Introduction

When clients approach the veterinary practice to discuss behavioural issues about their pet dog they will often begin the conversation with the words 'I know we spoil him'. This concept of pampering their pooch is often put forward by people as they try to make sense of their pet's unwanted behaviour and is often linked to the argument that 'there are no bad dogs, only bad owners'. So what exactly do they mean by pampering?

The dictionary definition of the word is 'to overindulge' and similar terminology is often used when people discuss unruly behaviour in children and seek to link the behaviour to the fact that the children have been 'spoiled'. Indeed in the context of the domestic dog it is often used to describe situations in which people relate to their dog as a human member of their family. Examples might include the giving of human food, such as a roast dinner on a Sunday, and the acceptance of the dog lying on beds and sofas. Pampering may also be used as a way of describing the level of social interaction with the pet, for example showering the dog with hugs and kisses, and a lack of discipline, demonstrated by allowing the pet to do whatever it wants.

Those who adhere to the theory that 'pampering' domestic dogs leads to behaviour problems will often argue that through 'pampering', owners signal to their dogs that they are better than the humans around them and that they are therefore 'high ranking' or 'dominant'. From this point they go on to reach the conclusion that dogs must be 'put in their place' and thereby justify advice to owners that they must 'treat him like a dog' and 'show him who's boss'.

However, this approach fails to explore the emotional consequences of 'pampering' and to look at the situation from the dog's perspective. It also relies on the premise that a pack structure is designed to keep individuals 'in their place' and make sure they show appropriate levels of subordination.

What is the Purpose of a Pack?

There are several social systems in the animal kingdom and one of the reasons why dogs and people have traditionally worked so well together is that our social systems have a lot in common. Both species are obligate social creatures and need social interaction with conspecifics in order to survive. Both have a highly developed system of communication which is designed to facilitate cooperation and ensure the survival of the group as a whole, rather than any one individual. The presence of a hierarchy is used to increase social stability and to create a harmonious social environment in which to encourage the social and emotional development of young. Adults, be they human or canine, take on the responsibility of setting social rules which will induce feelings of safety and security for younger members of the social group and thereby enable them to develop into functional social adults.

In order to fulfill these aims members of the pack need to use consistent, predictable and unambiguous communication and there is no evidence, from human or canine literature, that the use of force and physical punishment is necessary to establish or maintain a successful social group.

Pampering and Inconsistency

One of the hallmarks of 'overindulgence' or 'pampering' is inconsistency and when we seek to understand the effect of human behaviour on the behaviour of our companion animals it is clear to see that living with people can be very confusing from a canine perspective.

Often the 'pampering' occurs on an inconsistent basis, for example dogs are allowed on the sofa by some family members but not others, or dogs are given freedom to do as they like for 60% of the time but are expected to rapidly and consistently respond to commands at all other times. Of course we are also inconsistent with our fellow humans but one striking difference between our interaction with people and our interaction with dogs is that we can use verbal language to explain our inconsistencies to people. Sadly for dogs this dimension of communication is severely limited and when we tell our dogs that this piece of cake is being given to them because it is their birthday they cannot appreciate the complexity of the verbal message and will logically conclude that whenever people are eating cake it is perfectly acceptable to anticipate that a piece will be given to them too. Imagine their confusion then when their response of whining, watching and maybe even barking to remind their owners that they have not yet had their piece of cake is met with verbal and physical threat! Surely the logical conclusion from this scenario is that people are unpredictable and that they suffer from unexplainable and potentially threatening mood swings!

The Emotional Consequences of Inconsistency

It is well documented in scientific literature that inconsistency and lack of predictability are factors which increase the negative effects of stress from a physiological perspective. They also lead to negative emotional consequences, most notably the onset of anxiety, or emotional anticipation of a negative outcome. It is therefore logical to conclude that social interaction which is both inconsistent and unpredictable will have negative emotional consequences and potentially lead to feelings of insecurity, perception of threat and even a conclusion that there is a need to be defensive. The human image of 'pampered pooch' may be of a dog that is showered with affection but from a canine perspective it is likely that 'pampering' is seen as unpredictable and inconsistent interaction which cannot be explained and which makes the domestic environment an insecure and even threatening place to be.

References

1.  Casey R. Fear and stress. In: Horwitz, D; Mills, D; Heath, S. eds. BSAVA Manual of canine and feline behaviour. Gloucester: BSAVA, 2002; 144-153.

2.  Shepherd K. Development of behaviour, social behaviour and communication in dogs. In: Horwitz, D; Mills, D; Heath, S. eds. BSAVA Manual of canine and feline behaviour. Gloucester: BSAVA, 2002; 8-20.