When We Go to the Dogs, There’s Much More Than Meets the Eye

I'm pleased to post this guest essay by certified behavior consultant and dog trainer Kim Brophey, author of Meet Your Dog.

A Question of Concern

Last month, I sent the following note to Marc Bekoff:

"In speaking about animal emotions, intelligence, personalities, umwelt, etc., how do you respond to the academic psychologists who subscribe so fully to the ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) model of methodological behaviorism which insists that descriptive or anecdotal terms never be used in speaking about animals?... It is a powerful force in the dog training world right now that's moving away from an integrated understanding that sees the whole phenotype of the animal and considers both proximate and ultimate explanations for behavior."

Marc responded in an essay titled "Trainers Worry About False Claims That Dogs Lack Emotions."

I had just been handed a copy of Susan Friedman’s “Behavior Toolkit” by a student who asked me what I thought about it. I was curious about Marc’s thoughts, so I contacted him. I have attended many of Friedman’s talks over the years and have listened to her podcasts and interviews. I would never contest her recognition that animals are feeling, thinking, sentient beings. However, this should not preclude me from having questions, concerns, or differences in opinion.

I fear that a great deal of the bigger picture about dog behavior has been consistently lost in translation as ABA has become one of the dominant voices in our education and practices over the past decade, and I am deeply concerned about the accidental consequences.

Radical Thinking

Radical behaviorism seems to theoretically provide the necessary space to integrate the many complex contributions of various scientific disciplines (for example, biology, evolutionary biology, ecology, behavioral ecology, psychology, social psychology, cognitive psychology, ethology, applied ethology, neurology, neurobiology, neuro-ethology, genetics, epigenetics, anthrozoology, etc.). My concern is that we are not actually teaching or practicing what many think of as this more inclusive radical behaviorism.

The persistent emphasis on only “observable” and “measurable” behavior and “immediate” and “physical” antecedents in our work with dogs intrinsically shelves the contributions of those other invisible, yet no less consequential, forces and explanations for behavior. It is not enough to give lip service to these variables simply because they are so difficult to quantify, contributing to behavior below the observable surface. This amounts to methodological behaviorism in effect, whatever the intentions. True as ABA may be, it just isn’t the end-all, be-all explanation of behavior.

There are countless contributing antecedents setting the stage for the resulting behaviors we can actually observe. Behavior is the expression and evidence, the symptom if you will, of the whole picture of the animal (their genes and instincts, their natural habitat and current conditions, their adaptations and lessons learned, their internal state and health).

The behavior we are taught to “operationalize” as physical and immediate is quite often not about the present moment. (See "Dogs Live in the Present and Other Harmful Myths.") Rather, it’s an accumulation of other factors and forces coming to a head or displacing. In captivity, when welfare is intrinsically compromised, this is all the more important for us to remember.

It is dangerous to continue, however unintentionally, to teach a new generation of trainers to disregard the iceberg of science that lies beneath the surface of the tip we call ABA. To practice methodological behaviorism, because radical behaviorism and all the other many things we are challenged to “observe” and “measure” are difficult or even impossible to quantify in practice, does not render such behavior work more scientific or “evidence-based.” It is simply shortsighted. Using ABA is not at all reductionist; using only ABA absolutely is.

The One True Gospel

Even more concerning, in my opinion, is the presentation that certain terms or principles from outside of our scope are fundamentally invalid in some way. It is one thing to fail to include the perspectives of other important disciplines. It is another to disregard them as incorrect in preference for one’s own position.

The list of “commonly used labels that don’t describe behavior in a functional way” includes some terms that are widely accepted and applied by other disciplines (e.g., ethology, zoology, evolutionary biology) as functional descriptions of behavior. The absence of any clarification about when these kinds of terms might be useful isn’t innocuous.

Behaviorism Essential Reads

Teaching and the New Behaviorism

My Dog Is Quite a Character

Since the publication of Meet Your Dog and provision of an ethology module for a colleague’s course, countless trainers have confided in me about how paralyzed they feel as professionals to strictly adhere to ABA exclusively and their relief in the presentation of other factors of consideration in understanding and working with behavior. Others sadly just regurgitate learned ABA statements, such as “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior” (which is often not true for a variety of scientific reasons), and are resistant to any conversation that challenges the dogma. ABA is delivered to us as the answer to everything, rather than as a critical piece of the puzzle we must learn and master, in addition to others, in order to effectively work with behavior.

I am not oblivious to the concerns many of my colleagues have about false projections about intentions, emotions, genetics, and other reasons behind dogs' behavior. It is understandable and legitimate, especially for a field like ours, which has been plagued for years by widespread myths and completely unfounded assumptions about dog behavior.

I realize that we can be wrong when we look beneath the observable surface. However, I argue that we risk being every bit as dangerously inaccurate in our understanding and treatment of behavior when we avoid this endeavor entirely out of hand.

The Rise of Applied Behavior Analysis in Dog Training

I’ve been disappointed with what I have observed in the world of dog training since I entered the field 20 years ago. Other disciplines and voices have indeed seemed to slowly lose their seat at the table as ABA has continued to dominate, as ever-greater emphasis has been placed on the importance of strictly adhering to the language and practice of only that which we can “operationalize.” As modern ABA-proficient, “evidence-based” dog trainers, we are to set about our task of changing behavior by determining what we want the animal to do.

But wait, how do we know if what we want the animal to do is really the right thing to teach and in the best interest of the animal? What if we are totally headed in the wrong direction, because we are really missing some important stuff?

Could we actually do more harm than good, even with our humane and scientific methods, when we set about the process of “training” before first understanding the behavior more completely?

It happens more than you think. For example, I was talking to a young CPDT-KA (Certified Professional Dog Trainer-Knowledge Assessed) trainer a few months ago. He uses humane methods to train dogs. He said something to me that completely summarized what I am trying to illustrate, and it was one of the most terrifying statements I have ever heard a dog trainer make.

He said, “I’m not like you. I am a dog trainer. I am not an expert in behavior, a behaviorist, or anything. So I don’t have to really understand behavior. I just change it.”

This should make all of us shudder. Is it not completely unethical to set about the manipulation of behavior without a thorough understanding of the behavior?

Getting Comfortable Being Uncomfortable

Scientists ask far more questions than they provide concrete answers; it is the asking and learning, the intellectual humility, that gets us closer to the truth. We must make interpretations in order to understand observations and data within a broader context than the immediate.

I’m not saying that it isn’t a little overwhelming trying to practically factor in dozens of other relevant disciplines into our work. Becoming exclusive and insular with accepted terminology, concepts, and doctrines that seem to avoid any interpretations just isn’t the answer.

The Evolution of Understanding

We have a common, successful, and therefore often very accurate evolutionarily adaptation that we should no doubt be employing when it comes to dogs, namely, the theory of mind. It is a social-cognitive skill that enables us to perceive and understand the internal states, intentions, feelings, beliefs, and knowledge of others. Other animals have evolved the ability to understand the behavior of others in order to survive, and these instincts and perceptions are often very accurate.

We should not accept that “observation of behavior in conditions is all we have with animals.” We have so much more. We distance ourselves irrationally from the animals with whom we are so irrefutably connected, and unwittingly objectify these kindred species.

We fail to move beyond the observations and integrate our efforts. We have forgotten that the wisest men have taught us, “Science is not just analytic; it is also synthetic.” (E. O. Wilson, Biophilia, p.54). We have fallen far behind the cutting edge.

We need to catch up with and use what we know about dogs on their behalf. We need to abandon restrictive dogma and methodologies and engage in more complicated conversations about all the things that are not visible to the naked eye. This movement beyond the confines of behaviorism, even radical behaviorism, will take us into important places in our work, places that matter exponentially to dogs and the people who love them. When we expand our views and methods, it’ll be a win-win for all.