When asked why reactive behaviors occur , a whopping 166 attributed the cause of reactive behaviors to the guardian . That is 95 percent of the respondents are blaming the person holding the leash . This raises a lot of questions the authors did not answer in this study . Are we simply predisposed to blame the handler ? Do people hesitate to blame a dog ? Do we all think other people are poorly behaved or have the wrong habits ? Given that so many cases of what R + dog professionals call reactivity are not primarily the handler ’ s fault , this is an interesting finding .
When asked why reactive behaviors occur , a whopping 166 attributed the cause of reactive behaviors to the guardian . That is 95 percent of the respondents are blaming the person holding the leash . This raises a lot of questions the authors did not answer in this study . Are we simply predisposed to blame the handler ? Do people hesitate to blame a dog ? Do we all think other people are poorly behaved or have the wrong habits ? Given that so many cases of what R + dog professionals call reactivity are not primarily the handler ’ s fault , this is an interesting finding .
• Reactivity as the end point Other respondents argued that reactivity was a way to remove blame from the guardian , essentially allowing these guardians to absolve themselves of responsibility about the behavior and the need to address it , since it ’ s “ just reactivity .” Here again , the human handlers were set up to take the blame . Some respondents even said that if people didn ’ t address the behavior , they shouldn ’ t be allowed to use the term “ reactivity .” Those respondents felt that only people who were taking steps to modify the behavior had the right to call the behavior “ reactive .”
• Reactivity as misapplied and misunderstood Finally , there were respondents who argued that the term reactivity is applied much too broadly and is often misunderstood . This study certainly seems to suggest that is true !
Grouping answers into categories In the end , the authors grouped all of the responses into three broad categories : Canine Characteristics ( a literal behavioral response and a problematic temperament ), Importance of Human Perceptions (( un ) acceptable behavior ), and Human Capability ( a starting point , the end point , and misapplied and misunderstood ). They also proposed a framework for evaluating both any reactivity in an individual dog and what a given human ’ s definition of reactivity is , to better match dogs to potential homes .
Our thoughts Reading this paper , we found it interesting how many people blame the handler for a dog ’ s behavior — 95 percent is a very high percentage ! That attitude is also borne out by some of the definitions above . At the same time , other people gave simple , objective definitions such as “ behavioral responses to stimuli .” One wonders if the dog professionals stuck to more objective definitions , but that information was unfortunately not included in the paper .
Other takeaways ? This paper is a reminder of how dangerous labels are ! Imagine a conversation between an “ a problematic temperament ” person and one of the “ a starting point ” people . One person essentially views the tendency as carved in stone , and the other person sees it as something malleable . If each person assumes the other person means what they mean , that conversation would get confusing ( or worse ) very quickly .
We believe that there can be value in using labels . However , we must agree on a definition at the beginning of the conversation so that we all know what we are talking about . If we miss that key point of clarifying the label at the start , labels can lead to problems very quickly . We also think that labels should be objective , and not carry judgments – though we realize that is easier said than done !
Another important point is the idea of the behavior being natural and therefore OK . Many dogs with sound sensitivity , for example , are not OK . They need help , because they are suffering . The wrong ( if you will ) interpretation of the term “ reactive ” could lead to a serious decrease in welfare for that dog . This also highlights the extent to which human expectations are involved in interpreting behavior , though – something we dog professionals must always keep in mind .
In the end , the authors tell us , “ Reactivity can be defined as canine behavioral displays ( based on multiple developmental , cognitive and physiological factors ), which are contrary to human expectations , and , often , outside of human capability to manage effectively .” This definition has many issues in our view . If reactivity depends on human expectations , does that mean a dog would be reactive in one home and not in another ?
As a statement of how the public uses the term “ reactivity ,” the authors ’ definition seems overly simple . As a scientific definition ,
The APDT Chronicle of the Dog | Spring 2024 31