Learning to Adjust and Control
The foregoing discussion has emphasized the role of early socialization and attachment in the ontogeny of puppies. Puppies that fail to receive sufficient contact during the critical period of socialization may exhibit lasting deficits in their social responsiveness and general trainability. To gain the most benefit from the least effort and investment of time, it has been demonstrated that timing is of vital importance. In fact, it has been estimated that as little as 20 minutes of social contact per week during the socialization period is sufficient to offset the adverse effects of social isolation in puppies (Fuller, 1967). With such an impact occurring as the result of minimum social contact, one can only imagine the potential benefits possible for young puppies that receive that amount of focused attention every day.
Environmental Adaptation (3 to 16 Weeks)
Of equal importance to a puppy's psychosocial development is access to a varied environment rich in diversity of objects, textures, and structures with which to interact and explore. A puppy's curiosity and excitement about the external environment emerge along with the development of the various senses and motor abilities. Nature itself provides a boundless outlet for a puppy's inquisitiveness and exploratory activity. For instance, an outdoor excursion or a playful romp in the woods provides a profusely enriched environmental experience. Nature is the most readily available resource for sensory-motor exposure and locomotor experience and experimentation, but exposure to nature alone is not enough to ensure adequate stimulation and adjustment. Although the natural environment provides puppies with outlets for exploratory behavior, they must also be exposed and habituated to stimuli associated with the artificial environment within which they will spend the majority of life. This includes exposure to the sounds of traffic, everyday noises like a vacuum cleaner, and various other noisy appliances and routines.
A puppy's sensory and psychological need for environmental exposure is supported by the results of many studies on the effects of isolation on development. Thompson and Heron (1954) compared the effects of severe, moderate, and normal restriction on general activity and exploratory behavior. Their results show that activity levels and exploratory behavior significantly increased, depending on degree of restriction, but these differences gradually narrowed as a function of remedial exposure and maturity, suggesting that some of the effects of early restriction are reversible. Thompson and colleagues (1956) observed that, in addition to increasing general activity levels, severe restriction resulted in the development of compulsive whirling and tail snapping in isolates. Of 11 Scottish terriers exposed to severe restriction, eight developed the stereotypic habit of whirling. Fisher (1955) also observed similar whirling behavior exhibited by isolates while in their home cages; however, after several weeks of exposure to a nonrestricted and socially enriched environment, the whirling habit disappeared. The habit was most conspicuous among wirehaired terriers. Fox (1967) found that even short periods of partial isolation early in the socialization period produced pronounced effects on behavioral and neurological functioning. isolates were restricted to a darkened room for 1 week (week 4) with human contact being limited to 1.5 minutes per day for cleaning and feeding. Controls were kept in a similar cage but with greater exposure and contact with other dogs. The gross behavior of isolates was different from controls along several dimensions: isolates were much more active, their behavior was disorganized, and they tended to ignore visually and tactilely interesting objects (a mirror, toy, and piece of cloth). Although both isolates and controls were attracted to a cloth item, the isolates spent most of their time sniffing rather than biting or playing with it. When the mirror, toys, and cloth were removed, isolates were unaffected whereas controls scratched at the door or searched the testing area while whining or crying. Controls approached the mirror with tail wagging whereas the isolates took no interest in it. in general, isolates were socially withdrawn (exhibiting little vocalization or tail wagging) and did not engage in playful interaction with littermates. Further, isolates showed a preference for inanimate objects and engaged in self-play instead of making social contact with other puppies or observers. Fox also found that exposure to short-term isolation resulted in the display of tail chasing and whirling previously observed by Thompson and colleagues.
in addition to the behavioral deficits resulting from short-term partial isolation, Fox (1967) found several correlative alterations in brain-wave activity of the isolates when compared with controls. From these observations, he concluded that isolates were overwhelmed by intense arousal stimulated by the enriched testing area. He speculated that isolates suffered an increased sensitivity to sensory stimulation. The neurological locus of the dysfunction may have been "acute reticular arousal," rendering the isolate unable to filter out irrelevant from relevant input. The outcome of overarousal was a short-circuiting of the isolate's ability to select appropriate and adaptive responses to the impinging stimulation affecting them. Under the influence of remedial exposure, short-term isolates quickly recovered and appeared normal according to behavioral and EEG parameters after 7 days.
The effects of long-term isolation have also been studied. Lessac and Solomon (1969) isolated puppies from 12 weeks to 12 months of age and then compared their behavior under various testing situations with that of controls raised under the influence of social contact and environmental exposure. isolates exhibited many "psychologically destructive, deteriorative, or debilitative effects" (1969:22). During observations of free-ranging behavior, the experimenters found that isolates exhibited sustained generalized arousal, high motor activity, diffuse emotion ality, and distractibility, perhaps representing a developmental model of hyperactive-attention deficit disorder. The isolates frequently bumped into furniture and walls. They appeared oblivious to their surroundings, swept up in a vortex of "diffuse and disorganized behavior." They ignored external sounds and barked at irregular intervals independently of what they happened to be doing or attending to at the moment. While many of them raced toward the experimenter when he entered the room, they failed to make any contact. They simply raced by as though not seeing him.
In contrast, the controls, which were raised with social contact and environmental exposure, were much more focused and directed in their free-ranging activities. When they barked, the barking was directed at someone or something. They also spent a lot of time pawing at the door separating them from the experimenter. Although initially very excited, the puppies calmed down within 5 minutes. They intently sniffed and explored the test area, frequently spending as long as 90 seconds exploring a single object attracting their attention. When noises occurred on the outside of the room, they quickly oriented in the direction of the sounds. When the experimenter entered, they all approached and followed him around the room.
Two particular test situations revealed striking signs of disability involving coping mechanisms and the breakdown of previously learned behavior, especially with regard to effects associated with frustration and pain/fear reactions. Lessac and Solomon tested 12-week-old puppies on their ability to solve a simple barrier test and to learn a shock-escape/avoidance response. The experimental isolates and controls were subsequently tested at 1 2 months. The barrier test requires that a puppy go around a wire barrier in order to obtain meat on the other side. Puppies at 1 2 weeks of age exposed to this problem solved it within 50 seconds (all values are mean approximations). Testing after a year revealed that isolates languished behind the barrier for up to 130 seconds before solving the problem, while the socialized/exposed controls solved the problem within 10 to 15 sec-onds—substantially bettering their scores observed at 12 weeks of age. Interestingly, Fox (1967) found that week-4 isolates were significantly slower than controls in solving this barrier test, as well. The author noted that, instead of eating as the controls did, the isolates nibbled on the meat briefly and ran off. Instead of improving over a number of trials, the isolates' ability to solve the problem appeared to deteriorate with practice.
The study also tested the isolates' ability to learn a simple shuttle-box escape-avoidance response. The puppies were placed in a box divided into two compartments divided by a shoulder-high barrier. The discriminative stimulus signaling pending shock was a 10-second darkness interval. The moment the puppy jumped the barrier, the light was turned back on and shock terminated. Shock was continued for up to 1-minute duration or until the puppy jumped over the barrier. The mean time for 1 2-week-old puppies to escape shock was 16 seconds. Interestingly, one of the experimental groups that had not received training at 1 2 weeks prior to being isolated did particularly poorly on this test, taking 45 seconds to jump the barrier while receiving continuous shock. This is in sharp contrast to the socialized control group (which also had not received training at 1 2 weeks), which successfully jumped the barrier in 9 seconds. In both of these tests, a strong emotional component involving frustration and pain/fear is involved. Isolates appear to possess particularly poor adjustment skills when it comes to situations charged with frustrative or fearful components.
Fuller (1967) also reported a series of experiments examining the effects of isolation on puppy behavior and has evaluated various techniques for reversing its effects (Fuller and Clark, 1966a, 1966b). Fuller exposed several groups of puppies to varying amounts of isolation to determine the causes underlying the isolation effect. Consistent with findings of Lessac and Solomon (1969), Fuller observed that isolates tended to exhibit striking emotional, sensory, and motor deficits when first exposed to an open area for observation.
However, Fuller has interpreted these findings in a somewhat different way. Lessac and Solomon viewed isolation as having a destructive, deteriorative effect on the isolate, whereas Fuller explains the isolation effect in terms of an emergence-stress response. Unlike controls that have had a chance to habituate to the complex stimuli associated with ordinary levels of stimulation, isolates when first exposed to an ordinary environment are overwhelmed by its novelty and complexity. Since they are inadequately prepared to process and respond to the stimulation, they are seized by various emotional reactions and bizarre behaviors that block more appropriate and adaptive coping behaviors. Even when puppies were raised together in pairs or permitted access to toys in their cages, the isolation effect was still evident when they were finally released from confinement.
Fuller has theorized that the behavior of isolates is precipitated by an emotional state incompatible with normal adjustment. Consequently, he carried out a series of experiments based on this simple hypothesis: if postisolation disturbances of behavior are due to excessive emotional arousal, then such disturbances could be ameliorated if the emotional reactivity of the isolated puppies was reduced. To test this hypothesis, he exposed isolates to two emotion-reducing influences: handling and chlorpromazine. Fuller found that isolates handled or given a combination of handling and chlorpromazine prior to exposure performed more like normal controls (Fuller and Clark, 1966b). Fuller and Clark conclude that isolated puppies (provided that they are not genetically hypersensitive to the effects of isolation) can recover their emotional and sensory equilibrium if exposed to appropriate handling and/or drug therapy:
It appears that much perceptual organization can take place with minimal stimulation, and that appropriate responses can be elicited readily in post-isolates if interfering behavior is controlled. Certainly the intensity of post-isolation effects can be greatly modified by varying the conditions of emergence. Under especially favorable circumstances, forced contact with the handler, a suitable dose of chlorpro-
mazine, and a robust genotype, the post-isolation syndrome can be totally eliminated. The outlook for the experientially deprived organism may be more hopeful than recent experiments have indicated. (1966b:257)
Development of Exploratory Behavior
Socialization and environmental exposure practices should follow an age-appropriate pattern. Waiting until a puppy is 16 weeks old before letting it venture out into the real world is too late. On the other hand, exposing a puppy too early to too much stimulation may generate negative side effects, as well. Scott and Fuller (1965) found that puppies reared under semiferal conditions avoided excursions beyond 10 to 20 feet from their home boxes until they were around 12 weeks of age. Such information suggests that a puppy's readiness for environmental exploration and exposure is develop-mentally sensitive. Some puppies do, in fact, strongly object to leaving their immediate home environments until after they reach 1 2 weeks of age, yet many puppies as young as 7 weeks old happily explore new environments as long as they are in the company and safety of a human guardian.
Fox and Spencer (1969) carried out a series of experiments to determine the relative importance of experience versus age on the development of exploratory behavior. The puppies they studied were divided into two groups depending on the sort of test exposure they experienced at different ages. Cross-sectional exposure involved exposing puppies to the novel stimulus situation at various ages, some at 5, some at 8, some at 12, and some at 16 weeks of age. The second group, longitudinal exposure, had puppies exposed to novel stimulus situations at each of the above test periods. In other words, the cross-sectional group was exposed to only one test period overall, while the longitudinal group was exposed to all four test periods. The worst deficits were observed in the cross-sectional groups exposed to the test situation at only weeks 1 2 and 16, suggesting that early experience with novelty is crucial for the development of normal exploratory behavior. The study revealed that the longitudinal group became progressively more exploratory than the cross-sectional group over time. The puppies receiving longitudinal exposure via testing to novel stimulus situations significantly benefited in terms of their tendency to explore and tolerate novel situations and events.
Wright (1983) has studied the effects of different rearing practices on exploratory behavior and stimulus reactivity in German shepherd puppies. He tested and evaluated the differential effects of hand rearing versus litter rearing on the exploratory behavior and stimulus reactivity of puppies at 5.5 weeks and 8.5 weeks. His findings indicate that hand-reared puppies are significantly more curious, spending more time in close proximity to and examining more frequently novel objects placed in their environments. In contrast, litter-reared puppies are much more reserved and avoidant toward novelty at 8.5 weeks of age than are hand-reared counterparts. Wright concludes that rearing practices should include active handling and environmental exposure early in a puppy's life to both enhance curiosity and receptivity to novelty and to prevent the development of fearful avoidance responding:
There are practical applications of these findings for breeders interested in increasing the chances that their pups will not develop avoidance reactions to unfamiliar aspects of their environment. First, rearing pups together, with access to large areas for locomotor activity, may not be an adequate rearing-procedure by itself. Second, handling, and the exposure to unfamiliar people, other animals and other novel stimuli (characteristic of hand-rearing) may be a more effective rearing-strategy. (1983:33)
During outdoor excursions, extra precautions should be taken to minimize risks on at least two fronts: (1) the risk of exposure to communicable disease and (2) the risk of exposure to traumatic or overly threatening experiences. The first danger can be mitigated by avoiding places frequented by other dogs and keeping the puppy's vaccinations up to date. The second caution is harder to guard safely against. As previously mentioned, there is a particularly sensitive period for the development of lasting fear impressions, extending roughly between weeks 8 and 10. For instance, if a puppy is accidentally stepped upon as a 9-week-old, he may develop a chronic fear of feet or shoes. Many adult phobic reactions in dogs may have their origins stemming from experiences occurring during this period.
Careful environmental exposure carried out systematically through gradual increments of intensity and duration allows puppies to habituate to potentially fear-eliciting stimuli without undue distress. A puppy's environment should be rich in diversity of objects, textures, and structures with which to interact and explore. A puppy's curiosity and excitement about the environment emerges as the puppy matures and develops greater confidence in the complementary directions of emotional security and physical dexterity. Owners should refrain from reassuring nervous puppies by petting and soothing words while the puppies exhibit fear, even though it seems so natural and appropriate. The provision of such emotional support is hard to resist, but it may inadvertently strengthen a puppy's fearful reaction rather than reduce it. Attempts to relax and calm puppies should be made prior to exposing them to the fear-eliciting stimulus.
An effort should be made to expose puppies to a wide variety of physical and social situations, while being careful to ensure that they are positive experiences. Techniques for reducing fear responses are discussed in great detail later, but the key to environmental exposure is a patient, gradual, and orderly progression of direct interactive exposure. It is useful to engage puppies in an activity that they have already learned and enjoy while such exposure is taking place—for example, walking quietly on the leash, playing ball or fetching a stick, taking treats of food, or receiving petting and praise. Keep the process active and moving, ever-prepared to distract puppies should they become too fearful or alarmed. In general, puppies engaged in some activity or movement tend to be less anxious and fearful than those unoccupied or standing still.
The staging of environmental adaptation experiences should include exposure to those things that are desirable for puppies to ap proach as well as teaching them the things and activities to avoid. Just as fears and phobias are readily established during the socialization period, appetites and potentially harmful activities are also quickly learned. Many problems can be avoided by carefully selecting chew toys that cannot be easily generalized to valued personal belongings. Giving a puppy an old shoe, socks, discarded plastic bottles, a broken chair leg, or carpet remnants establishes such objects (and similar ones) as chew toys. The consequence is to inadvertently turn the entire house into a sumptuous temptation for an orally active and exploratory puppy. in addition to the very likely possibility that oral preferences are imprinted to some extent, chewing for the dogs is both physically and psychologically satisfying. Consequently, puppies may develop a lifelong appetite and preference for items presented to them for oral entertainment early on. These acquired preferences may persist indefinitely or until they undergo aversive counterconditioning or punishment, a rather unfair outcome since the whole situation could have been prevented by more careful selection of chew toys in the first place. Prevention rests on directing oral exploration into outlets of greatest satisfaction and limiting these outlets to a small number of objects easily discriminated from personal belongings. Efforts to prevent puppies from engaging in inappropriate or destructive chewing behavior should include careful supervision and confinement. Unfortunately, crate confinement often takes the place of puppy training. Although the crate performs a useful function in puppy training, it is often used in excess or as a permanent method of daily confinement. Long-term or excessive reliance on crate or kennel confinement may have an adverse effect on the social behavior of an otherwise well-socialized puppy (Fox, 1974).
Learning and Trainability
The socialization period extends roughly from weeks 3 to 1 2. Throughout this period, puppies exhibit a pronounced sensitivity for the acquisition of a wide variety of social and environmental coping and adjustment skills.
if puppies are not provided with adequate social contact or exposure to an environment rich in variety during this period, their psychosocial development may be significantly compromised or impaired. Such puppies are unlikely to reach their full potential as adults and may be at risk for developing a variety of behavior problems linked with developmental deficits or trauma occurring during these early formative weeks. Controlled studies show that puppies are able learners; in fact, this period could very aptly be called the "critical period for social learning." At no other time in a dog's life is he more receptive to training based on affection and reward. EEG measures and the results of many behavioral studies demonstrate that 8-week-old puppies function at nearly an adult level in terms of learning ability. Apparently, however, as puppies mature, the ease with which they learn noticeably begins to decline by about 16 weeks of age (Scott and Fuller,
As to basic learning capacities the puppy appears to be fully developed before the outset of the juvenile period. At about 4 months of age the speed of formation of conditioned reflexes begins to slow down. This is probably not because the nervous system deteriorates but rather because what the puppy has previously learned begins to interfere with new learning. As will be seen later there is some evidence that the behavior of the puppy begins to reach a stable organization about this age; that is, he has established the foundation for what he will learn in the future. (1965:109)
Fox performed a number of experiments to explore the developmental constraints affecting early learning in dogs. For example, in one of these influential studies, he trained puppies at various ages to run toward a handler positioned at the end of a short runway (Fox, 1966b). The puppies were divided into three age groups, ranging from 5 to 13 weeks of age. After the above preliminary training was carried out, the puppies were exposed to a mild shock that was delivered just before they reached the handler. The results from week to week were somewhat surprising and puzzling. Fox found that the 5- to 6-week-old puppies tended to "forgive" the handler between the weekly testing sessions and would approach without hesitation despite past shock experiences. On the other hand, puppies belonging to the 8- to 9-week-old group tended to be much more avoidant, with half of them refusing to approach at all. In contrast, the 12- to 13-week-old puppies tended to persevere and continued to approach the handler, apparently ignoring the threat of shock. From these results, he concluded that avoidance training prior to week 8 is not practical since the effects of such learning tend to degrade rapidly. However, waiting until the puppy is 1 2 or 13 weeks of age may be too late for the initiation of some forms of avoidance training. The best time to commence mild avoidance training appears to be around 8 to 9 weeks of age:
Conditioned avoidance (electroshock on approach to human) was unstable in pups aged between 5—6 weeks, so that learning at this age cannot be reliably undertaken, for without considerable reinforcement, the learned response will disappear with age. In some pups aged 8—9 weeks, electroshock caused stable conditioned avoidance indicating this age is a sensitive period when certain traumatic stimuli have the most marked effect. Thus inhibitory training (sit, stay and house breaking) may be most easily accomplished at this time. By 12—13 weeks of age, inhibitory training is more difficult to establish for emotional attachment to man may interfere with certain inhibitory training procedures. However, leash training to heel, follow and retrieve on the basis of these findings could be commenced at this age. Thus reward training (food, or contact by stroking and vocal reward) by virtue of the close emotional bond that can be established between dog and trainer, can best be commenced at 3 months of age. (Fox, 1966b:285-286)
In another experiment, Fox and Spencer (1967) studied the development of delayed-response learning in dogs. Positive results from delayed-response testing have been strongly correlated with higher cognitive functions and working memory. To navigate the delayed-response test successfully, puppies must be able mentally to represent significant features of the stimulus situation, hold that information in memory across time, and ap ply it to the problem at hand. The basic experimental situation utilized by the experimenters consisted of an 8-foot (2.4-m) by 8-foot testing area containing a starting box and three other boxes uniformly distributed in the space. One compartment, the neutral box, located in the rear center of the area, never contained food. The experiment required that the various groups of puppies learn to identify the location of a piece of hidden food by relying on secondary cues provided by the handler's position. In other words, the puppies had to first learn that the hidden food could always be found in the compartment located closest to the handler. Gradually, they were exposed to increasingly difficult requirements and then tested for de-layed-response abilities. The test phase of the experiment involved allowing puppies to observe the location of the handler and then blocking their view of the situation by briefly closing the starting box, at which time the handler left the testing area. Once clear, each puppy was released into the area but without the advantage of the handler's presence to help it locate the hidden food—the puppy had to remember the handler's location in order to solve the problem. The delay was gradually increased over several trials, and the puppies' performance recorded at various ages. The experiment revealed that puppies differed in their delayed-response abilities according to their age.
Interestingly, both the 4-week-old group and the 16-week-old group performed poorly on the task. The best delayed-response performances were made by puppies belonging to the 12-week-old group. The results of this study seem to provide additional support to the findings of Scott and Fuller, indicating an apparent disruption of learning abilities as puppies approach 16 weeks of age. On average, the 16-week-old puppies made far more mistakes than did the 12-week-old puppies. Fox has speculated that this negative shift in learning ability may be the result of a phasic developmental excitatory-inhibitory imbalance in which excitatory processes temporarily override inhibitory ones. As a result of such excitatory dominance, 16-week-old puppies may be less able to inhibit incorrect responses to the unrewarded box, thus mak ing more errors than the neurally balanced 12-week-old group. These findings suggest that puppies pass through an important developmental phase or "terminal maturational processes" of increased excitability at around 16 weeks of age. It also indicates that this period may not be the best time to commence inhibitory training. This shift in ability is temporary, since adult dogs perform better in delayed response than do 1 2-week-old puppies.
What appear to be somewhat conflicting results concerning the puppies delayed-re-sponse abilities have been reported by Gagnon and Dore (1994). In a series of experiments exploring object permanence in dogs, a variation on delayed-response testing, the researchers found little difference among dogs between 8 weeks to 9 months of age with respect to their ability to locate objects that had been invisibly displaced as they looked on. Reliable evidence of object permanence was not observed in dogs that were under 11 months of age. The study suggests that a late developmental period occurring at the end of the first year is associated with cognitive elaborations involving object permanence. The researchers found that puppies between 6 and 7 months of age were unable to locate invisibly displaced objects, whereas dogs 11 months and older were regularly successful in their efforts to locate invisibly displaced objects. Dogs between 8 and 10 months of age exhibit mixed abilities with respect to object-permanence abilities. Although tentative, these results suggest the existence of a very significant change in canine cognitive abilities at approximately 11 months. Comparing these results with the earlier findings of Fox and Spencer is problematical. The two studies employ very different experimental designs and, perhaps, measure different cognitive abilities, making conclusions difficult to form regarding their significance for one another.
The quality of secondary socialization taking place after week 1 2 appears to have a direct bearing on a dog's trainability as an adult. Pfaffenberger and Scott (1959) carried out a socialization experiment involving guide-dog puppies. All the puppies involved were exposed to identical treatment, training, and testing until week 1 2. During week 1 2, some of the puppies were removed from the kennel situation and reared in homes under the care of 4-H Club members. Also, at this time, the usual contact between the remaining puppies and the evaluators was terminated. Of the puppies placed in 4-H homes at 1 2 weeks of age that had successfully passed earlier temperament and intelligence tests, 90% went on to complete guide-dog training successfully at 1 year of age. The remaining puppies were placed in foster homes over the next several weeks at different ages until week 19. The experiment revealed a striking effect: those animals that were placed into homes more than 2 weeks after the close of the socialization period (12 weeks) had a significantly higher rate of failure than puppies that had been placed in homes during week 12 (Fig. 2.12).
Pfaffenberger and Scott argued that this effect was probably due to an abrupt break in the socialization process, rather than the result of some underlying developmental change taking place during the several weeks immediately following the close of the socialization period. Provided that this supposition is accurate, it would seem to indicate that the
Weeks in Kennel After 12 Weeks of Age
Fig. 2.12. Puppies kept in the kennel after 12 weeks of age were less likely to become guide dogs as adults. This influence was especially marked in puppies failing early "aptitude" tests. After Pfaffenberger and
Weeks in Kennel After 12 Weeks of Age
Fig. 2.12. Puppies kept in the kennel after 12 weeks of age were less likely to become guide dogs as adults. This influence was especially marked in puppies failing early "aptitude" tests. After Pfaffenberger and
benefits of early socialization may be reversible in an especially negative way by abrupt cessation of socialization activities following the conclusion of the socialization period. The phenomenon observed by Pfaffen-berger and Scott may be an artifact produced by the superficial socialization efforts carried out prior to week 1 2. From birth to 8 weeks of age, the experimental group of puppies received only minimal social contact that took place incidental to custodial care. During the period extending from weeks 8 to 1 2, they received a half-hour of individual contact per week associated with evaluation and various testing procedures. Although a half-hour per week of sustained socialization appears to be enough to produce a normal dog, it may not be enough to produce a puppy able to withstand the effects of abrupt partial isolation. Fox has also noted that the socialization effect is contingent on sustained social contact and may be reversed under conditions of neglect and isolation:
Although there is an optimal period for socializing pups, there is evidence that dogs may subsequently regress or become feral. The social bond with man may be broken when well-socialized pups are placed in kennels at three or four months of age; by six or eight months they are shy of strangers and often of their caretakers if they have not been handled much. In addition, they may be extremely fearful when removed from their usual quarters. Their fearfulness is the result of a combination of in-stitutionalization and desocialization. (1974:60-61)
This so-called kennel-dog syndrome is particularly evident in German shepherds, with the more independent terrier breeds being apparently less susceptible to the negative effects of prolonged kenneling (Scott, 1967).
Imprinting-like Processes and Canine Skill Learning
Imprinting is a learning phenomenon distinguished by three primary characteristics: (1) it requires a small amount of early exposure, (2) it occurs during a relatively short sensitive period, and (3) it exhibits long-lasting and durable effects. The imprinting period is usually bounded by relevant developmental processes. The learning or lack of learning experienced during this impressionable period is largely irreversible. In its broadest sense, imprinting is a process (limited by the aforementioned parameters) whereby an innately prepared species-specific tendency or pattern of behavior is brought under the control of a preferred stimulus, releasing agent, object, or situation. Although imprinting is a learning phenomenon primarily associated with social attachment and identification, its role in the development of complex behavioral patterns is worthy of speculation. Tinbergen (1951/1969) observed that Eskimo dogs in Greenland learned the territorial boundaries of neighboring packs during a fixed "critical" period associated with sexual maturity. Two of the dogs he observed began to defend territory and avoided other territories within 1 week of their first sexual encounters. Prior to this time, the dogs appeared unable to learn not to trespass onto surrounding territories in spite of repeated and severe attacks, a persistence Tinbergen attributes to developmental immaturity. Similarly, many canine skills like retrieving, willingness to stay close during walks, coming when called, and house training appear to have especially sensitive periods for their introduction and training.
For instance, a dog's willingness to fetch an object is definitely influenced by early exposure to retrieving games. If puppies are prevented from engaging in ball play until after week 14 or so, they may not show a significant interest or willingness to engage in activity later on. Although many such dogs can be eventually trained to retrieve, the process is impeded by a lack of early exposure and experience. Scott and Fuller (1965) made a valuable serendipitous discovery about the importance of early exposure for learning retrieving skills by dogs. As the result of logistical constraints, they put off retrieving tests until puppies were 32 weeks of age instead of performing them during week 9 as had been their original plan. The experimenters were surprised by the puppies' poor retrieving scores: only 11% returned the item and released it to their handlers. They also observed that the 32-week-old puppies were harder to train than those that had been introduced to retrieving earlier, at 9 weeks of age. They concluded that there might exist a critical period for learning to retrieve, "a time when the probability of executing the complete pattern is relatively high, so that reward training can be maximally effective" (Scott and Fuller 1965:219).
incidentally, the single most reliable indicator of a puppy's general temperament and potential as a companion or working dog is revealed by the puppy's willingness to retrieve. Many "gifted" puppies perform this activity without any previous training and on the first or second try. in my experience, such puppies, all other things being equal, usually develop into excellent companions and working dogs. As an evaluator at Biosensor (U.S. Army Superdog Program), I found that the most reliable predictor among young puppies (8 to 10 weeks) for success as military dog prospects was an avidity for ball play and vigorous interest in rag play. Similarly, Pfaffen-berger (1963) reports a strong link between a puppy's willingness to retrieve and later success in training as an adult guide dog. Another highly predictive indicator was a puppy's degree of tolerance toward novel (frightening) moving objects. Failure to fetch a ball or tolerate the approach of a small two-wheeled cart predicted an increased risk of failure in the guide-dog training program.
An area of interest for average dog owners regards active following and coming when called. Long walks consisting of occasional surprise maneuvers, exciting changes of pace, unexpected chase and counterchase episodes, hide-and-seek games, punctuated with occasional opportunities for ball play or stick fetching—all facilitate the learning of appropriate "staying close" skills in puppies. Such interaction strongly stimulates leader-follower bonding and other social components conducive to obedience training. if puppies are not exposed to such experiences during the socialization period, as adult dogs they are typically more difficult to train to come when called or to stay nearby on walks. In contrast, puppies exposed to off-leash walks, playful recall training, and ball play are in variably easier to instruct in the performance of related tasks as adults.
Another behavioral tendency that appears to rely heavily on an imprinting-like processes is house training. There appears to be a narrow window of opportunity between 7 and 9 weeks of age for introducing house training most efficiently. Puppies started during this time tend to do much better and have far fewer accidents than puppies whose training is postponed until later. During this period, puppies develop location and substrate preferences away from their nesting area. Proper house training relies on directing innately programmed tendencies and patterns of behavior into appropriate outlets. if a puppy acquires a preference for eliminating indoors on the carpet or even on papers in the kitchen, it will be more difficult to redirect this activity outside later. Elimination location and substrate preferences appear to be strongly influenced during this brief period and, whenever possible, puppies should be taught to eliminate outdoors from the start, thereby skipping the confusing paper training routine. A good practice on arriving home with a new puppy is to take the puppy first thing to an outdoor area reserved for elimination; the experience will leave a lasting and beneficial impression on the puppy.
Post a comment