genetic pre-programming, social conditioning and evolutionary biology, I do enjoy being kind to other animals, respecting them for what they are and interacting with them on equal terms; I don’t believe it is right to subjugate them to my will, to command them, to change them; and I don’t need a rational justification as to why that’s right for me*.

“I do enjoy being kind to other animals, respecting them for what they are and interacting with them on equal premises; I don’t find it right to subjugate them to my will and dispositions, to command them, to change them; and I don’t need a rational justification for why that’s right for me” (Picture by Lisa J. Bain).

Argument

1 Science and ethics are not the same

Science is a collection of coherent, useful and probable predictions. All science is reductionist and visionary in a sense, but that does not mean that all reductionism is equally useful or that all visions are equally valuable or that one far-out idea is as acceptable as any other. Greedy reductionism is bound to fail because it attempts to explain too much with too little, classifying processes too crudely, overlooking relevant detail and missing pertinent evidence. Science sets up rational, reasonable, credible, useful and usable explanations based on empirical evidence, which is not connected per se. Any connections are made via our scientific models, ultimately allowing us to make reliable and educated predictions. A scientist needs to have an imaginative mind in order to think the unthinkable, discover the unknown and formulate initially far-fetched but verifiable hypotheses that may provide new and unique insights; as Kierkegaard writes, “This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think.”

There are five legitimate criteria when evaluating a scientific theory or model: (1) evidence, (2) logic, (3) compatibility, (4) progression, and (5) flexibility.

(1) Evidence: a scientific theory or model must be based on credible and objective evidence. If there is credible evidence against it, we dismiss it. It must be testable and falsifiable.

(2) Logic: If a theory or model is based on logically invalid arguments or its conclusion are logically unsound, e.g. drawing valid conclusions from false premises, we must also dismiss it.

(3) Compatibility: If a theory or model shows crucial incompatibility with the whole body of science, then it is probably incorrect. If it is incompatible with another model, then we have a paradox. Paradoxes are not to be discarded, instead worked on and solved (or not solved as the case may be). Since “Paradoxes do not exist in reality, only in our current models of reality, […] they point the way to flaws in our current models. They therefore also point the way to further research to improve those models, fix errors, or fill in missing pieces.” In short, “scientists love paradoxes,” in the words of Novella.

(4) Progression: A scientific theory or model must explain everything that has already been explained by earlier theories, whilst adding new information, or explaining it in simpler terms.

(5) Flexibility: A theory or model must be able to accept new data and be corrected. If it doesn’t, then it is a dogma, not a scientific theory. A dogma is a belief accepted by a group as incontrovertibly true.

Science provides facts and uncovers important relationships between these facts. Science does not tell us how we should behave or what we ought to do. Science is descriptive, not normative. In other words: we decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, not necessarily depending on what science tells us.

Morality and science are two separate disciplines. I may not like the conclusions and implications of some scientific studies, I may even find their application immoral; yet, my job as a scientist is to report my findings objectively. Reporting facts does not oblige me to adopt any particular moral stance. The way I feel about a fact is not constrained by what science tells me. I may be influenced by it but, ultimately, my moral decision is independent of scientific fact. Science tells me men and women are biologically different in some aspects, but it does not tell me whether or not they should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Science tells me that evolution is based on the algorithm “the survival of the fittest,” not whether or not I should help those that find it difficult to fit into their environment. Science informs me of the pros and cons of eating animal products, but it does not tell me whether it is right or wrong to be a vegetarian.

Ethologists study behavior on a biological and evolutionary basis, define the terms they use, find causal relationships, construct models for the understanding of behavior and report their findings. Ethologists are not concerned with morality. They simply inform us that the function of x behavior is y. They don’t tell us that because animal x does y, then y is right or wrong, good or bad, or that we ought or ought not do y.

The model I present in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” is a scientific model that complies with all five of the requirements listed above.

(1) It is based on overwhelming data, i.e. given my definition of ‘dominant behavior,’ one cannot argue that it does not exist.

(2) The conclusions are logically consistent with the premises.

(3) It is consistent with our body of knowledge, particularly in the fields of biology and evolutionary theory.

(4) It explains what has been explained before and in more carefully defined terms.

(5) It accepts new data, adjustments and corrections (the current version is an updated version of my original from 1986). The model tells us nothing about morality. No single passage suggests that we should classify any particular relationship with our dogs as morally right or wrong. You will have to decide that for yourself. As an ethologist, I’m not concerned with what ought to be, only with what is. Echoing Satoshi Kanazawa, if I conclude something that is not supported by evidence, I commit a logical fallacy, which I must correct, and that’s my problem, but if my conclusion offends your beliefs, then that’s your problem.

Therefore, whether you (or I) follow a particular line of morality is not a consequence of any model of social behavior. Moral stances are solely your (or my) decision. It is not correct to draw normative judgments from descriptive claims. If you do so, you either commit the ‘naturalistic fallacy,’ the ‘moralistic fallacy’ or both, as I shall explain below (see point 3).

2 Unclear definitions

Having just pointed out the rigors of science, I must concede that the scientific community does bear some responsibility for the present dispute in as much as definitions and use of terms have sometimes been sloppy. Some researchers use particular terms (in this case ‘dominance’) without defining them properly and with slightly different implications from paper to paper.

Wikipedia writes: “Dominance (ethology) can be defined as an ‘individual’s preferential access to resources over another’ (Bland 2002). Dominance in the context of biology and anthropology is the state of having high social status relative to one or more other individuals, who react submissively to dominant individuals. This enables the dominant individual to obtain access to resources such as food or access to potential mates, at the expense of the submissive individual, without active aggression. The opposite of dominance is submissiveness. […] In animal societies, dominance is typically variable across time, […] across space […] or across resources. Even with these factors held constant, perfect dominant hierarchies are rarely found in groups of any size” (Rowell 1974 and Lorenz 1963).

It explains a dominance hierarchy as follows: “Individuals with greater hierarchical status tend to displace those ranked lower from access to space, to food and to mating opportunities. […] These hierarchies are not fixed and depend on any number of changing factors, among them are age, gender, body size, intelligence, and aggressiveness.”

Firstly, defining ‘dominance’ instead of ‘dominant behavior’ seems somewhat imprudent for a science that is intrinsically based on observational facts. It suggests we are dealing with an abstract quality when in fact we are referring to observable behavior (see point 5 below). Secondly, it implicitly equates ‘dominance’ with hierarchy (social status), which is misleading because some hierarchies may be supported by conditions other than dominant behavior. The use of the term ‘dominance hierarchy’ creates a false belief. Clearly, the terms dominance and dominant behavior are attributed with varying meanings, a highly unadvisable practice, particularly in stringently scientific matters.

As John Locke wrote in 1690 (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding), “The multiplication and obstinacy of disputes, which have so laid waste the intellectual world, is owing to nothing more than to this ill use of words. For though it be generally believed that there is great diversity of opinions in the volumes and variety of controversies the world is distracted with; yet the most I can find that the contending learned men of different parties do, in their arguings one with another, is, that they speak different languages. ”This has contributed […] to perplex the signification of words, more than to discover the knowledge and truth of things.”

To remedy this, I propose in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” a set of carefully constructed definitions that are compatible with behavioral science and evolutionary theory, whilst paying special attention to the logical validity and consistency of the arguments. I’m convinced that we would avoid many pointless disputes if all those dealing with the behavioral sciences were to adopt such definitions.

Roughly speaking, there are currently two main schools of thought in dog training. For our present purpose, we shall call them ‘Naturalistic Dog Training’ and ‘Moralistic Dog Training.’ Of course, there are various other stances in between these two extremes, including a significantly large group of bewildered dog owners who do not adhere to any particular ideology, not knowing which way to turn.

Naturalistic Dog Training (aka the old school) claims their training echoes the dog’s natural behavior. They don’t provide a proper definition of dominance, but use it with connotations of ‘leader,’ ‘boss,’ ‘rank,’ implying that dominance is a characteristic of an individual, not of a behavior. In their eyes, some dogs are born dominant, others submissive, but all dogs need to be dominated because their very nature is to dominate or be dominated. They use this belief to justify their training methods that often involve punishment, flooding, coercion, and even shock collars, if deemed necessary, by the more extreme factions. For them, a social hierarchy is based on (assertive) dominance and (calm) submission, the leader being the most dominant. Their willingness to accept the existence of dominant behavior is motivated by their desire to validate their training theories, but their interpretation of the term is far from what ethologists understand by it.

Moralistic Dog Training (aka positive reinforcement training) distances itself from punishment, dominance, and leadership. They don’t define ‘dominance’ properly either, but use it with connotations of ‘punishment,’ ‘aggression,’ ‘coercion,’ ‘imposition.’ They claim dominance does not exist and regard it as a mere construct of philosophers and ethologists aimed at justifying the human tendency to dominate others. Their view is that we should nurture our dogs as if they were part of our family and should not dominate them. Therefore, they also distance themselves from using and condoning the use of terms like ‘alpha,’ ‘leader’ and ‘pack.’ The more extreme factions claim to refrain from using any aversive or signal that might be slightly connected with an aversive (like the word ‘no’) and deny their using of punishers (which, given the consensually accepted scientific definition of punishment, is a logical impossibility). Their refusal to accept the existence of dominant behavior is motivated by their desire to validate their training morality, but their interpretation of the term is again far from what ethologists understand by it.

An ethological definition of ‘dominant behavior’ is (as I suggest in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense”): “Dominant behavior is a quantitative and quantifiable behavior displayed by an individual with the function of gaining or maintaining temporary access to a particular resource on a particular occasion, versus a particular opponent, without either party incurring injury. If any of the parties incur injury, then the behavior is aggressive and not dominant. Its quantitative characteristics range from slightly self-confident to overtly assertive.”

This is a descriptive statement, a classification of a class of behaviors, so we can distinguish it from other classes of behaviors, based on the observable function of behavior (according to evolutionary theory). It is clearly distinguishable from the statements of both opposing mainstream dog-training groups in that it does not include any normative guidance.

3 Logical fallacies

A logical fallacy is unsound reasoning with untrue premises or an illogical conclusion. Logical fallacies are inherent in the logic structure or argumentation strategy and suit irrational desires rather than actual matters of fact.

An argument can be valid or invalid; and valid arguments can be sound or unsound. A deductive argument is valid if, and only if, the conclusion is entailed by the premises (it is a logical consequence of the premises). An argument is sound if, and only if, (1) the argument is valid and (2) all of its premises are true. The pure hypothetical syllogism is only valid if it has the following forms:

If P ⇒ Q and Q ⇒ R, then P ⇒ R

If P ⇒ ~R and ~R ⇒ ~Q, then P ⇒ ~Q

This mixed hypothetical syllogism has two valid forms, affirming the antecedent or “modus ponens” and denying the consequent or “modus tollens”:

If P ⇒ Q and P, then Q (modus ponens)

If P ⇒ Q and ~Q, then ~P (modus tollens)

It has two invalid forms (affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent).

The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of identifying what is good with a natural property. In this fallacy, something considered natural is usually considered to be good, and something considered unnatural is regarded as bad. The structure of the argument is “P is natural, therefore P is moral” or “P is natural and non-P is unnatural, natural things are moral and unnatural things immoral, therefore P is moral and non-P immoral.” G. E. Moore coined the term naturalistic fallacy in 1903 in “Principia Ethica.” It is related to the ‘is-ought problem,’ also called ‘Hume’s Law’ or ‘Hume’s Guillotine,’ described for the first time by David Hume in 1739 in “A Treatise of Human Nature.” The ‘is-ought fallacy’ consists of deriving an ought conclusion from an is premise. The structure of the argument is “P is, what is ought to be, therefore P ought to be.”

The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy. It presumes that what ought to be preferable is what is, or what naturally occurs. In other words: what things should be is the way they are. E. C. Moore used the term for the first time in 1957 in “The Moralistic Fallacy.” The structure of the argument is, “P ought to be, therefore P is.”

“There is no evidence that dogs attempt to dominate others or that they don’t. On the contrary, all evidence suggests that dogs (as most animals) use different strategies depending on conditions including costs and benefits. Sometimes they display dominant behavior, other times they display submissive behavior, and yet other times they display some other behavior” Picture by (L’Art Au Poil École).

The line of argumentation of Naturalistic Dog Training is: Dogs naturally attempt to dominate others; therefore, we ought to dominate them. We can transcribe this argument in two ways (argument 1a and 1b):

Argument 1a

(A) If the nature of dogs is to attempt to dominate others, then I ought to train dogs according to their nature. (P⇒Q)

(B) It is the nature of dogs to attempt to dominate others. (P)

Therefore: I ought to train dogs by attempting to dominate them. (Q)

Argument 1b

(A) If dogs dominate others, then it’s right to dominate others. (P⇒Q)

(B) If it’s right to dominate others, then I have to do the same to be right. (Q⇒R)

Therefore: If dogs dominate others, then I have to do the same to be right. (P⇒R)

We cannot derive ‘ought’ from ‘is.’ Arguments 1a and 1b commit the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ Both arguments seem formally valid, except that they derive a norm from a fact. There is no logical contradiction in stating, “I ought not to train dogs according to their nature.” They are also unsound (the conclusions are not correct) because premises P are not true.

There is no evidence that dogs attempt to dominate others or that they don’t. On the contrary, all evidence suggests that dogs (like most animals) use different strategies depending on conditions, which include costs and benefits. Sometimes they display dominant behavior, other times they display submissive behavior, and other times they display other behavior. Even when particular dogs are more prone to use one strategy rather than another, we are not entitled to conclude that this is the nature of dogs.

Conclusion: whether science proves that dogs display or don’t display dominant behavior has nothing to do with whether or not it is morally right for us to dominate our dogs.

The line of argumentation of Moralistic Dog Training is: We ought not to attempt to dominate our dogs; therefore, dogs do not attempt to dominate us. We can transcribe this argument in two ways (argument 2a and 2b):

Argument 2a

(A) Dominance is bad. (P⇒Q)

(B) Dogs are not bad. (R⇒~Q)

Therefore: Dogs do not dominate. (R⇒~P)

Argument 2b

(A) If [dominance exists], it is . (P⇒Q)

(B) If it is , [dogs don’t do it]. (Q⇒R)

Therefore: if [dominance exists], [dogs don’t do it]. (P⇒R)

We cannot derive ‘is’ from ‘ought.’ Arguments 2a and 2b commit the ‘moralistic fallacy.’ Argument 2a is formally invalid even if the premises were true because the conclusion is not entailed in the premises (it is the same as saying red is a color, blood is not a color, so blood is not red). Argument 2b sounds a bit odd (in this form), but it is the only way I have found of formulating a valid argument from the moralistic trainers’ argument. It is formally valid but it is unsound because it commits the moralistic fallacy: in its second line, it derives a fact from a norm. It assumes that nature doesn’t do wrong (or what is good is natural), but there is no contradiction in assuming the opposite.

Conclusion: the fact we believe it is morally wrong to dominate our dogs does not mean that dogs do not display dominant behavior. We are entitled to hold such a view, but it does not change the fact that dogs display dominant behavior.

4 Social conditioning and emotional load

The choice of word by ethologists to coin the behavior in English, i.e. ‘dominant,’ also contributes to the dispute. Curiously enough, the problem does not exist in German where dominant and submissive behaviors are ‘überlegenes verhalten’ and ‘unterlegenes verhalten.’

All words we use have connotations due to accidental social conditioning and emotional load. A scientist knows he** cannot afford his judgment to be clouded by his own accidental social conditioning or emotions. A defined term means that and only that. It’s not good, not bad, not right, not wrong, and the issue of whether he likes it or not does not even enter the equation. As an individual he may have his own personal opinion and moral viewpoint, but he does not allow them to affect his scientific work. As individuals, we all have our own likes and dislikes because we are constantly being conditioned by our environment. Culture, trends, movements, environments, relationships and moods, all bias our attitudes towards particular terms. Nowadays, for reasons I will leave to historians and sociologists to analyze, the words ‘dominance’ and ‘submission’ have negative connotations for many people. When people, all of whom are subject to social conditioning, fail to distinguish between the scientific meaning of the words and their everyday connotations, they repudiate them, which is understandable.

Conclusion: a class of behavior that animals use to solve conflicts without harming one another is what ethologists call dominant and submissive behavior. This behavior, in the way I describe and define, exists (see above). You may not like the terms or indeed the behaviors, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. ‘Red’ is a characteristic of an object that provides particular information to our eyes as a result of the way it reflects or emits light. We can argue (and we do) about the definition of ‘red,’ what is red, what is not, when it becomes orange, but we do not deny that red exists. You may object to the name ‘red’ but objects will continue to reflect or emit light in a particular way that produces what we call red (or whatever we choose to call it). A ‘red flower’ (or a display of ‘dominant behavior’) is not an abstract concept, but a real, detectable thing, whilst the concept of ‘redness’ is an abstract notion, as are the concepts of ‘dominance,’ ‘height,’ ‘weight,’ ‘strength,’ etc…

5 Unclear grammar

Another problem is that we use the word dominance as a noun (an abstract noun in contrast to a concrete noun) when in this case it is (or should be) a ‘disguised adjective.’ Adjectives don’t make sense without nouns (except for adjectival nouns). Dominance is an abstract noun, something that by definition does not exist (otherwise it wouldn’t be abstract), except as an abstract notion of ‘showing dominant behavior’ and as in ‘dominant allele,’ ‘dominant trait,’ ‘dominant ideology,’ ‘dominant eye,’ etc. However, the behavior of alleles, traits, ideologies and eyes, which we call dominant or classify as dominant, exists. For example, the question “Do dogs show dominance towards humans?” uses the abstract noun ‘dominance’ as an adjectival noun instead of the more correct ‘dominant behavior’. This can be confusing for some as it suggests that dominance is an intrinsic quality of the individual, not the behavior. Therefore, I suggest that, in the behavioral sciences, we henceforth drop the adjectival noun and only use the term as an adjective to behavior. This is a very important point and a source of many misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding the character of behavior.

Behavior is dynamic and changeable. An individual displays one behavior at one given moment and another a while later. The popular view maintains the notion of a ‘dominant individual’ as the one that always shows dominant behavior and the ‘submissive individual’ as the one that always shows submissive behavior, which is not true. Dominant and submissive (dominance and submission) are characteristics of behavior, not individuals. Individuals may and do change strategies according to a particular set of conditions, although they may exhibit a preference for one strategy rather than another.

It is the ability to adopt the most beneficial strategy in the prevailing conditions that ultimately sorts the fittest from the less fit—moral strategies included.

Have a great day,

R—

______________

* This is my normative judgment and as such no one can contest it.

** The most correct form would be ‘he/she,’ or ‘he or she,’ but since I find it extremely ugly from a linguistic point of view (my normative judgment) to use this expression repeatedly, I chose to write, ‘he’ though not by any means neglecting the invaluable and indisputable contribution of my female colleagues.

Canine Ethogram—Social and Agonistic Behavior (animals, behavior, dogs, evolution) 2012.06.29
Pacifying Behavior—Origin, Function and Evolution (aggression, dogs, dominance, evolution, pacifying, submission) 2012.06.06
Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids (dogs, wolf, behavior) 2012.04.25
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (aggression, fear, dominance, submission, biology, behavior, wolfs, dogs, genetics, hierarchy, social) 2011.12.11
The Magic Words “Yes’ And ‘No’ (dogs, training, language, punishment, SMAF) 2011.11.27
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (signal, cue, dog, training, behavior) 2011.10.07
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (behavior, dog, training) 2011.10.03
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (behavior, behavior modification, reinforcers, punishers, operant conditioning) 2011.09.21
The Spectrum of Behavior (behavior, aggression, fear, dominance, submission) 2011.09.09
Magical Formula (behavior, evolution) 2011.09.04

References

Abrantes, R. 1986. The Expression of Emotions in Man And Canid. Waltham Symposium, Cambridge, 14^th-15^th July 1986.
Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Wakan-Tanka Publishers (2^nd ed. 2005).
Abrantes, R. 2011. Dominance—Making Sense Of The Nonsense.
Ayer, A. J. 1972. Probability and Evidence. Macmillan, London.
Bekoff, M. & Parker, J. 2010. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Univ. Of Chicago Press.
Bland J. 2002 About Gender: Dominance and Male Behaviour.
Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. 1990. Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). Macmillan.
Dennet, D. 1996. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster.
Dennet, D. 2003. Freedom Evolves. Viking Press 2003.
Futuyma, D. J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Assoc.
Galef, J. 2010. Hume’s Guillotine.
Hewitt, S. E., Macdonald, D. W., & Dugdale, H. L. 2009. Context-dependent linear dominance hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour, 77, 161-169.
Hume, D. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967, edition.
Locke, J. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Kanazawa, S. 2008. Two Logical Fallacies That We Must Avoid.
Kierkegaard, S. 1844. Philosophiske Smuler eller En Smule Philosophi (Philosophical Fragments). Samlede Værker, Nordisk Forlag, 1936.
Lorenz, K. 1963. Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Wien, Borotha-Schoeler Verlag, 1969.
Moore, E. C. 1957. The Moralistic Fallacy. The Journal of Philosophy 54 (2).
Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica.
Novella, S. 2012. The Paradox Paradox.
Pinker, S. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Popper, K. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.
Rachels, J. 1990. Created From Animals. Oxford University Press.
Rowell, T. E. 1974. The Concept of Social Dominance. Behavioral Biology, 11, 131-154.
Ruse, M. 1986. Taking Darwin seriously: a naturalistic approach to philosophy. Prometheus Books.

Thanks to Anabela Pinto-Poulton (PhD, Biology), Simon Gadbois (PhD, Biology), Stéphane Frevent (PhD, Philosophy), Victor Ross (Graduate Animal Trainer EIC), Parichart Abrantes (MBA), and Anna Holloway (editor) for their suggestions to improve this article. The remaining flaws are mine, not theirs.

Roger Abrantes

Life is great!

Tag Archives: Animal Behavior

Bonding and Attachment in Companion Animals: A Functional–Ethological Analysis

—A Comparative Analysis of Dogs and Horses

Abstract

Bonding—a Definition

Parent–Offspring Bonding and Attachment

Pair Bonding and Reproductive Cooperation

Social Bonding Beyond Attachment

Neurobiological Substrates of Bonding and Attachment

Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Table 1—Terminological Comparison: Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Dogs

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Horses

Comparative Perspective: Dogs and Horses

Table 2—Imprinting, Attachment, and Bonding in Domestic Dogs and Horses

Practical Implications for Human–Animal Interaction

Conclusion

Footnotes

References

Muzzle Grasp Behavior in Canids

The Function of Champing Behaviour: An Ethological Account in Canines

Abstract

Footnotes

References

Canine Maternal Behavior

Does Your Dog Show Allelomimetic Behavior?

Les 20 principes que tous les entraîneurs d’animaux doivent connaître

Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer

E così vorresti diventare un buon educatore cinofilo!

So you want to be a good dog trainer!

The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know

Guinea Pig Camps, los talleres de entrenamiento con cobayas

Campo de treino de porquinhos da Índia

Guinea Pig Camp—migliora le tue capacità di addestratore di animali

Guinea Pig Camp

Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!

—A Comparative Analysis of Dogs and Horses

Abstract

Bonding—a Definition

Parent–Offspring Bonding and Attachment

Pair Bonding and Reproductive Cooperation

Social Bonding Beyond Attachment

Neurobiological Substrates of Bonding and Attachment

Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Table 1—Terminological Comparison: Bonding, Attachment, and Imprinting

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Dogs

Bonding and Attachment in Domestic Horses

Comparative Perspective: Dogs and Horses

Table 2—Imprinting, Attachment, and Bonding in Domestic Dogs and Horses

Practical Implications for Human–Animal Interaction

Conclusion

Footnotes

References

Abstract

Footnotes

References

Related articles

Related articles