Understanding aggression: dog and human a beginning

The subject of aggression and dogs really gets at some important issues not only of dog training, but also of human nature. How we define aggression may indicate the orientation of different training methods but more importantly, the people who use them. Of great significance is how the human/dog experience can show the real nature of aggression in both dogs and people. The human and dog experience can even show us why our competitive social systems need to fostered aggression. Aggression is present in more social encounters than what many all positive dog handlers would like to believe. I am not saying this is good or bad. It just is.

Someone from a positive reinforcement style of dog training described positive reinforcement oriented trainers to me as “modern trainers.” While I do think it’s rather divisive, I will use the term “modern trainer” in this article. It is true, I do use some traditional training techniques, but I also consider myself a reinforcement oriented trainer. However, I do not consider myself a “modern trainers” or a “traditional trainers.” I think the field of dog training is broad enough to include the diversity of both traditional and more modern training techniques.

Because of the growing resentment between the different training styles I plan on not even calling myself a dog trainer. One purpose of RenChenZa® is to find a way to overcome divisiveness, resentment, and hatred while at the same time doing well in a competitive environment. My desire to create a more accepting and harmonious society is one reason that the Lifestyle Support Dog® concepts evolved. I want to create an accepting and inclusive approach to the human and dog experience.

The hostility many “modern trainers” show to “traditional trainers” illustrates that even those who don’t want to acknowledge aggression are very aggressive indeed. It is because of this increasing division and hostility in the industry that I am going my own way. I want to establish a more understanding and all encompassing way of civilizing the living room wolf as well as the killer who sits in the chair.

Because of the history of “modern training” It’s logical that “modern trainers” undervalue aggression. A tendency to discount aggression is caused by the early foundations of “modern training.” “Modern training” is based in the traditions of operant behavior. The father of operant behavior B.F. Skinner had a dislike for instinct as an explanation for behavior.

An interesting perspective comes from the opposite camp in the debate about behavior, the ethologests. Konrad Lorenz gives quite a different picture of behavior and aggression. While we have learned a great deal more about animal behavior since Lorenz, much of his work still holds true. In particular we need to take a good look at ritualized aggression. The modern version of ritualized aggression as a possible emergent behavior holds even more promise than did Lorenz’s views. It’s my understanding that ritualized aggression is a major compound in the glue that holds many social systems together. This includes dog packs and families. Social systems that are bonded together through modified aggression can be as small as two individuals or as large as great mega societies.

What is the term we should use to describe unwanted aggression?

Wikipedia’s definition of aggression is
In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain.

Undesirable aggression is a term that has worked well. The term active and passive defense response can also effectively describe how an animal reacts to threats as well as if it has a tendency to act aggressively. Agonistic aggression is another term that is sometimes used when discussing aggression. Traditionally agonistic aggression has been used to describe aggression between the same species.

Agonistic aggression includes threatening, avoidance, and appeasement. For appeasement to occur doesn’t there need to be something to appease? Appeasement seems to indicate a subordinate and dominant relationship. The idea of aggression stemming from dog vs dog and dog vs human as two different types of aggression raises the question of, do dogs display dominance towards people? Or is it even possible for dogs to display dominance towards people? Threatening and avoidance behavior with another species is easy to understand, but full fledged dominance and appeasement displays makes me wonder. In the world of nature the relationship between human and pet dog is fascinating, and appears to be quite unique.

Since aggression in one form or another is such a big part of normal social behavior, we need both technical and everyday terms to describe it. For people in a pet dog lifestyle we need a term to describe agonistic types of aggression in the context of human and dog encounters. A good everyday term to describe aggressive dog on dog encounters would also be quite helpful.

Some everyday definitions that have worked well in the past are simple descriptive terms such as dog aggressive and aggression towards people. These terms are good working definition of aggression because they usually mean threatening to engage in or actually engaging in fight and bite behavior, or a strong predisposition to engage in this kind of behavior.

“Modern trainers” are taking a stab at redefining aggression with the term “reactive.” Many trainers use reactive to mean to react to some event, but many modern trainers use it to mean reacting aggressively to an event. It seems that reactive is a kind of positive spins on undesirable aggression. It appears to me that the term reactive is meant to transfer all responsibility of aggression from the dog on to an outside stimulus. Don’t blame the dog blame the thing causing the dog to react.

A stimulus centered view does shift ones orientation from the dog to something outside the dog. In some respects focusing on the behavior eliciting stimulus can be good. It allows the handler to concentrate on some aspect of the environment instead of just the dog. This in itself could have positive a outcome. However, the term reactive seems at best to be a clue to something happening in the environment and at worst an excuse for bad behavior. Reactive by itself falls short as a description of the dog’s tendency to behave with a general class of behavior.

I do agree that a classical stimulus response model is at work in triggering the emotional states that lead to aggression. I do not think that is the whole story. Different dogs react to stimulation at different levels or to different degrees. Some dog are aggressive to a larger degree than are others. Some dogs require a larger degree of stimulation to trigger the aggression than do others. This matter of degree is what determines how a dog reacts. Some dogs react quicker with a more forceful and more aggressive response to less stimulation than do other dogs.

I do not think we should hold dog responsible for their behavior in the same manner that will hold people responsible. Although in the past, humans have applied their notion of morality onto animals. However, it does seem logical that dogs in combination with their owners have a joint responsibility to fit into society. If a dog cannot control their impulsive behavior they need to be controlled in some manner. This control will most like come from those with close bonds to the dog. All social animals have some kind of responsibility to get along with their group. It was easier to get along when the groups were small and well dispersed. In a modern society we need to fit in and get along in extremely complex social conditions. So too do dogs.

My working definition of aggression is threatening to engage in or actually engaging in fight and bite behavior or a strong predisposition to engage in this kind of behavior. Fight and bite threats and/or actual biting is often associated with fearful or threatening body postures. Aggressive and fearful posturing is usually in response to a perceived threat. We can use the dog’s body posture and other signs such as dilated pupil, stiffness, tucked or raised tail, barking, and growling as indicators of an active defensive or offensive emotional state

My true definition of aggression is somewhat broader and more inclusive.

See things for what they are – accept the problem (the aggression) – then make changes

Many people I deal with upon first encounter do not want to admit their dogs have an aggression problem. I often here excuses for biting or descriptions that hide the behavior in euphemisms. If a dog is defensively or offensive threatening which could include fearful body posturing, it’s probably aggressive behavior. This is not always the case, but it usually is.

Before a person can deal with their dog’s aggression problem they need to admit and realize they have a dog with aggressive tendencies. It is important that we see thing for what they really are. This is especially critical when confronting life changing challenges. Undesirable aggression certainly has the potential to be a problem with life changing implications. A person must accept that their dog is showing aggressive behavior. Once we accept the problem and accept the responsibility, we can do something about it. Dog bites often occur because the owner did not take the proper precautions that are needed when owning an aggressive dog. I don’t think aggression places undo responsibility on the dog, but I do believe it places a great deal of responsibility on the owner.

Accepting a problem has implications that reach far beyond the pet dog lifestyle. Accepting difficulties as a precursor to change is necessary in many parts of one’s life. Before we can make major life changes we often need to accept where we are and take responsibility for our own behavior. Then we need to put forth the necessary effort to overcome the challenges of life. Along with the required effort to accomplish our goals we need the sustained drive not to give up.