1 Flatcoated Retriever Personality Project Material. 3 Personality Assessments were developed - Puppy Assessment (PT) at 7 weeks (duration 20-25 minutes) - Young Dog Assessment (FT) at approximately 1,5 years of age ( duration 15 minutes) - Breed Dog Assessment (RT) at variable age, mostly around 2-3 years of age. (duration 25-30 minutes) In the Flatcoated Retriever Club almost all puppies (300-400 each year) are being assessed by a trained experimenter and an observer. A variable part of these litters (150-200 dogs each year) is being assessed by an experimenter and 3 observers on a Family Day, in which owners voluntary partake. For the Breed Dog Assessment (free, voluntary participation) a total of 182 dogs has been assessed since 2007. Most of this last group of dogs have fathered or mothered one or more litters offspring (in one case a stud dog produced 40 litters! ). All assessments were made convergent, in order to make comparative statistical, factor and cluster analysis possible - Assessments contained basically the same elements/subtests (though PT and FT had less than RT). All were described in a detailed protocol. PT had 14, FT 10 and RT 17 subtests. In many cases elements (such as retrieving an object) were repeated in both different as well as the same forms during one assessment to assess positive/negative affect dynamics. - The form and the sequence of the subtest is very similar in all 3 assessments. In the assessment social elements (the presence of (non)demanding humans) are present all-over. The first half of the assessments contain mainly social interactions and play with humans, whereas in the second half the dog is submitted to mildly stressful stimuli and then mildly stressful social encounters. During the whole assessment the wellbeing of the dog is taken at heart and the dog is allowed and encouraged to fully recover from stress or fear. The assessments are in in no way comparable to the SAB / MAG-test or the aggression test that were developed in the Netherlands. - Assessments were conducted at an (to the dog) unfamiliar place. For FT and RT this was always the same (standardized) place, for PT various unfamiliar places (non-standardized for organizational reasons) - Experimenters and observers were strangers to the dogs - All experimenters and observers were specifically trained in a program. - Standardised materials and objects were used. - Standardised fill-in forms were used in which the behaviour, body posture and stress signals were scored
2 - Performance rating was done in a standardised, 5 scale trait form which contained numerous traits (up to 44) that can be attributed to motivational-emotional systems. All the ratings on the 5 point scale and criteria for rating were closely defined and described in observable behaviour in a standard guide for rating. - Rating of individual dogs was also compared to an inter-subjective Golden Standard for the Ideal Flatcoated Retriever. - Of each dog a combined short written general characterization was given by the two observers in PT and RT (FT occasionally only) - For validation owners/breeders were asked if the dog s behaviour during the assessment was as usual according to the circumstances, - as far as known to the breeder/owner - and if they recognized their dog in the assessment. All RT assessments, most FT assessments and some PT were videotaped (unfortunately for organizational reasons it was not possible to film all FT and PT). During the assessments the dogs were off leash and not restrained, except for certain subtests where being restrained was part of the subtest or was necessary for safety reasons. In addition to the assessments, documents and detailed information about the following subjects were methodically assembled (standardized forms and questionnaires) : - Pedigree and size of litter - General health - Breeding and living circumstances - Castration, time of sexual maturation - Socialization and habituation by the breeder and the owner - Training (puppyclass, obedience, gundog-training). Owners of dogs who did the Breeding Dog Assessment filled out 3 Questionnaires (one of which was the Gosling Big Five Dog Questionnaire; another included the Daniel Mills (2002) questionnaire.) In this way additional information was gathered concerning: - Behavioural problems - Injuries and psychological traumas - Reasons for obtaining a Flatcoated Retriever - Quality of the relation of the owner with the dog - Behaviour at home (55 statements to be rated on a 5 point scale) - Description of the dogs behaviour by the owner in anthropomorphical Big Five traits (For methodological reasons I did not use Serpell s CBARQ.) Of all owners and breeders contact-data (names, addresses, phone-numbers and email-addresses) are available and ready at hand, so that people can be contacted for further details. As I have
3 created a lot of goodwill, response to future questionnaires (and likely DNA swabs as well) is likely to be high. Discerning emotional/motivational systems The 3 Flatcoated Retriever Assessments were designed in such a way that motivational-emotional systems can be uncovered as described in: Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. (2012) The Archeaology of Mind. Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. Mills, D., Bream M. & Zulch, H. (2013) Stress and Pheromonatherapy in Small Animal Clinical Behaviour. Oxford. Wiley-Blackwell. Main focus of the assessments: retrieving under different circumstances and after being confronted with (mild) stressors Retrieving is a complex behaviour which involves: (Chasing and) grabbing of a (moving) object/resource (usually a rabbit skin) Social interaction with a stranger (or owner) in a strange environment Letting go of/giving up a valuable object /resource (cooperation) We tried to determine motivational-emotional baseline levels by observing - Off leash reaction to non-moving object ( is the object a valuable, desirable resource-object?) - Off leash reaction to non- demanding strange people - Off leash reaction to strange environment - Reaction to going away/absence of the owner Next, stimuli that might be experienced by the dog as incentives/ inhibiters/ stressors were being added to distil from the subsequent retrieval behaviour whether the activation levels of systems increase or decrease or remain the same: - Social interaction/ play invitation : resource -object being thrown by experimenter and experimenter making demands to return it - Frustration: putting a barrier between the resource-object and the dog and/or Being prevented from chasing a resource-object - Encounter with another dog (dummy) - Taking away and hiding the resource-objects - Stressors as loud noises, moving objects and (for adult dogs) a gunshot. RATING THE SYSTEMS By evaluating the intensity and/or duration of the behaviour on a 5 point scale the arousal and activation of emotional systems can be measured.
4 Ambivalence is indicative of two conflicting systems (positive vs negative affect) counter-balancing. Displacement behaviour is regarded as adjunctive behaviour as a side- effect of an overstimulated SEEKING system. Preliminary results and observations: 99% of the owners/breeders said that the behaviour of the dog during the assessment was typical of the dog, thus validating the assessments. However the owners/breeders answers in the questionnaires do not always seem to reflect the behaviour shown by the dog. Scores are at both ends (1 or 5) and not so much in the middle, showing that owners are biased and seem to pick the answers that are closest to the ideal behaviour (bias, wishful thinking), especially when they suspect a form of behaviour is unwanted or untypical of the breed. For this reason in the case of new research new questionnaires must be designed to limit this effect. Dogs do not or rarely show trained gundog behaviour as long as the owner does not interfere or is not holding the dog on a tight leash AND as long as the setting and the behaviour of the experimenter is completely different from that in a training session. For instance, most (95%) of the trained dogs do not pick up the dead duck when they find it, as long as they are let to run free and no commands are given. During the assessment, however, a learned behaviour may begin to appear: the dog may start to go faster to the experimenter because the experimenter is fun (positive reinforcement by play). Learned behaviour is, however, often taking over in only one particular subtest which closely resembles a gundog training setting. My hypothesis is therefore that it is possible to assess the untrained, favourite coping styles of a dog in an assessment as long as the dog feels free to do so. A small part of the dogs are however so very much conditioned/trained to stay under close surveillance of the owner that they stick to him/her out of their own accord (possibly for fear of being punished). The owner in those cases must explicitly tell the dog that it is free to do whatever it likes to do most. Some hypothetical explanations for general breed characteristics and individual differences. In general the Flatcoated Retrievers as a breed prove to be Friendly (cooperative and not aggressive) to people, including unfamiliar people Willing to interact with strangers in a friendly or playful way Willing to retrieve any object Willing to deliver or let go of a valued abject without showing aggression to any person (including to strangers) Not frightful of loud noises such as gunshots. One explanation is genetic predisposition: Around 1860 sporting guns were improved, allowing birds to be shot at a far greater distance than before. This created a problem for sportsmen: hunting dogs such as setters and spaniels that had been used for retrieve before at lesser distances, mauled game on the longer way back. This caused British upper class to develop a breed (by inbreeding and artificial selection) that was softmouthed : the Retriever. Crossbreeding setters with now extinct dogs from Newfoundland, and
5 eliminating (= killing) all hard-mouthed and gun shy dogs, they created a breed that was more or less insensitive to loud noises, willing to chase and catch prey, without killing or mauling it. In words of Coppinger & Coppinger (2001): dogs that had a prey catching motor pattern, without kill-bite and dissect. (In fact most Flatcoats are not able to bite a grape or cherry tomato in two; they keep rolling it in their mouth.) These dogs, first called Wavycoated Retriever and later Flatcoated Retrievers were also characterized as an everybody s friend : willing to work for/ with total strangers. The Flatcoated retriever was fixed as a breed, (by inbreeding) when these requirements were still functional. Moreover, a dual breeding purpose seems to have guaranteed uniformity in shape and behaviour (there are no separate work and show lines). Flatcoats have been used as gundogs primarily until the end of the 1990 s. Nowadays approximately 30% of the breeders still go shooting with their dogs. This might imply that a relatively highly active SEEKING system, a highly active CARE system and a relatively low RAGE and a low FEAR system have been artificially selected for over time. This is reflected in research by Turcsan et al. (2011) Within the breed, of course, differences may be observed that may be caused by epigenetic and environmental factors, learning processes and experiences and training/ stimulating different behaviours by owners/breeders. Here are a few observations leading to several hypotheses Within one litter the behaviour of pups may vary greatly and often completely different emotional traits can be observed. For instance there may be fearful pups that are easily startled (FEAR system) or clingy pups) that need a lot of social support (GRIEF system) and very independent, bold ones (SEEKING). All the puppies assessed were always well socialized/habituated to meet recommendations based on scientific research: they were handled daily by many people (including strangers), most of them grew up in the family living room, heard noises, were taken out in the car etc. Nevertheless, also in these ideal circumstances, there are still many puppies that are far more fearful than others within in the same litter. Or pups that show far less sociability or affection than others. It also seems that the puppies who are relatively clingy and easily distressed (GRIEF system) are more afraid of strange dogs as an adult and also look for more support from people in general. A hypothesis is that the interaction between littermates could influence this: some puppies that are excessively bullied by bigger, stronger pups may develop a social anxiety of other dogs and come to see people as their saviours. Sometimes a typical GRIEF system behaviour, such as shying away from strangers/strange objects and clinging to the owner, seems to be present in many related dogs bred by the same breeder. It is possible that this behaviour is favoured by and therefore accidentally genetically selected for by the breeder who finds the behaviour charming or lovable, because dogs that are bought and NOT bred by these breeders often don t appear to be so. Of course clingy GRIEF behaviour could be understood as being positively reinforced by the owners/breeders only. However I believe that there is a strong genetic, heritable component present as breeders/owners who do not like the support seeking behaviour and ignore it, have several cases of dogs with a lot of support seeking (an apparently highly active GRIEF system) that remains stable through adult life. Furthermore the environment in which the dogs live (lots of stimuli or lack of stimuli) does not seem to have a big influence. It would be interesting to research the role of the owner/breeder and breeding circumstances to a greater extend. Panksepp mentions a few factors that influence the GRIEF system, such as maternal bonding. So it would be interesting, for instance to
6 research the behaviour of the mother dog with the pups and the length of time she spends with the pups. Also Panksepp mentions that activity of the GRIEF system and its influence on behaviour usually lessens with adulthood. Most dogs were assessed before they were three years old. This might imply that only when the body and brain have reached a mature state (likely around 2,5-3 years ) true adulthood is reached and that sexual maturation (with appr 6-8 months) in itself is less important. Also castration at an early age or being alone or with intact animals the not having offspring or company of younger dogs might be of importance in the keeping the GRIEF system more highly activated. It would be interesting to research whether this GRIEF system behaviour is a stable trait also later in life or whether it declines with age. Then there is a possibility of dogs being addicted to the loving care of owners (sensitisation to endogenous opioids or oxitocyn) which might explain maintenance of a high GRIEF behaviour. Most owners that chose a Flatcoat do this because they favour a soft, friendly, non-aggressive family dog. So they are likely to sensitize the CARE and GRIEF system. Similarly addiction may explain the joy Flatcoats have in interacting with people, playing and retrieving: Of the non-breeding owners a small percentage hunts with the dog, and about 30% does gundog training. Many owners throw balls. They might cause an addictive (dopamine) sensitization of the SEEKING system. Many Flatcoats seem indeed addicted to fetching and retrieving tennis balls. SOME POSSIBILITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The Flatcoated Retriever is one of the few breeds that can be assessed by strangers while roaming free, making it possible to observe their own preferred motivational-emotional traits and coping styles. By comparing this to their behaviour as a puppy and other obtained data, it may perhaps be possible to distil a more accurate motivational-emotional model of behaviour that may serve for future research on both dogs (other breeds) and humans. Furthermore understanding the motivational-emotional systems better may improve the welfare of dogs with problem behaviours in general, because, as Mills c.s. states: identifying the role being played by motivational-emotional systems in a given circumstance is at the heart of the diagnostic process (p. 55). Researchers are kindly invited to contact me.