All dogs don't always do this or that all of the time
Turid Rugaas, a Norwegian dog trainer, is well known for putting forth ideas about behavior patterns she calls "calming signals." A recent discussion about what we actually know about the effects of calming signals is offered by Dr. Karen London, a certified applied animal behaviorist and certified professional dog trainer1, in an essay titled "Should we call these canine behaviors calming signals?" This short piece is well worth the read as not only does it caution us that we really don't know whether calming signals always work to calm dogs down, but it also calls attention to the fact that there still is much to learn about many aspects of dog behavior.
Dr. London's essay is available online, and it is based on a research study by Chiara Mariti and her colleagues titled "Analysis of the intraspecific visual communication in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): A pilot study on the case of calming signals." The abstract for this essay which is not available online reads:
Studying the signaling of domestic dogs is crucial to have a better understanding of this species. The aim of this study was to scientifically assess if the behaviors called calming signals have a communicative and a calming function (i.e., de-escalating the aggressive display in the other dog). Twenty-four dogs, 12 females and 12 males, acted as senders; they were observed for the display of the behaviors considered by Rugaas (2006) as calming signals (CSs). The behavior of each sender dog was analyzed during four 5-minute off-leash encounters, in which the dog met 4 different recipients, respectively: a familiar and an unfamiliar dog of the same sex; a familiar and an unfamiliar dog of the other sex. The display and trend of aggressive behaviors in recipient dogs was also analyzed. In total, 2,130 CSs were observed. Some behaviors were displayed more often than others, especially, head turning, licking nose, freezing, and turning away. It was statistically more likely that the CSs were sent while the 2 dogs were interacting rather than when there was no interaction (χ2 = 836.155; P < 0.001), suggesting these signals have a communicative role. The statistical analysis revealed that a higher number of signals were observed during meetings between unfamiliar dogs (χ2 = 108.721; P < 0.001). Head turning, nose licking, freezing, making him/herself smaller, and paw lifting were displayed by the sender statistically more frequently while interacting with unfamiliar dogs. Licking the other dog's mouth was more commonly directed toward familiar dogs. In total, 109 episodes of aggressive behaviors were displayed by the recipient dogs. Aggressive episodes were never preceded by the display of a calming signal from the other dog. In 67.0% of cases (N = 73), at least 1 CS was displayed by the sender dog after having received an aggressive behavior from the recipient. When CSs were displayed after an aggressive interaction, in 79.4% of cases (N = 58), there was a de-escalation in the aggressive display of the other dog. It was statistically less likely that the intensity of aggressive behaviors increased (5.5%/N = 4) or remained unvaried (15.1%/N = 11; χ2 = 13.17; P < 0.001). These findings suggest that these CSs indeed may have a role in social facilitation and preventing further aggressive behaviors.
All in all, I agree with the conclusion of this study namely, "These findings suggest that these CSs indeed may have a role in social facilitation and preventing further aggressive behaviors." Note the use of the words "suggest" and "may." I find the results of this novel study to be very interesting, and I never thought Ms. Rugaas meant to imply that calming signals always served this function. Few actions always do the same thing over and over again because of variations in the individuals who are engaged in a specific sort of encounter and the specific circumstances in which they are interacting.
Nonetheless, Dr. London's cautionary statements also are very important to note. She begins, "Since the publication of Rugaas’ 2006 book On Talking Terms With Dogs: Calming Signals, it has been a popular idea that actions such as lip-licking, sniffing the ground, yawning, scratching, looking away, play bowing, sitting down, lying down, softening the eyes, blinking and even sneezing (along with many others) are social signals that help calm down those around them."
Dr. London goes on to write:
Rugaas’ observations are compelling, and many dog trainers and behaviorists, including me, have learned a lot from her work. However, the term “calming signals” entered the lexicon without much analysis, which is problematic. Using a term that ascribes functionality to behavior patterns prior to scientifically testing whether or not that’s true creates challenges, and is a big no-no in ethology. One problem is that claiming that certain behaviors are “calming signals” creates a bias such that people tend to accept that this is, in fact, what they do. The idea that these signals are functioning in this way is an intriguing hypothesis. However, in the years since Rugaas shared her ideas with the dog community, there have yet to be adequate tests of their function, or substantial efforts to determine if the various behaviors have different functions. Rather, the idea that they were calming signals was broadly accepted without being subject to rigorous scientific study.
I quote Dr. London directly because she elegantly states a "problem" that surrounds various aspects of dog behavior, and also that of numerous other nonhuman animals (animals), namely, that while some ideas about the function of different behavior patterns may, indeed, turn out to be correct, many have not been studied adequately to support hard-and-fast claims. Thus, many people have put the dog before the leash, so to speak, in writing about the ubiquitous function of calming signals, absent any detailed studies.
Dr. London goes on to summarize the research paper on which her essay is based, and notes one shortcoming, namely, that it lacks a very important control. To wit, she writes, "De-escalation of aggression is quite common, and in this study, the authors report the frequency of de-escalation after a calming signal, but do not report on the rate of de-escalation in the absence of a calming signal. Part of the problem is that with so many possible calming signals, it is quite likely that one will be exhibited as a response to aggression. (Dogs are unlikely to have no reaction to such behavior.)"
In her analysis of the study by Dr. Mariti and her colleagues, Dr. London notes that the researchers did not report on the rate of de-escalation of an encounter in the absence of a calming signal. However, in an email to me (July 5, 2017) Dr. Mariti wrote that she and her colleagues did report that in 33% of their observations (36 cases) in which dogs did not show any calming signal after receiving an aggressive behavior, they usually increased the distance between themselves and another dog by fleeing or walking away. Dr. Mariti told me that the reason they did not report rate was because 24 of the 36 cases involved a single dog.
Are calming signals a myth? Beware the all dogs do this fallacy
So, are calming signals a myth that has been perpetuated by an uncritical acceptance of their role in social interactions among dogs? In my opinion, not at all, nor do I see this as Dr. London's intention. However, we surely need additional detailed studies to learn more about them and just how robust they truly are, a point aptly made in Dr. London's essay.
I like to say that there really is no being called "the dog," and claims that "all dogs do this or that" is really a fallacy.2 Dogs, like other animals, show enormous variation in behavior, and variations in social interactions are to be expected when different dogs interact, and perhaps even when the same dogs interact in different situations, locations, and contexts.
It's highly unlikely that all dogs always do this or that all of the time, and data from more controlled studies on additional dogs in different circumstances will surely not only tell us how useful calming signals really are, but also will shed light on how else they may be used. This will be very valuable information.
To these ends and perhaps others, more systematic studies will provide additional evidence of how dogs communicate with one another and why there are variations among different individuals and the many ways in which they talk with one another in different social circumstances.
Please stay tuned for more on the fascinating behavior and cognitive and emotional lives of dogs. It's so exciting that there is so much to learn about these amazing individuals.
1I note Dr. London's credentials because in the United States, anyone can call themselves a dog trainer. For more discussion please see "Dog Training's Dirty Little Secret: Anyone Can Legally Do It."
2I like how dog trainer Tracy Krulik (please also see "iSpeakDog: A Website Devoted to Becoming Dog Literate") refers to the "all dogs fallacy" concerning how some people like to make 100% generalities about this or that behavior pattern absent data to support these claims (email, June 25, 2017).
Anonymous and ad hominem comments will not be accepted.
Marc Bekoff’s latest books are Jasper’s Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson); Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation; Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation; Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence; The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson); and The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce). Canine Confidential: Why Dogs Do What They Do will be published in early 2018. Learn more at marcbekoff.com.
