The APDT Chronicle of the Dog Summer 2018 | Page 49

FEATURE | BEHAVIOR MATTERS
him (as any head-on view would be), although by the end of this
exercise, Emmett was able to calmly acknowledge the running/
barking dogs and then disengage from them by looking down and
searching for the treats on the mat. Modified Counterconditioning can alleviate this suffering
faster, more reliably, and more permanently than traditional
counterconditioning, it might just be worth a try.
I envision CMC as a precursor—or more accurately, as a kind of
intermediary—to a full-fledged Look at That behavior, which does
not utilize counterconditioning props like a mat or techniques like
physical relaxation. Emmett still needed the support and structure
of the mat as an anchor in a very arousing dog park environment.
He was not able, at that point, to do a full-fledged LAT behavior
while walking on leash. Throwing treats on the mat every time
Emmett looked at the dog park dogs was a way of saying to him:
“You are anchored here and, just like with every other experience
you’ve had on the mat, those dogs are not going to interact with
you. You are safe.” As previously mentioned, an important rule of
mat training is that when a dog is on his mat, all stimuli are on a
“look but don’t touch” basis. The reward is for Emmett remaining
calm on the mat and looking at/looking away from the scary dogs
running around behind the fence. Since 2006, Laura Donaldson, Ph.D.,
CDBC, KPA-CTP, has been the owner of
Four Paws, Four Directions Dog Training
& Behavior Consulting, LLC, located in the
beautiful Finger Lakes region of upstate New
York. When she is not working with dogs and
their human companions, she can be found
herding sheep with her Border Collies, tending
to Thelma and Louise, her Barred Plymouth
Rock hens, clicker training Obi, her African Gray Parrot and following
the instructions of her three household cats (the real “bosses” in the
family). Laura can be reached via email at [e-mail].
Some might call CMC “operant counterconditioning” (Yin) or
“counter conditioning with an operant base” (Ken Ramirez, 2017a)
– and this would certainly account for CMC’s hybrid repertoire
of instrumental and respondent behaviors. However, I coined
(and strongly prefer) “cognitively modified counterconditioning”
to stress the importance not only of reciprocal inhibition through
relaxation techniques but also through teaching the cognitive skills
of environmental disengagement and non-aroused information
processing. Animal trainer Ken Ramirez (Ramirez, 2017b) observes
that the Look at That protocol does not provide a complete
behavioral approach on its own, especially when addressing such
issues as aggression in dogs. To be effective, according to Ramirez,
LAT must be used in conjunction with other tools. One could
say the same of traditional counterconditioning with non-human
animals. In my experience, CMC significantly enhances traditional
counterconditioning, and not just with dog-dog issues – think dog/
cat, dog/human and dog/plastic grocery bag issues. CMC molds
several already existing techniques into an inclusive behavioral
strategy and, in so doing, increases the effectivene ss of each
individual technique.
The Cognitively Modified Counterconditioning™ protocol
offers a resonant example of how integrating knowledge about
canine cognition might transform the way we train and partner
with the dogs that share our lives. I continue to live in the
messy, applied world of everyday dog training. In this world,
the admittedly anecdotal evidence of CMC’s success – honed
by my work with hundreds of dogs over the past decade – offers
enough validation for me. If someone asked me why I thought
CMC mattered, my best answer would be: “because behavior
matters!” and dogs that are fearful, reactive, or anxious about
their environment are also dogs that are suffering. If Cognitively
References
Capaldi, E. D., Viveiros, D. M., & Campbell, D. H. (1983). Food
as a contextual cue in counterconditioning experiments: Is there a
counterconditioning process? Animal Learning & Behavior, 11(2), 213-
222. doi:10.3758/BF03199651
Delprato, D. J. (1973). An animal analogue to systematic desensitization
and elimination of avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11(1), 49-
55. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(73)90068-5
Donaldson, J. (2009). Dogs are from Neptune (2nd ed.). Wenatchee, Wash.:
Dogwise Pub.
Donaldson, L. (2017) The cogntive revolution and everyday dog training:
the case of Look at That. APDT Chronicle of the Dog (Vol winter),
Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), Lexington, KY.
Ramirez, K. (2017a). PuppyWorks Seminar Outline 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.kenramireztraining.com/events/
Ramirez, K. (2017b). Aggression in Dogs. Paper presented at the Aggression
in Dog Seminar, Exton, PA.
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.).
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, B. L., Cutler, M., & Novak, C. (2012). A modified
counterconditioning procedure prevents the renewal of conditioned fear
in rats. Learning and Motivation, 43(1–2), 24-34. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.lmot.2012.01.001
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, Calif.,:
Stanford University Press.
Yin, S. A. Rapid reversal of fear and behavior aggression in dogs
and cats. Retrieved from http://vetfolio.s3.amazonaws.com/fa/
e2/1bb561a448bca7933fdf969e989e/rapid-reversal-of-fear-and-aggression-
in-dogs-and-cats-pdf.pdf
The APDT Chronicle of the Dog | Summer 2018
47