 |
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
The most common treatments require the dog developing independence skills coinciding with changing owner interaction. These changes are facilitated by managing the environment, changing owner-dog interactions, behavior modification, and in severe cases, prescribing medication with the assistance of the clients’ veterinarian. Some holistic remedies may be helpful, but should not be used without assistance from a qualified practitioner i.e. a holistic veterinarian. These products can be dangerous in combination with other products therefore be given careful consideration.
Signs of anxiety often including associated behaviors i.e. eliminative, destructive and excessive vocalization frequently characterize separation distress. A careful diagnosis should be considered since some of these behaviors indicate other behavior problems such as incomplete house training, barking at strangers, boredom and frustration. The most prominent characteristic of separation distress appears as over-attachment with a familiar person and occurring only during their absence.
Other possible influences contributing to separation distress
The most commonly cited factors contributing to separation distress are genetics, inadequate early experience, harmful experiences associated with trauma and owner reinforcement. However, separation distress may also include other behaviors that may or may not be associated. Careful consideration should be given when evaluating separation distress as a diagnostic consideration.
What other affects contribute to separation distress?
Neoteny & domestication
Neoteny is a by-product of domestication emphasizing immature behavioral tendencies and physical characteristics lending dogs virtually dependent on human care for both their social and physical needs. What is commonly recognized as normal puppy behavior i.e. licking, regurgitation solicitation and separation distress vocalizations develop into similar adult behavior patterns expressed as greeting behavior and vocalizations such as barking, howling and whining.
These dependency needs may be expressed in some dogs more than others; with some researchers suggesting possible genetic influence. According to Lindsay (2000), the “threshold and magnitude of separation distress” may be influenced by both “genetic variations and experience.”
Emotional demands – maladaptive and adaptive behavior
Scott (1988) says, “while susceptibility to emotionally provocative stimulation is…subject to genetic variation, emotion…does not exist on a genetic level” but rather is “created as a result of the organizing activity of genetic systems interacting with other systems” during development (Lindsay, 2000). What he does suggest is the “general function of emotion is to prolong momentary stimulation” which is described as purposive behavior directed to satisfy an emotional demand and emotions are either adaptive or maladaptive. In the case of maladaptive demands, those associated behaviors contribute to the development of dysfunctional behavior, either by not providing sufficient coping mechanisms or viable means of escape.
“Separation-distressed dogs are highly motivated to reestablish social contact denied…by social isolation or confinement” and under these conditions dogs often express associated behaviors such as barking, howling, destructiveness, and loss of eliminatory control and in some severe cases dogs may even lapse into depressive states (Lindsay, 2000). These situations and subsequent emotions fit with Scott’s (1988) “conditions of maladaptive behavior” including high levels of emotional arousal, lack of adequate coping skills, and no means of escape.
In spite of biological and genetic factors, the majority of behavior problems is acquired through aversive learning and is successfully modified with training, behavioral therapy and owner commitment.
Developmental adversity
“Developmental influences on dog behavior take place within the context of biological constraints and timetables that roughly serve to define a dog’s potentiality” (Lindsay, 2005). “Evolution has favored the perpetuation of biobehavioral stress systems” that are flexible providing the animal with a means of coping even under the most adverse situations while providing the ability to survive during adverse events. This optimal situation can adversely be affected by disruptive early experiences, resulting in maladaptive behavior affecting the dogs’ future ability to deal with stress especially associated with emotional trauma.
Puppies exposed to traumatic stress during their first two weeks may experience disruption in neural development resulting in disturbances associated with coping and impulse-control deficiencies common to several behavior problems including separation distress (Lindsay, 2005). These deficiencies are remedied with proper rearing practices that include early handling and gentling exercises.
Additionally, puppies experience a fear period sometime between 5 and 10 weeks waning around the close of the socialization period at 12 weeks. During this period, puppies are more vulnerable to aversive situations and stress increasing sympathetic activity that may subsequently affect the puppy’s ability to cope with stress and aversive events as an adult.
Influences of Biological Stress
“Stress occurs when any demand is placed upon a dog that requires the dog to change or adjust” (Lindsay, 2000). For stress to occur events or situations do not have to be aversive, rather any “biological or psychological demand” is capable of producing stress. There are certain amounts of healthy stress all animals are capable of adapting to, however chronic stress may lead to stress-related conditions.
According to Lindsay (2001), stress-related hormonal changes occur during separation in a number of species. Tuber and colleagues (1996) studied dogs and found a “differential glucocorticoid (cortisol and corticosterone) response” occurs during five conditions of separation, 1.) alone in a novel environment, 2.) with a conspecific in a novel environment, 3.) alone in a familiar environment, 4.) with a human in a novel environment, and 5.) with a conspecific in a familiar environment.
The results of their study showed dogs left alone in novel environments had the highest level of cortisol output with the lowest level occurring in home kennels with a familiar conspecific. However, dogs tested in novel environments with a human companion had significantly lower cortisol levels when compared to dogs kept in the novel environment with a conspecific. The results of these studies may lend support for dog’s welfare when considering kenneling or boarding situations.
The manifestation of fear responses
Certain conditions may increase fear of separation as previously discussed, by increasing the magnitude of separation distress while lowering fear thresholds (Lindsay, 2001). Laboratory research supports separation anxiety is mediated by a relatively discrete motivation system functionally independent of fear, but not without some significant interaction. Research by Davis and colleagues (1977) found that startling noises did not cause separation distress, concluding ‘sound induced fear and separation distress are separate and independent affective states.”
According to Lindsay (2001), “…fear appears to suppress separation-distress behavior” including vocalization and according to Panksepp (1998), “the presentation of fearful stimuli tends to reduce the frequency of separation calls…because it would be maladaptive for young animals to reveal their locations when predators are nearby.”
However, the study cited by Tuber and colleagues (1996) found adult dogs were more likely to exhibit distress vocalization in familiar environments than unfamiliar and more so than puppies and mature dogs are likely to bark in safe familiar locations. When confined in novel environments distress vocalization is often suppressed, suggesting an increase in fear associated with unfamiliar environments. This behavior would be adaptive in natural conditions providing protection from dangerous situations that include predators (Lindsay, 2001).
Panic
According to Lindsay (2001), “behavioral helplessness” indicates panic, since this occurs when significant events are unpredictable and uncontrollable for the subject. Lindsay (2001) says, separation distress may include characteristics of anxiety, but also suggests separation distress is “…potentiated by high levels of frustration” associated with loss of control the dog experiences over its attachment object. According to Lindsay (2001), “…the anxiety component…is primarily under…control of classical conditioning” and frustration is “…strongly influenced by instrumental learning mechanisms.” He suggests when the attachment object is perceived as “unpredictable (classical input)” and “uncontrollable (instrumental input)” a conflict develops during separation resulting in “behavioral helplessness” and “separation panic” (Lindsay, 2001).
Effects of frustration
Experimental evidence suggests that both frustration and discomfort may contribute to enhancing social attachment and dependency (Lindsay, 2001).
In 1954 Brodbeck, conducted a study on the “relative effect of food on the development [of] social dependency” using three groups of puppies. One group was fed independently with a feeding machine, the second group fed permissively by hand and the third group fed by hand but deliberately frustrated during food delivery. The results showed the frustrated hand fed puppies developed a “stronger dependency behavior (proximity seeking)” than either of the other groups. In a similar study, Fisher (1955) found that puppies receiving both “social indulgence and punishment” developed an increased dependency behavior in comparison to puppies only petted and played with during the same period. It appears from these studies that some levels of frustration and discomfort may facilitate attachment and dependency and that frustration specifically appears to have a “prominent motivational influence” over the formation of excessive dependency in human and dog relationships (Lindsay, 2001).
This behavior may be similar to an extinction burst when dogs try harder when their previous behavior paid off now fails being reinforced. During separation from an attachment object, the dog’s efforts to reunite with the owner causes frustration leading to separation distress responses such as barking and destructiveness. As frustration increases, behavioral responses increase in more generalized terms and might include pacing, exploration, scratching, digging, chewing all indicating a much higher aversive arousal level.
In addition, Lindsay (2001) suggests excessive barking may indicate more a complaining demanding quality rather than one of loneliness, anxiety, or fear. In fact, he calls these persistent barkers “social manipulators” having learned their persistence eventually pays off and that behavior modification including replacing this with “cooperative behavior and obedient alternatives” will be necessary.
Frustration is associated with internal states; and previous success may provide sources of conditioned reinforcement therefore maintaining the behavior for long periods. This may account for the success obedience training and management serve by establishing more “constructive patterns of interaction” while discouraging frustration with rewarding compliant and cooperative behavior instead (Lindsay, 2001).
Additionally, frustration could be analyzed as regressive responses when related to separation distress. A regressive response to separation is characterized when an adult dog uses immature species-typical contact and care seeking behavior patterns such as whining and yelping, loss of eliminative control and increased oral behavior. These dogs could be described as “immature” and include a variety of “regressive behavior patterns and needs” that include “excessive dependency and proximity-seeking behaviors” (Lindsay, 2001).
In addition, frustration seems to be highly motivational for some dogs; many seem overly concerned or anxious when faced with being left alone. This may suggest a combination of anxiety and frustration may be present in these cases. This combined effect may produce powerful effects, possibly leading to “compulsive separation-panic symptoms” sometimes being observed.
One final effect of frustration may present as need anxiety. This occurs when dogs feel their efforts will not work leaving them to endure the discomfort of being alone causing frustration to increase as their efforts continue to fail. This type of frustration is similar to pain suggests Panksepp (1998) fearing the “pain of frustrative loss” toward separation from their owner (Lindsay, 2001).
Boredom
In spite of boredom, sometimes linked to separation-related behavior it has been suggested the destructive effects may not be related to separation distress. However, there is little research on the effects of boredom and boredom lacks any definitive description as it may relate to separation-related destructiveness or even other behavior problems often related to boredom such as compulsive disorders.
An explanation has been offered by ethologists studying the development of abnormal behavior in zoos and among farm animals, but contrary to this Overall (1997) questions the role of boredom related to these types of problems saying its “simplistic and wrong.”
Lindsay (2001) defines boredom as an “aversive or stressful state” when optimal stimulation is not present, and depending on individual temperaments, i.e. “energetic and outgoing” types may find other ways of engaging in stimulating activities and contrary to this, a more introverted animal may seem to take separation in stride or seem depressed.
According to Frazer (1980), “it is widely accepted that animals in monotonous and restricting environments seek out opportunities for exercise and stimulation…suggesting the restriction of movement, boredom, thwarting of drives, stressful stimuli and deficiencies in the environment may lead to abnormal stereotyped behavior.” Additionally, a combined effect of boredom and loneliness may present a “highly potent and aversive motivational state” associated with separation-related problems and leading to chronic problems such as licking (acral lick dermatitis) and “clinical evidence suggests…the activity is maintained to some extent by the release of endogenous opioids” (Lindsay, 2001).
Since the inception of separation distress behavior begins during owner departures and builds before leveling off after departure, often within 30 minutes, it seems unlikely boredom could alone contribute to the destruction observed in cases of separation-related arousal.
Compulsion
Compulsion is related to need anxiety and is characterized as “obsessive worry and vigilance” over the attachment figure. Behaviors associated with the seeking system may be characteristics. The return of the owner may signify intermittent reinforcement, thus increase the behavior finally taking on behavior that is more compulsive. Need anxiety results when a “highly attractive stimulus is lost and its future return is inadequately predicted” often resulting in conflicts. These dogs want to remain close but prohibited by some intervening barrier that may be emotional or physical. These emotional barriers occur when owners may be present but withdrawn or sometimes even rejecting the dogs attention, these dogs are often unable to control or cope with the loss or worry triggering growing levels of anxious and frustrative arousal, sometimes causing them to act out in compulsive ways in an effort to reunite with the owner or attachment figure. The most common compulsive behaviors consist of distress vocalization and pacing sometimes lasting for hours with only brief interruptions.
Fun
Ian Dunbar (1998) proposed in his thesis that destructiveness in the owners
absence was not due to separation distress but rather a “sign of percolating
excitement over the prospects of engaging in destructive play activities
without interference or risk of punishment from the owner.” Lindsay
(2001) says this may occur, but in rare circumstances.
However, appetite is usually suppressed during bouts of separation distress and one might question some of the current comforting solutions offered such as providing stuffed Kong’s. For example, if the behavior improved, this might indicate Dunbar may not be wrong in some instances. In fact, according to Voith and Borchelt (1985), “dogs do engage in exploratory and playful activities” that often results in destruction. This behavior may occur in the owner’s absence but often occurs in their presence as well (McCrave, 1991; Lindell, 1997) and these destructive dogs have little concern over owner displeasure, often taunting owners with objects eliciting chase-catch games (Lindsay, 2001). However, Lindsay (2001) cautions owners thinking their dogs are simply having a good time at their expense and taking drastic measures in resolving the problem that may include punishment or worse giving up the dog.
Development of attachments
I previously discussed problems associated with early development and separation distress but “place familiarity” may also contribute to successful adaptation. Several studies have found separation distress behavior occurs more frequently in novel versus familiar environments, including socially isolated puppies versus confined with a littermate. However, these studies found “puppies gradually learn to adapt to separation-distress.” According to Ross and colleagues (1960), the decrease is “…due to adaptation to the situation and learning rather than maturation” with the most likely explanation being the puppy learns “it will be released after a short time” therefore becoming less disturbed emotionally.
When puppies are initially removed from the rearing environment, they may experience a “change in social context” initially producing a “heightened preparedness for action” creating sympathetic arousal, characterized by responses such as “flight, freezing, escape, crying, retreating, or clinging.” However, once the animal realizes these efforts are “ineffective or unnecessary” adaptation occurs with the return of normal maintenance responses such as eating and sleeping” (Lindsay, 2001).
Contrary to this, a recent study by Slabbert and Rosa (1993), “found that 6-week-old puppies exhibited significant adverse effects” resulting from early separation from their mother, affecting their physiological development that included “general health and weight gain,” however these deficiencies were not noted with puppies who remained with the mother until 12 weeks old. Their study found early separation from the mother was directly related to “behavioral indicators of increased separation distress” confirming Scott’s (1961) earlier conclusion that “separation distress has serious psychosomatic implications for developing puppies” (Lindsay, 2001).
The canine socialization period begins around week three and continues through week 12 and during this period puppies form many social attachments, specifically with their mother, siblings and the humans they meet. When puppies are adopted into new homes, the puppy forms new attachments taking the place of these old ones. The best guidance new owners should follow might be similar to “canine mothers” who gradually wean puppies allowing them to form a sense of security and independence, that in turn provides them with the ability to cope when its necessary to be left alone.
How learning affects social attachment
Scott (1973) said ‘the puppy is punished for separation and rewarded for reunion’ is a simple form of learning (Lindsay, 2001). Separation creates aversive arousal for dogs characterized by efforts to restore contact, while reunions bring relief and feelings of well-being further increasing these attachment levels (Lindsay, 2001). Attachment figures and familiar places help provide a sense of security for young puppies to explore their environment while providing a safe retreat.
According to Lindsay, these socially attractive and affiliative needs are associated with allelomimetic behavior patterns that help provide group cohesion and territorial necessities (resources and safety). Allelomimetic behavior is observed in many species of animals; and according to Scott (1980) is characterized as “doing what the other animals in the group do” sometimes-through mutual imitation and high degrees of coordination (Lindsay, 2001).
The desire to maintain contact with attachment figures provides basic motivation in many instances of dog training. The old saying “dogs just want to please” is really not accurate, it’s their “desire to stay close and to avoid rejection” because dogs strive to maintain social contact while avoiding separation.
Early traumatic events
The development of separation distress is not fully understood, but there is a lot of evidence indicating “a puppy’s brain develops in response to sensory, cognitive, and emotional stimulation” and during the sensitive developmental period, “stressor-activated neurotransmitters and hormones may permanently affect the organization of the brain according to Fox (1971). There also seems to be some connection between early trauma and adult separation distress. According to Serpell and Jagoe (1995), puppies experiencing serious pediatric illnesses were more likely to exhibit separation-related barking as adults, suggesting “increased attention and care” may predispose these dogs to develop separation related problems. However contrary to these deleterious effects is not providing enough attention, creating a fine line between successful adaptation and maladaptive behavior (Lindsay, 2001).
Additionally, dogs that are removed from their mother too early and dogs prevented from forming attachments prior to 4-5 months may form “excessively strong attachments” according to Borchelt (1983) predisposing these dogs to separation-related problems (Lindsay, 2001).
Contrary to these conclusions, it seems some dogs have a high resilience to trauma demonstrated through “controversial experiments” conducted by Fisher (1955) who used four groups of puppies to study the resiliency effects from traumatic punishment and training. The first group called the punished-indulged (P-I) received daily rounds of social contact, including petting and holding, followed by one hour of non-contingent punishment, including rough handling, switching and shock with virtually no escape, often when they attempted escape the experimenter hunted them down punishing them more. In addition, this group received “severe social inhibitory training” that included a recall exercise resulting in shock. This training was performed during weeks 5,6,7,9, 11 and 13.
The second group was the socially indulged (S-I) group, receiving only playful interaction during the same period. In comparison, the punished-indulged group by week 12 was spending three times the amount of time with the experimenter than the socially indulged puppies. The results suggested a combination of punishment and reward (social attention) may be responsible for forming excessive dependency bonds. His study also revealed all the P-I puppies “rapidly recovered” from any signs of fear or timid behavior with no lasting adverse effects.
Another group called the punished-isolated only received a daily half-hour of punishment, with Fisher noting, “…nearly all of the punished-isolated puppies…exhibited rapid recovery after the conclusion of the treatment phase. A fourth group, that had been isolated during the entire period, with no human exposure “showed very pronounced and permanent social deficits” when coming in contact with both humans and other dogs (Lindsay, 2001).
Lindsay (2001) says, “the etiology of adult canine separation distress is not fully understood…commonly entertained [and]…unproven” but still there exists a strong body of literature indicating that early traumatic experiences do affect the continuing development of a young puppies brain. Therefore, taking a more precautionary approach to raising and training young puppies makes better preventative sense.
Adverse rearing practices
Adverse experiences include fear, which is often associated with separation distress, and a response associated with a feeling of apprehension toward a specific stimulus. Fear may be defined as either an unpleasant feeling of apprehension or distress caused by the presence or anticipation of danger or an idea or thought that causes feelings of fear. Dogs are capable of feeling both types and in the case of separation distress the dog fears being left alone.
In most cases, the fear is being separated from the hyper-attached figure, the owner who represents safety and feelings of well-being for the dog. However, in cases of separation distress, the maladaptive behaviors can present problems for management, and the development of more serious behavior problems that ultimately may affect the welfare of the dog.
In addition, there may be instances when owners inadvertently reinforce fearful behavior. For example, if a dog is fearfully aroused, characterized by normal escape or avoidance behavior and under those situations the owner is there to relieve the dog from this emotionally fearful state, the dog is reinforced and with repeated exposure the dog develops emotional dependency, leading to even greater fear and unwillingness to be left alone. An extremely negative side of this is the dog that develops a sense of helplessness in their own home environment, while others outside the home may provide the only source of “control and security” the dog is able to perceive. This may explain why many dogs do not have the same behavior problems in other environments such as boarding, at daycare or during board and train situations.
Conclusion
As a preventative to separation distress, I recommend using a behavioral wellness approach that safeguards against traumatic experiences, preventing excessive isolation and using proactive training, and avoiding punishment while gradually introducing new puppies and adult dogs into new environments. This approach will go along way in helping even overly sensitive dogs coming from shelters and rescues, who may require extra care and attention.
Even though separation distress is widely recognized, there has been little research until recently. The most recent research offers several methods for treatment and management, but other than work by Hothersall and Tuber (1979), and furthered by Voith and Borchelt (1980, 1981), Borchelt and Voith (1982), Borchelt (1983), and Voith and Borchelt (1985, 1996), little substance has been offered to help in our understanding of the disorder and treatment (Lindsay, 2001).
Finally, because separation distress can be defined by several motivational causes one should take caution in labeling this behavior problem characterized by so many other contributing factors. When separation distress is suspected, a careful history should be provided, and any medical or behavioral causes should be ruled out. The first step should be a thorough medical workup that may include a chemistry panel, neurological exam, CBC, thyroid evaluation, fecal exam and/or urinalysis.
If the following conditions are present, one could consider the outlook for behavioral change good.
• Duration of the behavior has not continued over a long period
• Signs of anxiety do not appear in other situations
• The owner is sufficiently motivated and willing to change how they
interact with the pet
• In severe cases, the owner is willing to accept psychoactive medication
in conjunction with behavior modification.
References
Landsberg, G., Hunthausen, W., & Ackerman, L. Handbook of Behavior
Problems of the Dog and Cat.
Edinburgh: Saunders. 2003.
Lindsay, Steven R. Handbook of applied dog behavior and training.
2 Vols.
Iowa: Iowa SP. 2000. Vol. 1.
Lindsay, Steven R. Handbook of applied dog behavior and training.
2 Vols.
Iowa: Iowa SP. 2001. Vol. 2.
Lindsay, Steven R. Handbook of applied dog behavior and training.
3 Vols.
Iowa: Blackwell. 2005. Vol. 3.
Serpell, James, ed. The domestic dog: its evolution, behavior, and interaction
with people.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1995.
Responsible Dog & Cat
Training and Behavior Solutions
Joyce D. Kesling
P.O. Box 15992
Sarasota, Florida 34277
941-921-6624 ~ 941-587-2049
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
judged by the way its animals are treated. Mahatma Gandhi 1869 – 1948
© Responsible Dog & Cat 2005
| Home Services Meet the Owner Dog Quiz Articles Photo Gallery In Memory Testimonials Rescue Contact |