Episode 2 – Are dog breed labels accurate?

Hello and welcome to episode 2 of Animale Thérapie, the animal behaviour podcast.

In this episode, we’re going to talk about dominance, race and, in general, labels and the way they influence us.

The labels

Because it’s not just a question of semantics, our words also influence our thinking. There are a lot of preconceived ideas about behaviour, and the labels we use are going to be important. If, for example, I define this or that breed as being rather excitable, rather active, rather dominant or rather stubborn, I’m already putting labels on an individual I don’t yet know, and that’s potentially going to have consequences for the way I handle them. And this point, this aspect, is really very important to take into account because our own behaviour is bound to change as a result.

So first of all, I’d like to talk about the first label, which is still regularly used in France today, and that’s the notion of dominance. We’ll see a dog displaying certain behaviours and we’ll define it as dominant. So what is dominance? What do you spontaneously think of when I tell you that such and such a dog is dominant? Do you think of an aggressive dog? Do you think of a dog that systematically climbs over the other dog? Do you think of a dog that will bark at others, that will, as we often say, re-guide others or teach him the canine codes? What exactly do you have in mind? What are the behaviours that result from this label?

And if I’m taking the time to ask all these questions, it’s because the fundamental problem, beyond the fact that the theory of dominance has been largely dismantled over the years, and that’s not what we’re talking about today. But the main problem with a label, whether we’re talking about dominance or something else, is that it doesn’t define the animal’s behaviour and that not all humans will have the same definition of the same word. This aspect alone can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.

There have been a number of studies on dominance and the words used to describe it, and especially the observable behaviours that result from it. Over forty different behaviours have been observed just to define the behaviours we’re going to call “dominance-related”, and the problem is that with the same word, not everyone will have the same tolerance threshold or the same sensitivity to the behaviours that cause them problems. We run the risk of missing out on what is really causing us problems, the cause of these behaviours and the solutions that could be put in place to manage them. Because it’s important to understand that aggression is not intrinsic to an individual. A puppy isn’t born aggressive, he’ll potentially become so. Now, the idea is to understand what has led this dog to develop in this way. And in behaviour analysis, what we say is that our aim is going to be to observe and note down behaviours that are observable and therefore measurable.

The problem with a label is that it cannot be observed. You can’t observe dominance, just as you can’t observe kindness as such, because they are abstract concepts. We can put words to things that will be observed. For example, we can put words to precise elements of body language, but we won’t be able to define a label that encompasses an idea, because that’s what happens in the end: when we use this word, we’re no longer simply describing a situation, we’re already interpreting the behaviour we’re observing. And that can cause problems. We define a dog, for example, as dominant and therefore consider that this is a characteristic trait of its personality or character, and we no longer try to resolve the behaviour. This can also justify aggressive strategies being used against the individual, because that dog is dominant and ‘I don’t want him to be dominant, so I’m going to attack him’.

This will justify the use of a choke collar or an electric collar, for example, because it’s the dog itself that’s the problem. And in the end, we’re not interested in why these behaviours occur, in the cause. Today, we’re not interested in the cause, which on the other hand could lead us to find lasting solutions and enable us to resolve the problem without using coercive tools and without putting the responsibility, or rather the burden, back on the individual. As if it were intrinsically his fault that he is behaving in this way today.

Except, as we all know, behaviour isn’t that simple. Yes, of course, we’re the ones who create the behaviour we do. Obviously, in that sense, we are responsible for our behaviour and our actions. But that’s not the only variable. Behaviour stems from what we learn in a given environment, so modifying or managing the environment is the first step in preventing behaviour from appearing, being maintained or worsening over time.

I’m talking about this because, ultimately, there are strategies that are based on science, because applied behaviour analysis takes two elements of the environment: the antecedent and the consequence, to explain why a behaviour occurs. So, for example, if I see a light switch, that’s my antecedent, my behaviour will be I press that switch and the consequence will be that the light comes on. My behaviour has been modelled because something happened in the environment just after I took the action. And so in that sense, my behaviour, of course it’s me who chooses to do it at that moment, because I had an interest or simply out of curiosity or whatever, whatever my motivations. But then I’ll choose to repeat that behaviour because there’s a consequence in the environment that was favourable to me. In this case, the light went on. So, let’s say I want it to be an element in the environment that will reproduce itself in the future. I know that I’m going to be able to emit a behaviour that will enable me to obtain that thing in the environment and all behaviours, including aggression, including other types of behaviour, all have this environmental aspect. If, for example, we have a dog that is aggressive, it may bark at other dogs. And what happens then? Does the other dog move away? Does the dog in front end up playing with him? Does the dog in front calm down? In fact, what is the consequence of this behaviour? Because if you really analyse what’s going on, you’ll realise that the dog isn’t necessarily dominant. But perhaps he’s simply acting so that his behaviour has a function in the environment in which he’s evolving. So if, for example, he’s uncomfortable around other dogs, it’s quite conceivable that his aim is that when he barks, the dogs in front of him stop getting agitated and he regains a certain serenity.

Does that make him a dominant dog? Certainly not. On the other hand, his behaviour has had an impact and has been reinforced over time. And that’s the whole problem with labels, really, is that they don’t allow you to define the function of the behaviour. You’re already putting an interpretation on it without any resolution. There’s no analysis behind a label. Another directly related problem is that if the behaviours are not defined by what exactly is happening, i.e. if we simply describe the situation, then the action plan may not be appropriate. The biggest risk is that we get confused about the why, the function of the behaviour, and let a complicated situation develop that could well lead to an escalation and get worse over time. For example, you could imagine that your dog is very uncomfortable with other dogs and barks at them.

If we now say that it’s normal because he’s dominant, that it’s just the way things are and there’s nothing we can do about it, then there may be a risk of it escalating into aggression if his behaviour no longer serves the expected purpose, no longer has the desired result. Perhaps he would have liked it to stop, but let’s say there are too many dogs opposite who are all so excited that it won’t stop. So it’s quite possible that at some point it could escalate and that little by little you end up with a dog that gradually becomes reactive and aggressive on top of that. Our behaviour is the fruit and product of our experiences and the consequences that occur in the environment. So the problem with all this is that if we stop at the label, we run the risk of putting our dog in danger, as well as the other animals in front of it, and of letting our animal have potentially negative experiences, whatever they may be, which could damage its relationship with its environment, with other animals or with humans, whatever the type of experiences it is having at the time.

In the same way, for example, if I were to take another label that I also hear a lot: it’s a dog that’s stubborn. What does a stubborn dog generally mean? It potentially means a dog that doesn’t listen. OK, so technically it means there may be a lack of motivation. Maybe he hasn’t learnt properly, hasn’t understood the training exercises we’ve tried to teach him? Maybe he hasn’t mastered them. Or maybe there are other things at play, such as very strong emotions. Whatever the reason. But in any case, defining a dog as stubborn implies that he was born that way and that it’s part of his personality. And once again, that justifies the use of punishment to manage this dog. Because if he’s stubborn by definition, then the only way to manage a stubborn individual is to try and make the stubborn dog understand you.

We’re not trying to understand why he’s acting like this, but rather trying to impose our will at that moment. Why doesn’t he listen? Why isn’t he motivated? Why doesn’t he respond to our requests at that moment? And the problem is that if you analyse the situation, most of the time you realise that if the dog doesn’t come back to the recall, for example, it may be because he wasn’t properly taught beforehand. Or perhaps it’s because he’s reactive and, at that moment, there were too many dogs around him for him to handle. So these can be extremely strong emotions, and emotions often, if not always, take precedence over thinking. So I’ll try to calm down, I’ll try to listen to what’s going on in the environment and at that point, it doesn’t work any more because you’re overwhelmed by emotions. So that could be it, but it could also simply be because he wasn’t motivated.

In any case, there are tons of reasons. And of course the protocol we put in place will be different depending on the reason. Whatever our action protocol, it’s going to be different. Because if it’s a lack of motivation, then we’re going to have to recreate motivation. We’ll see that our dog, who we thought was stubborn, will suddenly be happy to do what we ask. Similarly, if it was a learning fault, we’ll have to relearn the basics. And then we’ll see once again that our dog wasn’t stubborn, certainly not, but that it was simply a learning problem. Maybe it wasn’t the right way to teach him that particular thing, it wasn’t adapted to this dog, this individual, because in any case, there’s no right way to learn for all animals, there’s no premade recipe. All learning methods must be systematically adapted to the learner, whatever his life history.

And if his emotions are extremely strong and that’s why he doesn’t respond to our requests, then we could well imagine that we’ll have to go through desensitisation, counter-conditioning… In any case, whatever protocol we adopt at the time, as long as it’s adapted to our dog, it’s OK. And what we’ve noticed is that defining a dog as stubborn in no way leads to a lasting solution or an action protocol that’s adapted to that individual.

Incidentally, as a little anecdote, and this is true for any animal, the stubborn side, i.e. the persistence of a behaviour, we analyse the psyche of the behaviour, it exists and it can also be worked on. It’s perfectly possible to work on a behaviour so that it becomes increasingly persistent in its environment, even if it no longer has quite the desired effect. A very simple example: if I’ve learnt very well that pressing the button on the remote control turns on the TV, what am I potentially going to do the day the batteries run out? Well, I’m going to press the button. Once, twice, three times, maybe more. Maybe I’ll even get mad at the remote and press it again and again. And then you can see that I’ll start to emit the behaviour much more often, even though I’m no longer having the expected effect. So what happens? For example, if someone from the outside tried to analyse my behaviour, they might say to themselves ‘she’s stubborn, that one, she does the behaviour over and over again’. Well, that’s exactly what happens, and it’s something you have to work at. There really are behavioural laws that explain how you can work on the stubborn side of a behaviour. So ultimately, what we call the persistence of this behaviour in the environment. And we can work on this by knowing the ins and outs. You can work on it to encourage this ‘stubborn side’ if I have to use that label again. But we can also work on good behaviours that are useful in life, on a daily basis with our animals.

The genetics

Now, there’s another point I’d have liked to address, and that’s that labels can’t be used to determine an individual’s personality, and often we say this without even necessarily realising it. For example, it’s an amstaff, so it’s normal, they’re aggressive dogs. As if all amstaff were necessarily mean, as if it were a characteristic of the breed. But it also works the other way round, of course, for so-called nice dogs, for example, because that would be a Labrador and that’s a dog that’s good for children. And once again, nice doesn’t mean much. In any case, it doesn’t determine the behaviour that the individual will exhibit. All we have is a label, a vague preconceived idea and that’s it. And we don’t all have the same definition of what a nice dog is. You can also be very surprised when you get a dog who starts to behave in ways that are either part of his personality, or part of his genetic behavioural sequence linked to his breed, etc…

So what we need to understand is that there is a genetic aspect to selection. The genetic aspect can be selection, whether voluntary or not, as in the case of different breeds of dog, for example. We select what we call behavioural sequences, physical criteria. So, for example, size, colour, certain morphological aspects. Are the ears floppy? Do they keep their ears up? We’re going to select physical characteristics, in short, we’re going to select all that. But there are also genetic aspects to behaviour that will be selected. For example, certain sequences of predatory behaviour will be selected, and this is also a genetic aspect that will be maintained or extinguished depending on what we want to keep for the original purpose of the breed.

So a behavioural sequence is made up of lots of things. To sum up, a dog that orientates itself in space, sniffs, stares, runs after moving prey, then catches it, shakes it, then kills it, then eats it: it’s a classic predation sequence and, depending on our needs, there are breeds of dog that will be used and selected according to their usefulness. We’re going to dissect this behavioural sequence and select only the points in the sequence that interest us. Let’s take the border as an example. Basically, humans use border dogs to herd animals. So in the predation sequence, what we’re going to do is select the fact that the dog runs after something in motion, that it stares at it, that it looks at it intensely, that it doesn’t take its eyes off the thing that’s moving. We’re going to try as far as possible to select these two aspects. And that’s what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years, eliminating the consumption aspect, the killing aspect of this predation sequence, because that’s absolutely not what interests us in herding.

In our example, this means that we did not select a more intelligent or athletic dog. We selected aspects of behavioural sequences that are interesting in the context of this specific work; we did not necessarily select character traits. Of course, this may be the case. We may have selected some of these aspects, but it’s important to remember that it’s multifactorial and that what we select will really be these aspects. What I’d really like you to understand is that we don’t select an individual’s intelligence in the sense that we generally understand it, because that’s what it’s all about. I often hear people who take in border collies say, ‘They’re extremely intelligent dogs.’ Yes, of course, but no more so than any other dog.
Perhaps it will manifest itself differently, perhaps they will be more inclined to work and, as a result, because we like it and they respond well to our commands, we will consider it to be intelligence. But ultimately, a little Chihuahua next to it could be perfectly capable of doing very interesting things that are suited to what it is physically and morphologically capable of doing. And it would be just as intelligent. It’s just that it’s not exactly the same behaviour. We often say that we should judge an individual based on their physical abilities and that, for example, to quote a well-known saying, if we judge a fish on its ability to run, we risk being very disappointed and thinking that this fish is not very intelligent and not very well adapted. Whereas in fact, it will be very well adapted and very intelligent in its environment and in the conditions in which it has evolved and which have allowed it to reveal its full potential. Here, it’s a bit the same thing, actually.

There will also be aspects of genetic selection related to fear and anxiety. So it’s not necessarily done deliberately, since genetic selection can be deliberate or not at all, but in any case it will have consequences because it’s also a bit more complicated, as genetic selection can be deliberate or acquired during life. This is called epigenetics, and it will be passed on to offspring.

In an individual’s life, there can be extremely intense fears, even traumas, which the breeder will then pass on to their offspring. This does not mean that all of their offspring will be more fearful or anxious. It simply means that they are more likely to be more sensitive to these issues. In any case, it is important to understand that when we select a dog, we do not choose an intelligent dog, we do not choose a friendly dog, we do not ultimately choose all the labels we might apply: for example, a Labrador. It is a friendly dog, a good dog for children, which may ultimately create problems.

If, for example, we saw a large Amstaff and were afraid that the child would end up getting bitten if he insisted too much, we might be more permissive with our Labrador, even though the risk is just as real. And as a result, this does not protect either the dog or the child. So we can see that, in this case, labels can be really harmful in the way we deal with an individual.

And our labels can also lead to confirmation bias. For example, if I see a Chihuahua barking because it has seen something that frightens it. Let’s say that for this reason, we think it’s a Chihuahua, so it’s normal for this type of dog to bark. So maybe yes, maybe we’ll say that Chihuahuas generally tend to bark more frequently.

Now, the idea is to always try to understand why. Because the problem is that, for example, if it is related to latent stress, the risk of exposing our dog to this latent stress without really realising it is really significant, because we tend to think that the consequences of these behaviours are not very serious for us humans. In other words, a Chihuahua barking is noisy, but not very intimidating. Whereas if we have a Malinois right next to it doing exactly the same thing, our first reaction is likely to be to think, ‘Oh my, that’s a vicious dog.’ And perhaps it’s doing it for exactly the same reasons. However, our reaction to this same behaviour, which is exactly the same – he curls his lips, they bark with their ears back – could be completely different. It could be exactly the same body language, it could be exactly the same behaviour in the same context. – and yet we risk not interpreting it in the same way at all, which can be harmful to the dog and its well-being, but also in the way we approach the protocol of action for that particular dog.

We may be much less interested in why the Chihuahua behaves this way, whereas with the Malinois, we may take action because we don’t want the situation to escalate, we don’t want there to be consequences, we don’t want our dog to become aggressive because there is a potential for biting and that is important. But ultimately, we only consider this one factor. We don’t take into account the fact that perhaps, if our Chihuahua barks for the same reasons, it may be because there is a latent discomfort that we could also manage in the same way as we would manage that of the larger, more intimidating dog. So what I’m saying here about dogs is also true for birds and even cats.

Take cats, for example. I often hear people say that it’s normal, that cats are independent, but that’s not true at all. In reality, cats are perfectly capable of learning. They are subject to the same behavioural laws as any other animal species. They are perfectly capable of learning. If, on the other hand, they don’t learn, it may once again be due to a lack of motivation. There may be many other reasons. Or perhaps it’s simply because we’ve never looked into the subject, since we automatically assume that cats are not good candidates for learning, whatever the subject. But that’s not true. It’s just that we need to adapt the way we teach them to suit their individual motivations. When it comes to parrots, I’ve also heard that Amazon parrots can be extremely aggressive. Labels aren’t necessarily a bad thing, as they allow us to take shortcuts, move faster in everyday language, and guide us.

But when you really focus on an individual, specifically, it doesn’t help you understand why they act that way. Yes, perhaps in absolute terms, Amazon parrots are more aggressive birds, perhaps proportionally, in terms of frequency of occurrence, there is more aggressive behaviour among them than among other species of birds in similar conditions, i.e. in captivity, with humans, in a family context, in a cage or aviary. Now, the aim of the game is to understand why. Why does this behaviour occur? What were the risk factors? Were there any factors that accumulated? What caused this bird to become aggressive? And it is only under this condition that we can find a solution for this individual. Indeed, if we start from the premise that all Amazon parrots are aggressive, it does not allow us to solve the problem. When we try to understand why a certain behaviour exists, we always try to compare it to the ethogram of the species. This is what we can observe in nature and see if it corresponds to what we can observe. Does our individual fall within the average range, or not? And if not, why do we see more of these behaviours in captivity? In that case, it means that it is not a trait or aspect related to that species, but rather something that has been, shall we say, conditioned by the environment. As a result, today we have an individual who has learned a great deal, and that is why it is where it is today. We should really try to focus on the individual rather than generalising about a species, which does not lead to a solution and instead serves, and this is my third point about self-fulfilling prophecies, to reinforce the idea that if we consider a particular species of bird to be aggressive, then we are likely to act accordingly. We will once again place the blame on the individual.

We are not going to try to resolve the issue or find out why this individual is aggressive. We are going to immediately try to stop the behaviour by acting on the individual rather than acting on the factors that have caused them to become aggressive today. And so, once again, this will potentially justify punitive, invasive, coercive strategies against the individual, which will still not achieve a certain level of well-being. We really need to be wary of labels, because if, for example, we take in a dog because it has been described to us as friendly, shy and calm, and it turns out not to be so, we may not understand why.

So why, ultimately? Why might he change in relation to the labels we have here, that have been described to us? Potentially because he will be changing his environment, he will be changing his environmental context, and we have seen how much the environment influences behaviour. So, by changing environments, we could see behaviours emerge that are completely different from the behaviours that appeared before in the environment in which the individual was previously.

Does that mean the person lied to us? No. Maybe they lied to us, but potentially, they told us the truth. The truth that was true in the context in which they observed the animal. Now, is that the problem, or could it be that this definition is different? What would they call calm? Where is the bar set? Where is the line between an individual who is calm and one who is not? Because, personally, my definition of calm is certainly going to be different from, for example, that of a retired person looking for a calm dog. Perhaps they are really looking for a dog that doesn’t move, that has very few needs, needs to go out, needs activity. Perhaps a senior dog would be suitable because its need for activity will be low, much lower in any case than a very young and active dog.

And so here, once again, we see the limitations of labels. The fact is that each person’s definition will be different, which means that it is impossible to anticipate the behaviours that will occur in our environment. We risk being surprised. Nor does it allow us to determine an individual’s personality.

The dangers

Now, why is this dangerous too? Because in the category of self-fulfilling prophecies, I’ll take a simple example: let’s say we have, to use the example from earlier, a large Malinois or German Shepherd dog and a small Chihuahua or Yorkshire Terrier type dog. Let’s take the same behaviour, for example, running to sniff a child walking with their parents in the street. What will happen if our little Yorkshire Terrier runs to sniff this child walking quietly in the street? Maybe everyone will want to give it a big hug. Maybe everyone will say, ‘Oh, how cute!’ And finally, everyone will bend down and give him a hug. The parents, the child. And then everyone will go on their way. The things that happened will be positive. So our little Yorkie will have had only positive experiences in relation to the behaviour.

Now, let’s imagine the same thing, the same behaviour, but for a different type of dog. So, a Malinois, German Shepherd or Molosser type dog. I deliberately choose these dogs, which are much more imposing, to really illustrate the point, because these things do happen. If you have a child who is already smaller in size, then when the dog approaches, it will already be very imposing for the child, who may be intimidated, and also for their parents. And there is always that slight fear on the part of parents when they see the dog approaching: ‘What if this dog bites my child? What will happen then?’ Of course, this fear is completely justified and legitimate. There is no problem with that.

But on the other hand, what is likely to happen is that, potentially, and I have seen this before, the parents or even the child may have extremely strong reactions to this same behaviour. So when this dog approaches and simply sniffs the child, for example in the street, the child may suddenly scream, the parents may also scream, or even push the dog away or kick it. I have seen this happen. And ultimately, we will have a dog that is likely to start developing mistrust. We will create this emotion, this feeling, because he has had this experience in this environment. We will create mistrust, we will create fear, whereas our little Yorkie will have had only positive experiences with the same behaviour. Do you see where I’m going with this? This is where I talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.

What determined the change in environment for the same context, for the same behaviour exhibited by the dog? It was solely its breed, so it was solely the idea we had of what could potentially happen based on the physical appearance of this individual. And so that will also condition its response and the mistrust that the dog will feel. And it will be entirely justified in relation to the experiences it has had in its life.

The last small problem with labels is that they generalise a breed. For example, there was a study that looked at Shih Tzus and poodles and assessed the frequency of barking for each of the two breeds. What they found was that there are indeed differences. They created graphs to assess the frequency of barking for a sample of individuals from each breed and concluded that, in general, poodles bark more than Shih Tzus, but the graphs overlap. This means that sometimes we will have Shih Tzus that bark more than some poodles that are, let’s say, on the slope, based on the frequency of occurrence of the ‘barking’ behaviour.

And so here we are identifying another issue, which is that: each individual is a case study in its own right, and just because, in general, this breed tends to exhibit certain behaviours more than the average for the rest of the breed, that does not mean that this individual will be a representative of the breed or of the behaviours we are supposed to observe, because there are individual differences that must be taken into account and that are extremely important.

So when you have your pet at home, you can only base your approach on your individual animal, which will be representative of what it is, not on the idea that we may have or form of this species or breed. No, you really have to base your approach on your individual animal, on your dog, your cat, your bird. What kind of behaviour does it exhibit? Because it may not be true for it. It will have its own learning history, its own personality, its own genetics. And in fact, once we understand that, we will really be able to put in place things that are tailored to that individual. So we’re not going to make generalisations.

What we risk doing with labels is generalising, so we will try to move away from them, which is a first step towards resolving behaviours that could potentially cause problems. So if there is one thing I can tell you about labels, it is that they can be useful. Of course, they can make things easier to understand. We can discuss certain aspects with a sense of humour, but we must always take them for what they are, i.e. a way of interpreting what we see from our point of view, which does not necessarily reflect reality.

Conducting a behavioural analysis requires first describing what can be observed rather than saying ‘my dog is dominant’. When a dog barks, I could say, ‘my dog rushes towards him and barks at him’. And the consequence is that the other dog stops, cowers, or walks away, regardless of the consequence. But in any case, this way of describing what can be observed allows us to find a solution to the situation.

Changing the way we view behaviour is really the first thing we need to do. Interpretation comes later. It is based on ethological observations and behavioural analysis and will provide an explanation, but also, and above all, solutions. All of this forms the basis for better communication between us and our animals. The more we try to take a step back from a situation, the more we will be able to find a lasting solution. The more you take an interest in your animal, its behaviour, what it does and why it does it, the better.

So what I would like you to do next time you find yourself in these situations is, rather than trying to describe the situation by labelling it, I would like you to describe the situation by breaking down exactly what is happening, what happened before, what triggered the behaviour, the animal’s behaviour. What is it doing at that moment, and what is the immediate consequence of that behaviour? What exactly is happening? And I would like you to tag me on social media with a summary of your analysis.

If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please feel free to comment. For future episodes, you can also suggest a topic that is important to you.

You can also follow me on Instagram for more information, tips and free resources: @animaletherapie, and on Facebook. Do you have a behavioural issue with your pet and would like ethical and professional support? You can contact me directly at contact@animalethérapie.com.