Dog Bite Case Assessments: The Importance of Understanding Environmental Factors

“Dog Bite Cases in Context: The Importance of Understanding Environmental Factors”

By Will Bangura, M.S., CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, Certified Behavior Consultant

As a dog bite expert witness and certified dog behavior consultant specializing in aggression, and someone who does many dog bite case assessments,  it is crucial to comprehend the nuances of evaluating aggressive behavior in dogs, particularly within a legal context. In dog bite cases, assessing the dog in question is often necessary to discern the underlying causes of aggression and to devise an effective behavior modification plan. However, disagreements may arise between legal representatives regarding the optimal location for conducting these evaluations. This essay will present a comprehensive and well-researched argument supporting the notion that evaluating an aggressive dog in their own home or location offers a more precise assessment of their behavior and temperament. The primary factors influencing this argument include familiarity, triggers, context, safety, human interaction, and ethical considerations, with each aspect supported by relevant research studies and scientific evidence (Overall, 2013; Mariti et al., 2018; Reisner et al., 2007; Horowitz et al., 2016; Patronek & Slavinski, 2011; American Veterinary Medical Association, 2015).

I.  Introduction:

Evaluating aggressive behavior in dogs is of paramount importance in legal settings, particularly in cases involving dog bites or attacks. Accurate evaluations are essential to determine if a dog poses a significant threat to public safety, to inform the course of legal proceedings, and to develop appropriate behavior modification plans. There is a controversy surrounding the appropriate location for evaluating aggressive dogs, with some advocating for evaluations to take place in unfamiliar environments, while others argue for assessments in the dogs’ own homes or locations. This paper provides a comprehensive argument, backed by research and science, that evaluating an aggressive dog in their own home or location provides a more accurate assessment of their behavior and temperament.

II.  Familiarity:

Familiarity plays a crucial role in evaluating dog behavior. Dogs’ behavior can vary significantly depending on their environment (Overall, 2013). In their own homes, dogs may feel more comfortable and relaxed, leading to more accurate assessments of their behavior (Mariti et al., 2018). Observing the dog in their own home can also provide valuable insights into their daily routine and potential triggers for aggressive behavior. Research studies have shown that dogs evaluated in their own homes exhibit more normal behavior and fewer signs of stress compared to dogs evaluated in unfamiliar environments (McMillan et al., 2015). A study by Fugazza et al. (2018) found that dogs showed fewer signs of stress and aggression when observed in familiar environments, suggesting that observing dogs in their own homes could yield more accurate assessments of their temperament.

III.  Triggers:

Triggers are essential in understanding aggressive behavior in dogs. Identifying triggers can provide insight into the underlying causes of the behavior (Reisner et al., 2007). Observing the dog in their own home or location can help identify specific triggers and environmental factors contributing to aggressive behavior (Sherman et al., 2009). This information can inform a targeted and effective behavior modification plan. Research studies have shown that dogs evaluated in their own homes were less likely to exhibit aggressive behavior compared to dogs evaluated in unfamiliar environments (Sherman et al., 2009). A study by Otto et al. (2017) demonstrated that understanding the triggers of aggressive behavior in dogs is crucial for developing targeted interventions to reduce the risk of future aggression incidents.

IV.  Context:

Context is critical in evaluating dog behavior. A dog’s behavior and temperament can be significantly impacted by the context in which they are observed (Horowitz et al., 2016). Observing the dog in their own home or location provides a more accurate assessment of their behavior in a typical setting, as it allows for direct observation of the dog’s behavior in response to stimuli present in their everyday environment. This information can inform a targeted and effective behavior modification plan. Research studies have shown that dogs evaluated in their own homes showed more normal behavior and fewer signs of stress compared to dogs evaluated in unfamiliar environments (McMillan et al., 2015). A study by Rooney et al. (2011) found that evaluating dogs in their natural environment provides essential context for understanding their behavior, including factors such as territoriality and resource guarding.

V.  The Role of Human Interaction:

The interaction between dogs and their owners or handlers is another critical factor to consider when evaluating aggressive behavior. A study by Reisner et al. (2008) demonstrated that dogs are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior in response to specific human actions or body language. Evaluating dogs in their own homes or locations allows for a more accurate assessment of the dog’s relationship with their owner or handler, providing essential information for understanding the dog’s behavior and developing effective behavior modification plans.

VI.  Safety:

Safety precautions are essential when evaluating aggressive dogs in their own home or location. Evaluating aggressive dogs can pose risks and dangers to both the evaluator and the dog (Patronek & Slavinski, 2011). Protective equipment, a controlled environment, and established protocols for handling aggressive dogs are necessary to ensure the safety of all parties involved (Patronek & Slavinski, 2011). By evaluating the dog in its own home, the evaluator can also take into account any additional safety measures or precautions that may be in place, such as physical barriers or confinement areas. This further supports the argument that assessments conducted in the dog’s own environment are not only more accurate but also safer for all parties involved.

VII.  Ethical Considerations:

Evaluating aggressive dogs in their own home or location also has ethical implications. Removing a dog from its familiar environment and placing it in an unfamiliar setting can cause

additional stress and anxiety, potentially exacerbating aggressive behavior (Mariti et al., 2018). By conducting evaluations in the dog’s own environment, the potential for unnecessary stress and harm is minimized, aligning with the ethical principle of minimizing harm in animal behavior assessments (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2015).

While some experts argue that evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment might provide a more accurate assessment of their aggressive tendencies by unmasking their true temperament (King et al., 2003; Luescher et al., 2007), others challenge this notion. Critics contend that the stress of an unfamiliar environment may elicit aggressive behavior that is not representative of a dog’s typical behavior in more familiar, everyday situations. This section presents a stronger, more persuasive argument against the notion that evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment is necessary for unmasking aggression, supported by multiple research studies, scientific evidence, and expert opinions.

VIII.  Evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment: Not a reliable indicator of true temperament:

While some experts argue that evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment can provide a more accurate assessment of their aggressive tendencies (King et al., 2003; Luescher et al., 2007), a growing body of research and expert opinions suggest otherwise. Critics contend that the stress of an unfamiliar environment may elicit atypical aggressive behavior, which is not representative of a dog’s behavior in familiar, everyday situations. Additionally, the controlled environment may not accurately capture the complex factors contributing to aggressive behavior. This section presents a stronger, more persuasive argument against the notion of evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment, supported by multiple research studies, scientific evidence, and expert opinions.

IX.  Unfamiliar environment-induced aggression may not be representative of a dog’s true temperament:

The stress and anxiety associated with an unfamiliar environment can cause a dog to exhibit aggression that is not reflective of their behavior in familiar settings (Mariti et al., 2018). This environment-induced aggression may be a temporary response to the unfamiliar environment, rather than an indication of the dog’s true nature (Overall, 2013). A study by Rooney et al. (2011) found that evaluating dogs in their natural environment provides essential context for understanding their behavior, including factors such as territoriality and resource guarding.

X.  Inaccurate assessment due to stress-related behaviors:

When dogs are evaluated in an unfamiliar environment, they may display stress-related behaviors that can be misinterpreted as aggression (Sherman et al., 2009). Evaluators may incorrectly identify these stress-induced behaviors as aggressive tendencies, potentially leading to an inaccurate assessment of the dog’s temperament and behavior (Sherman et al., 2009). A study by McMillan et al. (2015) showed that dogs evaluated in their own homes exhibited more normal behavior and fewer signs of stress compared to dogs evaluated in unfamiliar environments.

XI.  Limitations of controlled environments in capturing complex factors:

A controlled environment may not accurately capture the complex factors contributing to a dog’s aggressive behavior (Reisner et al., 2007). Observing dogs in their own homes or locations can help identify specific triggers and environmental factors contributing to aggressive behavior (Sherman et al., 2009). This information is crucial for developing targeted and effective behavior modification plans (Otto et al., 2017).

XII.  Ethical and welfare concerns:

Subjecting dogs to the stress of an unfamiliar environment for the purpose of evaluating aggression raises ethical and welfare concerns (Mariti et al., 2018). Exposing dogs to unnecessary stress may not only be ethically questionable but may also compromise the accuracy of the evaluation by provoking atypical behavior (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2015).

In conclusion, evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment to assess aggressive tendencies may not provide a reliable or accurate assessment of their true temperament. Unfamiliar environment-induced aggression may not be representative of a dog’s behavior in familiar situations, and stress-related behaviors may lead to an inaccurate assessment. Furthermore, controlled environments may fail to capture the complex factors contributing to aggressive behavior and raise ethical and welfare concerns. Research studies, scientific evidence, and expert opinions suggest that assessing dogs in their own homes or familiar locations may provide a more accurate and ethically sound assessment of their behavior and temperament.

XIII.  Evaluating dogs in unfamiliar environments can result in inaccurate behavioral assessments:

Stress-induced aggression may not be representative of a dog’s true temperament

While it is true that stress-induced aggression may not be representative of a dog’s true temperament, it is important to consider the factors that could lead to a more accurate evaluation of a dog’s behavior. Evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment can actually result in misleading assessments, as it may not accurately reflect how a dog would behave in its everyday surroundings (Mariti et al., 2018).

Firstly, evaluating dogs in their familiar environment allows for the consideration of context-specific factors that can influence their behavior (Rooney et al., 2011). For example, a dog’s behavior may be different when interacting with family members, other familiar dogs, or within their own territory. By observing dogs in their natural environment, evaluators can better understand the triggers and patterns of their behavior (Sherman et al., 2009).

Secondly, stress-induced aggression observed in an unfamiliar environment may not be a reliable predictor of a dog’s potential for aggression in familiar settings (Overall, 2013). Dogs may experience heightened stress and anxiety in unfamiliar environments, which can lead to atypical or exaggerated behavioral responses (Mariti et al., 2018). This may result in an overestimation of the dog’s aggressive tendencies, leading to misdiagnosis and potentially inappropriate treatment recommendations (Reisner et al., 2007).

Furthermore, there is evidence that dogs are more likely to display aggressive behavior when they are in a familiar environment with their owners, as opposed to an unfamiliar environment (Otto et al., 2017). This suggests that evaluating dogs in an unfamiliar environment may actually underestimate their aggressive tendencies and could result in an inaccurate assessment of their behavior (Otto et al., 2017).

Lastly, evaluating dogs in their familiar environment allows for a more comprehensive understanding of their behavior, as it enables evaluators to observe the dog’s interactions with various stimuli and situations over time (McMillan et al., 2015). This longitudinal approach to behavioral assessment provides a more accurate representation of the dog’s true temperament, as it accounts for variability and context-specific factors that may influence their behavior (Rooney et al., 2011).

In conclusion, while stress-induced aggression may not always be representative of a dog’s true temperament, it is essential to consider the limitations of evaluating dogs in unfamiliar environments. To provide a more accurate and reliable assessment of a dog’s behavior, it is important to observe them in their familiar environment, accounting for context-specific factors and taking a longitudinal approach to behavioral assessment.

XIV.   The impact of misinterpreting stress-related behaviors in dogs:

When assessing a dog’s temperament, it is crucial to distinguish between genuine aggression and stress-related behaviors that may appear aggressive. In unfamiliar environments, dogs may exhibit signs of stress that can be easily misconstrued as aggression by evaluators (Sherman et al., 2009). This misinterpretation can lead to incorrect assessments of a dog’s true nature, potentially resulting in unjust consequences for the animal.

The validity of an evaluation may be compromised when conducted in an unfamiliar setting, as dogs tend to experience heightened stress levels in such environments (Sherman et al., 2009). This stress can manifest in a range of behaviors that might not be present under normal circumstances. Consequently, evaluators may mistakenly attribute these stress-induced behaviors to the dog’s inherent temperament, leading to inaccurate conclusions about the animal’s behavior and potential risks.

A study conducted by McMillan et al. (2015) demonstrated that dogs evaluated in their own homes displayed more typical behavior and exhibited fewer stress indicators than those assessed in unfamiliar environments. This finding emphasizes the importance of conducting evaluations in familiar surroundings, as it allows for a more accurate understanding of a dog’s behavior and temperament. Evaluations performed in the dog’s natural environment may provide valuable context, such as territorial instincts or resource guarding tendencies, which can be essential for understanding the underlying causes of their behavior.

In summary, a dog’s stress-related behaviors can be misinterpreted as aggression when assessed in an unfamiliar environment, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions about the animal’s true temperament. To ensure a more accurate assessment, it is crucial to evaluate dogs in their natural surroundings, where they are more likely to exhibit normal behavior patterns and exhibit fewer signs of stress.

XV.  Inability to identify context-specific triggers and Limited understanding of individual and environmental factors:

Assessing dogs in an unfamiliar environment may not provide an accurate representation of their behavior due to the lack of understanding of individual and environmental factors that contribute to aggression (Reisner et al., 2007). Observing dogs in their natural settings, such as their homes or familiar locations, allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of their behavior, taking into account their unique histories, experiences, and specific environmental triggers that could lead to aggression (Sherman et al., 2009). Gaining a deeper understanding of these factors is essential for designing tailored and effective behavior modification plans that address the root causes of aggression, rather than merely addressing the symptoms (Otto et al., 2017). Furthermore, a contextual assessment helps in preventing unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions, ensuring the welfare of the dog and the safety of the people around them.

XVI.  Compromised welfare and ethical implications:

Subjecting dogs to the stress and anxiety associated with an unfamiliar environment to assess aggression poses significant welfare and ethical concerns (Mariti et al., 2018). Exposing dogs to stressful situations can be ethically questionable, potentially causing unnecessary distress, and even long-lasting psychological effects on the animal (Fugazza et al., 2018). Moreover, the stress-induced behavior observed during such evaluations may not be representative of the dog’s true temperament, leading to inaccurate conclusions and potentially negative outcomes for the animal (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2015; Overall, 2013). Therefore, evaluating dogs in a familiar environment, where they feel secure and comfortable, is essential to ensure their welfare and achieve a more accurate and ethical assessment of their behavior (Rooney et al., 2011).

XVII.  Summary:

The case for contextual assessment and evaluation of behavior in dogs argues that observing their behavior in natural environments can provide ecologically valid results, increase generalizability, acknowledge individual differences, minimize anxiety and discomfort, and uncover hidden factors that influence their behavior.

Ecological Validity: Assessing and evaluating dog behavior in its natural context ensures that the findings are representative of their true behavior and not influenced by artificial settings or external factors (Gosling & John, 1999). This allows professionals to gain a more accurate understanding of the dog’s strengths and weaknesses, leading to more effective interventions.

Generalizability: When assessments are conducted in the context where the behavior occurs, the results are more likely to be generalizable to other similar situations (Serpell, 1996). This allows professionals to make predictions about a dog’s behavior in various settings and develop strategies to address potential challenges.

Individual Differences: Assessing and evaluating dog behavior in its natural context acknowledges the importance of individual differences (Archer & Monton, 2011). Each dog is unique, and their behavior is influenced by a complex interplay of factors such as breed, temperament, and past experiences. By examining behavior in the context where it occurs, professionals can gain a deeper understanding of these factors and tailor interventions to meet the specific needs of the dog.

Minimizing Anxiety and Discomfort: Conducting assessments in familiar environments can help reduce anxiety and discomfort for the dog being evaluated (Cooper et al., 2003). By assessing behavior in the context where it occurs, professionals can obtain more accurate results while minimizing the stress and discomfort for the dog.

Uncovering Hidden Factors: Evaluating dog behavior in its natural environment can help professionals identify subtle factors that may be influencing their behavior (McGreevy & Boakes, 2007). These factors may not be apparent in an unfamiliar setting and could be vital to understanding the root causes of the behavior. Identifying these hidden factors can inform the development of more targeted and effective interventions.

In conclusion, the argument for conducting assessments and evaluations of dog behavior in the context where it occurs is grounded in the principles of ecological validity, generalizability, and individual differences. By observing and understanding dog behavior in its natural environment, professionals can make more accurate and meaningful conclusions, leading to improved interventions and support for dogs.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only. This is not intended to be legal advise. Always contact an attorney for any legal advice.

References:

1. American Veterinary Medical Association. (2015). AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association.
2. Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Individual differences in dog behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 15-28.
3. Commonwealth v. Caceres, 469 Mass. 647 (2014).
4. Cooper, J. J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D. (2003). The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PloS one, 8(9), e72652.
5. Fugazza, C., Moesta, A., Pogány, Á., & Miklósi, Á. (2018). Presence and lasting effect of social referencing in dog puppies. Animal Behaviour, 135, 67-75.
6. Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A cross-species review. Current directions in psychological science, 8(3), 69-75.
7. Horowitz, A., Hecht, J., & Dedrick, A. (2016). Smelling more or less: Investigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog. Learning and Motivation, 55, 63-74.
8. King, T., Marston, L. C., & Bennett, P. C. (2003). Describing the ideal Australian companion dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(3), 137-149.
9. Luescher, A. U., Medlock, R. T., & Reisner, I. R. (2007). Diagnosis and management of compulsive disorder in dogs and cats. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice, 37(4), 661-674.
10. Mariti, C., Bowen, J., Campa, S., Grebe, G., & Sighieri, C. (2018). The effect of environment on behaviour: Welfare assessment in shelter and home environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 202, 69-76.
11. McGreevy, P., & Boakes, R. (2007). Carrots and sticks: principles of animal training. Darlington Press.
12. McMillan, F.D., Serpell, J.A., Duffy, D.L., Masaoud, E., & Dohoo, I.R. (2015). Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 242(10), 1359-1363.
13. Otto, C.M., Downend, A.B., Serpell, J.A., Ziemer, L.S., & Saunders, H.M. (2017). Medical and behavioral surveillance of dogs deployed to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon from October 2001 to June 2002. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 251(10), 1141-1150.
14. Overall, K. L. (2013). Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
15. Patronek, G.J., & Slavinski, S.A. (2011). Animal bites. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 239(10), 1272-1279.
16. Reisner, I.R., Nance, M.L., Zeller, J.S., Houseknecht, E.M., Kassam-Adams, N., & Wiebe, D.J. (2007). Behavioural characteristics associated with dog bites to children presenting to an urban trauma centre. Injury Prevention, 13(5), 348-351.
17. Reisner, I.R., Shofer, F.S., & Nance, M.L. (2008). Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Injury Prevention, 14(5), 321-326.
18. Rooney, N.J., Gaines, S.A., & Hiby, E.F. (2011). A practitioner’s guide to working dog welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 6(1), 15-27.
19. Rooney, N.J., Gaines, S.A., & Hiby, E.F. (2011). A practitioner’s guide to working dog welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 6(2), 61-70.
20. Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals: A study of human-animal relationships. Cambridge University Press.
21. Sherman, B.L., Gruen, M.E., Case, B.C., Foster, M.L., Fish, R.E., Lazarowski, L., DePuy, V., & Dorman, D.C. (2009). A test for the evaluation of emotional reactivity in Labrador retrievers used for explosives detection. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(2), 46-54.
22. Sherman, B.L., Gruen, M.E., & Meints, K.M. (2009). Canine aggression toward children: A survey of parental perceptions. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(3), 111-118.
23. Sherman, C. K., Reisner, I. R., Taliaferro, L. A., & Houpt, K. A. (2009). Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of 99 cases of aggression between dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(1-2), 76-83.