1   The role of environmental and owner-provided consequences in canine stereotypy and 2   compulsive behavior 3   4   Nathaniel J. Hall1, Alexandra Protopopova1, Clive D.L. Wynne1* 5   1 Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32811. 6   * Present address: Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 7   85287. 8   9   10   Address correspondence to Nathaniel Hall at 11   njhall1@ufl.edu 12   (352) 392-0601 13     1     14   Abstract   15   The  present  study  evaluated whether environmental variables can reinforce and 16   maintain canine stereotypic behavior and whether the removal of these variables can 17   reduce the rate of the behavior. We first present an online survey in which owners were 18   asked to report the environmental antecedent and consequent events related to stereotypy 19   in their dogs. The survey results indicated that stereotypy, as reported by the owners, was 20   not restricted to specific antecedents, and Principal Component Analysis identified four 21   ways the owners usually responded to stereotypy. In a case study of 5 dogs, Functional 22   Analysis methodology was used to evaluate whether environmental or owner-provided 23   consequences maintained stereotypic behavior. We demonstrate that owner-provided 24   consequences maintained circling and licking in two of the dogs, light-movement alone 25   maintained light chasing in two of the dogs, and one dog showed little to no responding 26   during sessions preventing further analysis. We subsequently manipulated the 27   consequences of stereotypy found to maintain the behavior for three of the case study 28   dogs, which led to a reduction in stereotypic behavior for all three dogs. The present 29   study provides evidence that the consequences of stereotypy, such as attention from the 30   owner, can reinforce and maintain high rates of the behavior. Our results also suggest that 31   the specific owner-dog dynamic might be an important influence on canine stereotypy. 32   We also show that manipulating the relevant reinforcer found to maintain stereotypy 33   leads to a reduction in the problematic behavior. 34   Keywords: Canine; Domestic dogs; Stereotypy; Stereotypic behavior 35   36     2     37   Canine Compulsive Disorder (CCD) is diagnosed when dogs present with a 38   variety of stereotypic behaviors including but not limited to: repetitive licking or flank- 39   sucking, tail-chasing or spinning, light or shadow chasing, fly-biting at no apparent fly, or 40   extended fixation or staring (Luescher, 2000; Overall & Dunham, 2002). Stereotypic 41   behaviors are typically defined as repetitive behaviors that appear to serve no obvious 42   function (for a review of terminology see Low, 2003). These behaviors can range from a 43   mild annoyance to owners to severe behavioral problems requiring veterinary 44   intervention (Luescher, 2000). The focus of the present study is on the readily observable 45   stereotypic behavior associated with Canine Compulsive Disorder. 46   Several studies have found that in combination with behavioral modification, 47   pharmaceuticals can reduce stereotypy (Overall & Dunham, 2002; Seksel & Lindeman, 48   2001: Veremie et al., 2010). Although stereotypy can be reduced pharmacologically, the 49   etiology and motivation of canine stereotypic behavior remains unclear. Exploring the 50   environmental conditions which may motivate and exacerbate canine stereotypic 51   behavior may enable improved forms of treatment. 52   Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain canine stereotypy. One 53   hypothesis is that canine stereotypy is the result of frustration or conflict generalizing to 54   situations where conflict is no longer apparent or appropriate (Overall & Dunham, 2002). 55   This hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the development of canine 56   stereotypy; however, it remains unclear what exact mechanism leads to the conflict and 57   frustrations generalizing to other situations, which thereby maintain canine stereotypic 58   behavior.   3     59   An alternative account for canine stereotypy is that underlying biological 60   differences separate dogs with stereotypy from normal dogs. Dodman et al. (2010) 61   identified a candidate gene associated with compulsive behavior in Doberman pinschers 62   (CDH2; for a review see Hall and Wynne, 2012). Tiira et al. (2012) attempted to extend 63   this finding in a population of Bull terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and German 64   Shepherds but found no significant genetic associations with tail-chasing using candidate 65   gene analysis with CDH2. Instead, they found a significant effect of vitamin intake: dogs 66   that took a multivitamin were significantly less likely to develop tail-chasing. Additional 67   study with Doberman pinschers has shown that dogs with CCD have structural brain 68   differences from control dogs (Ogata et al., 2013). In addition, dogs with stereotypic 69   behavior were shown to be, in general, more perseverative on an arbitrary task than dogs 70   that do not show stereotypic behavior (Protopopova et al., 2014). Together, there is 71   growing evidence for a genetic contribution to canine stereotypic behavior; however, no 72   clear biological mechanism has been identified. More recent research investigating 73   excessive licking has suggested that many such cases may be caused by undiagnosed 74   digestive issues (Bécuwe-Bonnet et al., 2012). These results suggest there are likely 75   biological contributions to canine stereotypic behavior but leave open the question 76   whether environmental factors may also play a causal role in the development and or 77   maintenance of canine stereotypic behavior. 78   Few studies have investigated the potential influence of environmental variables 79   on stereotypic behavior, although such a role is often assumed when behavior 80   modification is recommended to help reduce stereotypies. Behavior modification can 81   only work if the behavior is sensitive to environmental factors. One notable study   4     82   exploring the potential role of environmental factors analyzed 400 videos of tail-chasing 83   in dogs (Burn, 2011). The author reported that owner encouragement of the dog was 84   observed in 43% of the videos and one of the most common descriptors of the behavior 85   by owners was ‘funny’ (46%). These results suggest that humans may intentionally or 86   unintentionally reinforce the behavior with attention and that changes in the owner’s 87   behavior might reduce the dog’s stereotypy. 88   Empirically assessing whether laughter and encouragement might actually 89   reinforce tail-chasing, as suggested by Burn (2011), requires additional evidence. 90   Although people may provide attention contingent on tail-chasing, this may have little or 91   no effect on the dog’s behavior. In order to assess the effects of human attention on 92   stereotypic behavior, we must determine whether the attention serves as its maintaining 93   reinforcer. Researchers working with humans with diverse developmental disabilities 94   have pioneered a single-subject methodology to assess the environmental variables that 95   reinforce an individual’s problem behavior. This method, termed “Functional Analysis,” 96   was first reported by Iwata et al. in 1982 (re-printed in 1994a) and has been successful in 97   identifying the environmental determinants of behavior in many cases (1994b) and cited 98   in over 1200 publications in Google scholar. This technique has recently been extended 99   to identify the reinforcers of problem behaviors in animal in zoos (Dorey et al., 2009; 100   Martin et al., 2011), and unwanted jumping up in pet dogs (Dorey et al., 2012). 101   Functional Analysis was designed to identify how the consequences of problem 102   behavior may influence the rates of that behavior. Reinforcers, for the purpose of this 103   study, are any environmental stimuli that when presented as a consequence of a behavior, 104   lead to increased rates of that behavior. To identify these reinforcers with a Functional   5     105   Analysis, a single subject is exposed to several conditions. Each condition tests whether a 106   putative reinforcer sustains a problem behavior or is unrelated to the rates of occurrence 107   of that behavior. This is tested by delivering the putative reinforcer whenever the problem 108   behavior occurs during the session. If delivering the putative reinforcer increases the rate 109   of the behavior compared to a control condition, the consequence is confirmed as a 110   reinforcer for the behavior. If, however, experimentally delivering a putative reinforcer 111   when the problem behavior occurs does not increase rates of the behavior compared to a 112   control condition, the putative reinforcer is considered not to be a reinforcer of the 113   behavior. The control condition for a Functional Analysis is designed so that all putative 114   reinforcers are delivered regardless of the occurrences of problem behavior. Thus, low 115   rates of problem behavior are expected in the control condition because reinforcers are 116   delivered without the subject needing to engage in problem behavior. 117   The aim of this set of studies is to evaluate the impact of environmental variables 118   on canine stereotypic behavior. In the first study, we utilized a survey to assess owner- 119   reported antecedents (events preceding a behavior) and consequences of stereotypic 120   behavior in pet dogs. We then in Study 2 utilized a single-subject assessment of 121   reinforcers, a Functional Analysis, with five dogs to assess whether and which 122   environmental variables maintain canine stereotypic behavior. Last, in Study 3, we 123   manipulated the environmental variable found to reinforce behavior from the Functional 124   Analysis in Study 2 for each dog, in an attempt to reduce canine stereotypic behavior. 125   Study 1 126   The aim of Study 1 was to identify owner-reported antecedent events to 127   stereotypy and owner-reported responses to their dog’s stereotypic behavior with a brief   6     128   survey. Thus, this experiment was exploratory and cannot be taken to identify valid 129   predictor variables of stereotypy – only owner impressions. 130   Materials and Methods 131   A custom survey was created using Google docs (www.docs.google.com, see 132   Appendix A for the complete survey). Dog owners answered basic questions about their 133   dog followed by questions on whether it engaged in stereotypic behaviors. These 134   behaviors were described as follows: “spinning” or “circling” was defined as “repeated 135   turning (4 or more times in single bout) when the dog is not trained or commanded to do 136   so or there was no apparent reason for the activity; “fixation” was defined as an excessive 137   attention to an item or no apparent specific item; “light chasing” was defined as an 138   intense focus or chasing of lights to which most dogs would not usually attend; “licking” 139   was defined as the licking of objects for extended bouts with no obvious purpose or 140   function, and “other” invited owners to report any other problem behaviors that were 141   repeated at least four times in a single bout. Finally owners were asked to report on the 142   conditions under which the behavior occurred and how they responded to it. 143   Owners were given multiple-choice options (they could select more than one), 144   and an optional fill in box. To assess antecedent events that may lead to stereotypy, 145   owners were asked to indicate under which conditions stereotypy occurred: “only when 146   crated, and never under other conditions,” “when there is a lack of stimulation (i.e. 147   bored). This can include when being crated but is not limited to crating,” “when I give 148   lots of attention,” “after or during play,” “after I give a command,” “when I have 149   something my dog wants (e.g. a toy or food),” “following a loud noise or after being 150   startled,” “when stressed or anxious,” “under all conditions and/or does not seem   7     151   predictable,” and “other” with a textbox for an open-ended answer. To assess owner- 152   reported consequent events that may reinforce stereotypy, owners were asked how they 153   usually respond to stereotypic behavior and given the following options: “I give my dog 154   attention,” “I try to block the repetitive behavior (e.g. prevent them from circling or 155   engaging in repetitions),” “give the dog desired objects like toys or food,” “if the dog is 156   in a crate, I let it out,” “ I tell the dog to stop,” “ I do nothing and ignore the behavior,” 157   and “other” with a textbox. 158   The initial survey was administered online to the senior author, a veterinarian, and 159   two dog owners (one with a dog with stereotypic behavior). Appropriate clarifications 160   and changes were made. The survey was then distributed through websites 161   (www.caninecognition.com), social-networking sites (Facebook), online dog related 162   forums (e.g. Rottweileronline.net), and via email. 163   Subjects 164   A total of 128 responses were received. Of the 128 responses, 99 responses were 165   included in the analysis. Twenty-nine responses were excluded as the owners responded 166   that their dogs did not engage in stereotypy. Owners of various breeds and mixed breeds 167   responded to the survey, with a majority of responses pertaining to sporting, working and 168   herding breeds. 169   Analysis 170   Data are presented as the percentage of owners reporting for that question along 171   with sample sizes. Only the results for questions which at least fifty owners provided 172   interpretable responses are described. Given the exploratory nature of the survey, null 173   hypothesis significance testing was not appropriate. To identify patterns in how owners   8     174   respond to their dog’s behavior, an exploratory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) 175   with a varimax rotation was performed in the statistical package SPSS® (International 176   Business Machines Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Factor loadings greater than .4 were 177   considered meaningful for this analysis. 178   179   180   Results and Discussion Sample demographics 181   Of the 99 responses, forty percent of owners reported their dog to spin or circle, 182   46% to repetitively lick, 18% to light chase, 47% to fixate, 19% to engage in other 183   stereotypic activities, and 45% to engage in more than one form of stereotypy. Thirty- 184   three percent of the sample reported seeking professional help for the stereotypy 185   (veterinarian or behaviorist), with 21% of the sample reporting their dogs self-injured. 186   Figure 1 shows owner-reported frequency of their dog’s stereotypic behavior. The 187   reported frequency is summarized as monthly, weekly (occurring between 1-6 times per 188   week), low daily (once or twice per day), and high daily (three or more times per day). 189   Except for light chasing, all distributions of the frequency of behavior are skewed with a 190   majority of owners reporting the behavior occurring more than three times daily. Light 191   chasing is the exception with a large percentage of dogs engaging in the behavior only 192   monthly. 193   194   Environmental Antecedents 195   196   Table 1 outlines the percentage of owners reporting each antecedent event that led to stereotypy for the four major classes of behavior surveyed. Interestingly, the dog   9     197   being “stressed” was reported as the major antecedent for circling in 34% of the cases. 198   “Stressed” was reported as an antecedent for the remaining three stereotypies by 0 to 15 199   % of the dog owners. It should be noted, however, that the dog’s state of “stress” may 200   not have been accurately identified by the owners leading to a potential underreporting of 201   stress as an antecedent. Light chasing was most often reported as being unpredictable or 202   occurring under any situation by 64% of the respondents. Forty percent of owners with 203   dogs that licked reported that beginning or finishing play was an antecedent. Fixation was 204   reported most often when the owner had something desirable and during the 205   commencement or termination of play. 206   Overall, commencement and termination of play, lack of stimulation, and 207   “unpredictable” were the most frequently reported antecedents to stereotypy. Together, 208   the results suggest that stereotypy in our sample is not limited to conditions of 209   deprivation (i.e. lack of stimulation) but also occurs at high rates under conditions of 210   enrichment (e.g. before and after play or when giving attention). This suggests that in the 211   population we surveyed, stereotypy may not simply be a response to deprivation, but 212   rather that stereotypy can be controlled by various antecedent events in different dogs. 213   214   Environmental Consequences 215   A total of 83 owners reported their response to their dog’s stereotypy (Figure 2). 216   Of the 83 owners reporting, the most common response was to tell the dog to “stop” 217   (50.6%), followed by ignoring the dog (48.2%), and blocking or preventing the dog from 218   engaging in stereotypy (44.6%: percentages do not sum to 100 because of the possibility 219   of multiple responses). Other responses included giving their dog a desired object (26%   10     220   of the 83 owners) or attention (24% of the 83 owners). Several owners provided other 221   responses. The three most common responses were coded and are shown in Figure 2. 222   Giving their dog a command to do something else was reported by 10.8% of the 83 223   owners responding to this question. A small percentage of owners (4.8%) reported 224   distracting their dog, but not explicitly giving it a command to do something else. Some 225   owners reported removing an item related to the stereotypy (3.6%). After removing these 226   responses from “other,” only one response remained unclassified. This owner responded 227   that he used DogLeggsTM, which could be considered a form of response blocking. 228   Several owners indicated responding to their dog’s stereotypy in multiple ways. 229   To uncover whether there were systematic patterns of responding, an initial PCA with a 230   direct oblimin rotation was performed. The “other” category was removed as it contained 231   only one response. Four components with eigenvalues greater than one were obtained. 232   We therefore re-ran the PCA, this time restricting the analysis to only these four 233   components. The component correlation matrix showed little correlation among 234   components (all correlations < .2), indicating that an orthogonal rotation was appropriate 235   (Brown, 2009). A final PCA was performed with a varimax rotation to provide 236   orthogonal components, which is shown in Table 2. Component loadings greater than .4 237   are in bold. 238   Four components were identified. The first component consisted of the owner 239   ignoring the dog, and giving the dog attention. Although attending and not attending to 240   the dog simultaneously is impossible, an owner may ignore the dog on some occasions 241   and give the dog attention on others. This could create an intermittent schedule of 242   reinforcement with attention for stereotypy. Component 2 consisted of saying, “stop”   11     243   and attempting to block the dog from the behavior, showing that use of verbal reprimands 244   and physical prevention of the stereotypy were associated. Although responding to 245   stereotypy in this way may immediately terminate the behavior and give the owners the 246   impression they have punished the behavior, telling the dog to “stop” or physically 247   holding the dog may have an unintended consequence of increasing stereotypic behavior. 248   One possible mechanism for this increase would be that the owner’s attempts to suppress 249   stereotypy may unintentionally lead to anxiety, which may occasion more stereotypic 250   behavior. An alternative mechanism for this increase is that the owners’ attempts to stop 251   the behavior may unintentionally reinforce the stereotypy with attention. Thus, 252   Component 2 may reinforce the dog with attention the owner believes is “negative” 253   (“stop!”) and Component 1 may reinforce dogs with positive attention on an intermittent 254   schedule. Component 3 showed highest positive loadings for giving a desirable object 255   and highest negative loadings for taking objects away. This component appears to have 256   highest loading for whether an owner manipulates the dog’s environment by adding or 257   subtracting items. Component 4 shows highest loadings for the owner distracting the dog 258   or giving the dog a command. Owners may respond to stereotypy in both of these ways to 259   “re-direct” the behavior either by giving a command to do something else, or by trying to 260   distract the dog. 261   Together these results indicate that owners report that stereotypy in our sample of 262   dogs occurs under a variety of antecedent circumstances, ranging from playing and 263   giving the dog attention to boredom. Thus, stereotypy does not appear to be constrained 264   to any particular situation. Some stereotypies, however, did have more common   12     265   antecedents than others. For example, “being stressed” was only a common antecedent 266   for circling, indicating a potential relationship. 267   The data also suggest that owners may reinforce stereotypy by providing 268   attention in the form of scolding or blocking the dog as well as providing direct attention 269   on intermittent schedules (Component 1). It is important to note, however, that although 270   owners may respond to stereotypy by giving the dog attention, this does not imply that 271   the behavior is reinforced by attention. The owner’s attention, although a consequence of 272   stereotypy, may not be a functional reinforcer. To identify whether the consequences 273   identified in the survey function to reinforce stereotypy, a more detailed analysis of 274   individual subjects is necessary. In the following study, we conduct a case study of five 275   subjects using a Functional Analysis to assess the reinforcers of stereotypy in six dogs. 276   277   Study 2 278   This study aimed to identify the environmental consequences that reinforce and 279   maintain stereotypic behavior using the Functional Analysis methodology for individual 280   subjects. Because different dogs engaged in different forms of stereotypy, unique 281   assessments were developed for each dog and form of stereotypy in a case study 282   approach. 283   284   285   Methods and Materials Subjects 286   Dogs with owner-reported stereotypy were evaluated for inclusion in this study. 287   Owners were asked to fill in the survey previously discussed (Study 1) that asked them   13     288   about the conditions under which stereotypy occurred, and how they responded to it. 289   Additional open-ended questions were asked to identify whether there were conditions 290   that lead to stereotypy not identified in the survey. Six dogs with stereotypy that owners 291   considered problematic and abnormal were recruited. Two dogs chased lights (Maisey 292   and Norman), three dogs chased their tail or circled (Jimmie, Dan, and Shellie), and one 293   dog repetitively licked the floor (Tina). One dog (Dan), never showed stereotypy during 294   any of three visits to the owner’s house and was excluded from the study (see Table 3 for 295   subject information). Maisey was reported to chase ambient lights (sunlight) for large 296   portions of the day. The owner removed the dog’s tags to prevent the dog from chasing 297   reflections. Norman was reported to chase bright lights. The owner reported her 298   veterinarian had previously diagnosed Norman with mild compulsions. Jimmie and 299   Shellie were reported to show repetitive tail-chasing. Tina was reported to repeatedly lick 300   the floor while walking in circles for large portions of the day. Throughout Study 2 and 3, 301   all dogs were tested in the dog’s home or a place familiar to the dog (dog daycare).   302   303   General Procedures 304   From each owner interview, several potential reinforcers for the stereotypy were 305   hypothesized. This was done by examining the circumstances that led to stereotypy and 306   identifying events that may occur after the behavior and thus are potential consequences 307   of the stereotypy. Generally, the potential consequences of stereotypy included attention, 308   verbal scolding, light movement (for light chasing), and other owner delivered reinforcers 309   such as access to the outdoors. All the potential reinforcers that owners reported might 310   occur after stereotypy were included in the assessment. Each reinforcer was tested in a   14     311   single condition. Each dog was tested in two to five conditions and a control condition. 312   Each condition lasted 10 min (unless otherwise noted) with either the experimenter or the 313   owner delivering the reinforcer contingent on stereotypy. Each condition was repeated 314   four times for each dog. During each reinforcer test condition, if stereotypy occurred, the 315   putative reinforcer was delivered for 10 s. During a control condition, putative reinforcers 316   were provided on a time-based schedule that was not contingent on stereotypy. To assess 317   whether a putative reinforcer reinforced stereotypy, rates in the reinforcer test conditions 318   were compared to the control. If data remained ambiguous after four sessions of each 319   condition (e.g. overlapping data points between all test and control conditions, or 320   successively decreasing and increasing data points across the four sessions), additional 321   sessions were conducted to clarify trends. Between two and six 10 min sessions were 322   conducted per day. A total of 15 to 32 sessions were run for each dog, which required 323   between three and eight days of assessment. Occurrences of the behavior were recorded 324   in each session by a live coder using a partial interval recording method. Each session 325   was divided into 10 s bins. The percentage of bins in which stereotypy occurred was 326   calculated to estimate the proportion of the session the dog engaged in stereotypic 327   behavior. Inter-observer agreement was assessed for the target behavior of each dog by 328   having a second observer score at least 20% of each dog’s video-recorded behavior. 329   Percent agreement was assessed on an interval-by-interval basis by scoring the number of 330   bins for which the two observers agreed divided by the total number of bins. Mean 331   percent agreement across all sessions was 95%. 332   333   Light Chasing   15     334   Three potential reinforcers for light chasing were tested: movement of the light, 335   removal of the light, or human attention. When a dog chases and approaches the light, 336   the dog may block the light (the light is ‘removed’), the dog might manipulate something 337   that moves the light when the dog chases it (e.g., a reflection), or light chasing may cause 338   a human to attend to the dog, and provide attention. Each of these reinforcers was tested 339   in separate conditions. 340   To test whether light movement was the maintaining reinforcer, a 134 lumen 341   MAGLITE® LED 2-cell D flashlight (Ontario, CA, USA) was used to shine a light onto 342   the ground. If the dog ran after the light, pounced on the light, or touched the light or 343   light source (the flashlight), the experimenter moved the light in a slow circular pattern 344   for 10 s. The light was then presented without motion until the next occurrence of the 345   behavior. The light removal condition was identical to the light movement condition 346   except that contingent on engaging with the light or flashlight, the light was turned off for 347   10 s. The attention condition was similar to the other conditions, but the light was 348   presented on the ground. If the dog engaged with the light or flashlight, the owner called 349   the dog back for 10 s. The control condition consisted of the flashlight being held on the 350   ground and facing upward to point the light up. This was done so that engaging with the 351   flashlight or light would not make the light disappear (by blocking the source) or move 352   (the flashlight was held steady). 353   Minor modifications to the procedure were made for Maisey. First, after each 354   condition was conducted once, the attention condition was discontinued due to difficulty 355   in running the session and because very high rates of the behavior were observed in the 356   absence of the owner, indicating that the owner was unlikely a reinforcer of the behavior.   16     357   Second, after conducting four sessions of the remaining conditions, additional sessions 358   were conducted to clarify whether movement of the light and removal of the light 359   reinforced the stereotypy. Further details are described in the results. 360   361   Circling 362   Two test conditions and a control condition were conducted to assess Jimmie’s 363   circling. To test whether circling may be reinforced by owner attention, rates of circling 364   were compared across conditions in which the owner either provided attention contingent 365   on circling, provided non-contingent attention (attention on a fixed-time 15 sec schedule), 366   or was absent (the dog was alone). If the circling was reinforced by the owner, we would 367   expect circling when the owner provided contingent attention, and little to no circling 368   when the owner was absent or providing attention every 15 seconds. 369   For the attention condition, the owner started the session by petting the dog for 10 370   s, then stood up and started working on a computer or reading a book while ignoring the 371   dog. If the dog engaged in circling, the owner stopped the dog and attended to it for 10 s. 372   In the alone condition the dog was left alone and observed via video camera for instances 373   of circling. The control condition controlled for the possibility that owner presences or 374   the presentation of attention alone (and consequent excitement) may initiate circling. In 375   this condition, the owner provided non-contingent attention by playing with the dog on a 376   fixed-time 15 s schedule. 377     378   house to exit. We therefore developed several conditions related to the owner 379   approaching the door. In the first condition we tested whether the dog may circle because   Shellie’s circling was greatest when the owners approached the door of their 17     380   by circling as the owner approached the door, the owner became more likely to take the 381   dog with them (i.e. going outside as a reinforcer). Another condition tested whether the 382   circling was reinforced by owner attention. The owner reported that when approaching 383   the door, if the dog started to circle, the owner would tell the dog to “sit” and would then 384   stop the process of exiting and would give the dog attention for sitting. Alternatively, 385   circling could be controlled by the owner’s absence. To test this possibility, the dog was 386   observed after the owner had left (i.e. the dog was alone). A control condition was 387   conducted in which the owner provided attention on a fixed time schedule (15 s) and 388   provided a continuous availability to go outside by leaving the door open. If circling was 389   controlled by variables other than the owner’s behavior, we would expect circling to be 390   maintained when the owner was absent and when the owner provided attention and 391   access to the outdoors non-contingently on circling. 392   Throughout each condition, the experimenter approached the door every 30 s 393   (except during the alone condition in which the dog was left alone). For the attention 394   condition, the experimenter approached the door ignoring the dog, and if the dog engaged 395   in circling, the experimenter told it to “sit.” The experimenter then gave the dog 10 s of 396   praise. If the dog did not circle as the experimenter approached the door, the 397   experimenter opened and then shut the door, and returned to the start location. For the 398   walk condition, the experimenter approached the door, and if the dog engaged in circling 399   the experimenter led it outside for 10 s. If the dog did not circle, the experimenter opened 400   the door briefly and shut the door without going outside or allowing the dog to leave. 401   For the alone condition, the experimenter approached the door and went outside 402   and around the yard for the duration of the session. The dog’s behavior was recorded to   18     403   observe if the circling was maintained in the person’s absence. In the control condition, 404   the door was opened to allow the dog to be inside or outside and the experimenter 405   provided non-contingent attention. This controlled for the possibility that simply being 406   near the door, going outside, or providing attention led to increased circling. 407   Modifications: After 4 sessions of each condition, the results remained ambiguous 408   and the rate of stereotypy did not match the owner’s reported experience. Additional 409   sessions were conducted with the owner taking the role of the experimenter after 410   necessary training. The first author guided the owner during each session. The session 411   lengths were shortened to 5 min each for the convenience of the owner. 412   413   Licking 414   To assess whether human-delivered consequences maintained licking, rates of 415   licking were recorded when the experimenter provided contingent attention for it, 416   provided non-contingent attention for it, and when the dog was alone. If licking was 417   reinforced by attention, we expect the highest rates of it when attention was provided 418   contingent on licking and lower rates when attention was presented non-contingently 419   (control condition). If licking was influenced by variables other than attention (e.g. a 420   medical condition), we would expect it to occur during the control condition and/or when 421   alone. 422   For the attention condition, the experimenter engaged in everyday activities while 423   ignoring the dog. If the dog engaged in floor licking, the experimenter called the dog’s 424   name in a scolding tone as modeled by the owner. If the dog stopped, the dog was given 425   10 s of attention for stopping. If the dog did not stop, the experimenter touched the dog to   19     426   interrupt it. If the dog did not stop licking upon a touch, the experimenter simply 427   maintained contact with the dog for 10 s. 428   In the alone condition, the dog was left alone for the duration of the session and 429   the behavior was recorded to see whether it was maintained in the absence of people. 430   During the control condition the experimenter played with the dog and provided the dog 431   non-contingent attention (fixed-time 15 s schedule) throughout the session. 432   Modifications: After 5 sessions of each condition, the results suggested attention 433   maintained the behavior, however, there was a declining trend (each subsequent point 434   was lower than the previous). Additional sessions were conducted with the owner trained 435   as the experimenter. The first author guided the owner during all sessions. 436   437   438   Results and Discussion Light Chasing 439   The results of the Functional Analyses for Maisey and Norman are presented in 440   Figure 3. Figure 3A shows the Functional Analysis results for Maisey. For the first four 441   sessions of each condition (sessions 1 through 13), light chasing was clearly highest when 442   light movement was the consequence of the stereotypy. These rates of behavior were 443   maintained in the owner’s absence, suggesting the behavior was not maintained by social 444   consequences. Relatively high rates of the behavior compared to the control condition 445   were also observed in the light removal condition during the first four sessions. It was 446   unclear whether light removal also served as a reinforcer or whether the dog failed to 447   discriminate between the light movement and light removal conditions as both conditions 448   started the same way (with the light pointing at the ground). Inspection of the within-   20     449   session data suggested that responding in the light removal condition decreased within a 450   session implying the behavior was extinguishing. To further test whether light removal 451   was a reinforcer, we conducted repeated light removal sessions to see if responding 452   would decrease (sessions 15 through 18). To confirm that any decrease was not a 453   function of exhaustion, immediately following the repeated light removal conditions, a 454   light movement condition was conducted (session 19). This pattern of three repeated 455   light removal sessions and one movement session was repeated in sessions 21 through 24 456   to confirm whether light removal was a reinforcer for Maisey. Figure 3A shows that after 457   two or three light removal sessions, the rates of the behavior were indistinguishable from 458   the control condition. Rates of behavior in the light movement condition remained high 459   suggesting this was not an effect of exhaustion, but rather the behavior was extinguishing 460   during repeated light removal conditions. Thus, light removal was not a reinforcer for 461   Maisey, but light movement was. 462   Like Maisey, Norman was reinforced by light movement, but not the removal of 463   light (as shown in Figure 3B). Attention from the owner (being called back) had no effect 464   on the rate of the behavior compared to the control condition. These data suggest that 465   Norman’s behavior was only reinforced by light movement. Thus, both dogs’ light 466   chasing stereotypy was reinforced by light movement, not its removal, nor  owner   467   attention. Low rates of the behavior in the control condition indicated that when the light 468   remained stationary as the dog engaged with it, contact with the light was not reinforcing 469   to the dogs. This suggests that light chasing may be related to chasing prey or other types 470   of chasing that result in the movement of the chased item. Potentially, an exaggerated 471   chase drive may predispose dogs to engaging in light chasing. In addition, given that light   21     472   chasing was reinforced by properties of the light itself, this may explain why owners 473   viewed light chasing as “unpredictable.” 474   475   Circling 476   The first four sessions of each condition for Shellie were inconclusive with 477   relatively low rates of responding (see sessions 1-16, Figure 4A). After this initial 478   assessment, the owner was trained to conduct the analysis and guided through the 479   procedures during each condition (sessions 17-32). These sessions a showed a clear 480   pattern of results in which circling was highest in the attention condition. Thus, the 481   highest rates of stereotypy were observed when circling was contingent on owner 482   attention in the form of the owner telling the dog to “sit,” which was followed by praise. 483   Rates of stereotypy were low in the condition in which Shellie was given access outdoors 484   contingent on stereotypy (walk condition) or when simply left inside when the owner 485   went outside (alone condition). This walk and alone condition was indistinguishable from 486   the control condition. Thus, the behavior was maintained by the owner’s effort to reduce 487   stereotypy by providing attention in the form of telling the dog to “sit” and giving praise 488   contingent on stereotypy. 489   Jimmie showed very low rates of stereotypy during all sessions (see Figure 4 B). 490   Only two instances of stereotypic behavior were recorded, both in the attention condition, 491   however the overall low rate prevented an interpretation of the function of the stereotypy. 492   Thus, the data suggest the behavior may have an attention function; however, the results 493   for Jimmie were inconclusive. 494     22     495   Licking 496   Tina showed high rates of licking in the attention condition (Experimenter said 497   “Tina” to interrupt the behavior and praised for 10 s when the dog stopped), but not in the 498   alone or the control condition (see Figure 5). Tina, however, showed a decreasing trend 499   in the rate of licking in the attention condition (sessions 1-15). To test whether this was 500   an artifact of the attention coming from the experimenter, the owner was trained to 501   conduct the sessions under the guidance of the experimenter. During these sessions 502   (sessions 17-24), high rates of licking were observed in the attention condition, and zero 503   rates during the alone and control conditions, indicating licking was reinforced by the 504   owner calling the dog’s name to interrupt the behavior and providing attention for 505   stopping. 506   We identified reinforcers for stereotypic behavior in four of five dogs, showing 507   that this behavior can be controlled by environmental consequences. For two of these 508   dogs, the behavior was incidentally reinforced by the owner trying to stop the behavior 509   (telling the dog to “sit,” or “stop”). The remaining two dogs were reinforced by light 510   movement, which was independent of the owner’s behavior. Here, the reinforcer was 511   related to the behavior itself: when the dog chased and approached the light, the light 512   moved. By identifying reinforcers of the stereotypic behavior, it should be possible to 513   manipulate these reinforcers to decrease the behavior. Disrupting the contingency 514   between the behavior and reinforcer should cause the behavior to extinguish. 515   516   Study 3   23     517   The aim of Study 3 was to decrease stereotypic behavior by manipulating the 518   reinforcer for three of the four dogs for which a reinforcer was identified in Study 2. 519   Because different reinforcers were identified for different dogs, each dog was treated as a 520   case study, receiving a unique treatment plan. 521   522   Methods and Materials Subjects 523   Maisey, Shellie and Tina from Study 2 participated in Study 3 (one dog light 524   chased, one circled, and one dog licked). After completing Study 2, all dogs immediately 525   began Study 3. 526   General Procedures 527   Each dog received a unique treatment depending on the reinforcer for and 528   intensity of the behavior. All treatment sessions lasted 5 min each. Two or more sessions 529   in which the behavior was reduced to fewer than 10% of the time intervals (i.e. less than 530   3 of 30 intervals) was considered successful for progression to the next treatment 531   component or termination of treatment. 532   Light Chasing 533   For Maisey, light movement maintained the light chasing. To reduce light 534   chasing, a compound treatment was developed. Given that Study 2 demonstrated that 535   repeated sessions in which turning off the light contingent on approaching or engaging 536   with it decreased responding, we utilized this manipulation of the reinforcing light 537   movement to decrease behavior. Two additional features were included to reduce 538   behavior. The first was an alternative contingency reinforced with food (differential 539   reinforcement of an alternative, DRA). Paw lifting or “waving” was selected as an   24     540   appropriate novel behavior to reinforce. Second, we utilized a stimulus fading procedure 541   that began with a low intensity flashlight that was gradually increased across sessions to 542   the highest intensity light (the light intensity used during Functional Analysis sessions). 543   The design for Maisey’s treatment was as follows. We first conducted baseline 544   sessions for paw lifting to the cue “wave” to confirm the behavior was novel (see figure 545   6: sessions 1-3). Next, Maisey was trained to lift her paw to the cue “wave,” by 546   reinforcing successive approximations with food. Following training, Maisey was tested 547   for responding to the cue “wave” when given every 30 s during a session (sessions 4, 5, 548   and 8). In separate sessions, Maisey’s responding to the lowest intensity flashlight (9 549   lumens- Rayovac® 2D Flashlight, Madison, WI) was recorded to serve as a baseline for 550   subsequent manipulations (sessions 6, 7, and 9). Next, reinforcement for waving and 551   extinction for light chasing (turning the light off contingent on engaging with the light) 552   were combined until light chasing decreased to fewer than 10% of the intervals for two 553   sessions. Next, the baseline level of stereotypy for the next higher intensity light (85 554   lumens- Rayovac® Lantern) was obtained in two probe sessions, followed by the 555   implementation of the treatment. Once the behavior had been reduced to criterion level, 556   baseline for the highest intensity light was obtained through two probe trials. Treatment 557   for the highest intensity flashlight was implemented to criterion. Thus, there were three 558   replications of the treatment effect from baseline to treatment. Last, the schedule of 559   reinforcement for “waving” was reduced to a fixed interval 5 s schedule. 560   Circling 561   562   The Functional Analysis in Study 2 indicated Shellie circled for attention. To reduce Shellie’s circling, differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) was utilized   25     563   by providing owner attention for engaging in behaviors other than circling. If the dog 564   circled, the owner ignored it. Identically to the Functional Analysis sessions, the owner 565   approached the door every 30 s throughout the interval. If Shellie circled, the owner 566   continued to proceed through the door and stayed outside for 10 s. If the dog allowed the 567   owner to approach and open the door without circling, the owner praised it for 10 s. 568   These sessions were conducted at the same door as the Functional Analysis sessions. 569   Once the dog met criterion for progressing, sessions were conducted at a second door in 570   the house (the door most often used by the owners) and the treatment was repeated to 571   replicate the effect. If the dog did not meet criterion after several sessions (10 or more 572   sessions), a time out contingency was added. A time out was used to remove all forms of 573   owner attention contingent on circling. If, when the owner approached the door, the dog 574   began to circle, the owner placed the dog into a separate empty room for 10 s. If, when 575   the owner approached the door, the dog did not circle, the dog was given 10 s of owner 576   attention. Once the dog met the criterion at the second door, the final treatment phase 577   required the dog to not only not begin circling as the owner approached, but also to 578   refrain from circling while the owner left. All contingencies from the previous condition 579   remained in effect. 580   Licking 581   The Functional Analysis for Tina in Experiment 2 indicated that her repetitive 582   licking was reinforced by owner attention (calling her away). First, five baseline sessions 583   were conducted in which the owner called the dog away contingent on floor licking. 584   Next, the treatment condition was implemented using a 30 s momentary DRO. In this 585   condition a timer was set for every 30 s throughout the session. If the dog was not   26     586   engaging in licking when the timer ended, the dog was given 10 s of attention. Otherwise, 587   the dog was ignored. If the dog was licking the floor when the timer ended, she was 588   ignored. If this did not sufficiently reduce floor licking, the next component was a time 589   out where the dog was placed in the next room alone for 10 s contingent on floor licking. 590   This removed all possible sources of owner attention that may occur when the dog and 591   owner are in the same room. If the dog did not engage in floor licking the owner ignored 592   the dog. In the following phase, the time out procedure and DRO were combined so that 593   if the dog engaged in floor licking, it was placed in the next room for 10 s. If the dog was 594   not licking the floor when the 30 s timer timed out, she was given 10 s of attention. 595   Analyses 596   Treatment sessions were conducted until dogs met the minimum criterion of a 597   reduction in behavior to less than 10% of intervals for two sessions before moving onto 598   further treatment. Meeting this criterion for at least three consecutive sessions was 599   considered successful for the final treatment phase. This criterion represents a minimum 600   of a 78% reduction for Maisey, a 70% reduction for Shellie, and an 89% reduction for 601   Tina. 602   Inter-observer agreement was assessed for the target behavior of each dog by 603   having a second-observer score at least 20% of each dog’s video-recorded behavior. 604   Percent agreement was assessed on an interval-by-interval basis by scoring the number of 605   bins for which the two observers agreed divided by the total number of bins. Mean 606   percent agreement across all sessions was 88%. 607   608   Results and Discussion   27     609   Light Chasing Results 610   During initial baseline sessions for paw lifting, Maisey showed no evidence of 611   paw lifting to the cue “wave” (see Figure 6). When she was trained to paw lift to the cue 612   “wave,” she showed moderate levels of waving (see sessions 4, 5 & 8). Sessions 6, 7 & 9 613   show that Maisey pounced on the lowest intensity light at high levels (between 75% and 614   90% of intervals). In the following sessions, reinforcement for waving while the light was 615   on and extinction for pouncing on the light (the light was turned off) was implemented. 616   Rates of pouncing decreased within five sessions (sessions 10 – 14) while rates of paw 617   lifting increased. In the subsequent probe sessions for the next higher intensity of light, 618   pouncing and chasing rebounded slightly (sessions 15 and 16). When treatment was 619   implemented, pouncing decreased to zero immediately (sessions 17 and 18). Rates of 620   pouncing rebounded when baseline conditions were reinstituted with the highest intensity 621   light, and then declined again once treatment conditions were implemented in sessions 21 622   through 25. When the schedule of reinforcement was thinned for waving, there was a 623   brief increase in pouncing which quickly declined. Overall, the effect of the treatment 624   was replicated at each light intensity level. Once the behavior reduction package was 625   implemented at each intensity, the rate of pouncing decreased. Visual inspection of the 626   data suggest the treatment had a meaningful effect on the behavior because each 627   treatment data point was lower than its respective baseline condition. The mean 628   percentage of intervals with light chasing for baseline sessions was 47% whereas the 629   mean for treatment sessions was 10%, with the mean of the last three treatment sessions 630   at 2.2%. The overall reduction in behavior from baseline to the last three treatment 631   sessions was 95%.   28     632   633   Circling 634   The first section of Figure 7 includes the results of the Functional Analysis in the 635   attention condition from Figure 4A as baseline for comparison to treatment conditions. 636   When the DRO procedure was implemented, we observed a steady decrease toward zero 637   instances of circling per session (sessions 17-26). As the DRO procedure was 638   implemented to decrease circling when the owner approached a different door, a 639   resurgence in circling was recorded and little decrease in the behavior was observed 640   across sessions. When a brief 10 s time out was implemented (session 43), a rapid 641   decrease in the behavior was noted which was maintained even as the owner went all the 642   way through the door (session 52-54). The rate of circling decreased from 32.5% of 643   intervals during the Functional Analysis attention condition, to 5.5% of intervals across 644   all of the time out sessions to the second door. Comparing the mean rate of circling in the 645   baseline Functional Analysis to the mean of the last three sessions of treatment, an 646   overall reduction in stereotypic behavior of 83.6% was observed. 647   These results indicate that the removal of attention contingent on circling by 648   putting the dog in the next room significantly reduced behavior. This further confirms 649   that the dog’s circling was reinforced by attention, as the removal of attention contingent 650   on circling led to a significant decrease in the behavior. 651   652   Licking 653   654   Figure 8 shows a high and stable baseline for Tina’s licking (mean of 92% of intervals), which was obtained following the procedures for the attention condition from   29     655   the Functional Analysis in 5 min sessions. When the DRO was implemented, a small 656   decrease was noted, however, the behavior remained at unacceptable levels. We 657   attempted to reverse to baseline (sessions 28-30), however, no instances of licking were 658   observed. These sessions functionally acted as ignore conditions (i.e. the dog was never 659   instructed to stop licking because licking was never observed). Additional Functional 660   Analysis sessions (Sessions 34-42, not shown) were conducted to confirm the licking 661   behavior only occurred in the owner’s presence and when attention was contingent on 662   licking. These sessions confirmed the Functional Analysis data reported in Study 2: 663   licking terminated once the owner left (the behavior was observed in 0% of intervals), 664   resurged once the owner returned (70% of intervals), and terminated when the owner 665   provided non-contingent attention (0% of intervals). The DRO treatment was again 666   implemented but unacceptable levels of licking remained (see Figure 8). Next, the time- 667   out treatment was implemented with a near immediate effect. Following multiple sessions 668   of little to no licking, the DRO was introduced and licking remained low, occurring in 669   fewer than 6% of intervals. The mean percent of intervals licking was observed across the 670   last three treatment sessions was 0%. Comparing the baseline to the overall mean of the 671   last treatment phase, a 98.5% reduction in behavior was observed. 672   The results suggest that Tina’s licking can be controlled by manipulating the 673   attention the owner provides the dog contingent on licking. When the owner contingently 674   removed attention (by putting the dog in the next room), decreases in licking were 675   observed. Licking decreased overall from the initial baseline of 92% of intervals to a 676   mean of 1.3% of intervals in the final treatment phase. The results further confirm that 677   Tina’s licking was maintained incidentally by owner attention.   30     678   General Discussion 679   The results of the three studies reported here indicate that canine stereotypy can 680   be maintained by environmental consequences (Study 1 and Study 2), those consequence 681   can be identified (Study 2), and manipulated to reduce stereotypy (Study 3). 682   Study 1 shows that stereotypy in our sample can occur under a variety of 683   antecedent conditions, and is not specific to conditions of deprivation. Instead, owners 684   report stereotypy even under conditions of enrichment such as play. The results of this 685   survey cannot, of course, be generalized to the entire population of pet dogs because the 686   owners who responded were self-selecting. However, the results serve to indicate some 687   part of the range of possible contexts in which stereotypy is observed in pet dogs. 688   The PCA in Study 1 identified 4 independent components that described how 689   owners reported responding to their dog’s stereotypy. These components suggest that 690   owners have different styles of responding to stereotypy. Attending to these styles of 691   response would be useful to clinicians, as owners may incidentally reinforce the 692   undesired behavior. Shellie’s owner told her dog to sit and reinforced sitting, which 693   corresponds to a “redirect” response (component 4), and incidentally reinforced the dog’s 694   problem behavior. Tina’s owner also redirected by calling the dog’s name to interrupt the 695   behavior, which incidentally reinforced the behavior with attention. 696   Study 2 indicated that canine stereotypic behavior was reinforced by sensory 697   consequences (light movement) for two dogs, and by owner attention for two more dogs. 698   This is an interesting difference from the human literature that indicates that human 699   stereotypic behavior (e.g. swaying, hand-flapping or vocal stereotypy) is rarely 700   maintained by attention, but instead by the sensory consequences of the behavior (Iwata   31     701   et al., 1994b). Given that light movement was shown to reinforce light chasing, light 702   chasing may be functionally similar to the chasing of other moving objects such as prey, 703   which then might generalize to moving lights. This suggests light chasing may not be a 704   conflict behavior, but rather a hypertrophied form of responding to moving objects. 705   Additional dogs, however, would need to be evaluated to assess whether object 706   movement is the most common reinforcer for light stereotypies. 707   In Study 3, we showed that breaking the contingency between a behavior and the 708   reinforcer identified in Study 2 led to a decrease in the behavior. For example, we 709   observed decreases in chasing and pouncing at a light when such behavior no longer led 710   to light movement and an alternative behavior was reinforced. We also showed that 711   attention maintained behaviors could be reduced when the behavior led to the owner’s 712   removal. This extends prior research suggesting that owners reinforce tail-chasing (Burn, 713   2011) by providing the first direct evidence that owner attention reinforces stereotypy. 714   Interestingly, for both of the dogs whose behavior was reinforced by attention, the 715   reinforcer was specifically attention from their owners and not from strangers. Tina 716   showed a decreasing trend when the experimenter was not the owner, but an increasing 717   trend when the owner acted as experimenter. Similarly, Shellie showed an 718   undifferentiated pattern of behavior when the owner was not the experimenter, but a clear 719   attention function when the owner was the experimenter. This suggests that the specific 720   owner-dog dynamic might be important in canine stereotypy. 721   In addition, our finding that stereotypic behavior in different dogs may be under 722   the control of different reinforcers suggests that therapeutic recommendations for canine 723   stereotypy may be too broad. It may not be advisable to make general behavioral   32     724   treatment recommendations for canine stereotypy if the behavior could be under the 725   control of different reinforcers. For example, re-direction procedures have been shown to 726   be effective in treating humans with stereotypy (e.g. Cassella et al., 2011; Schumacher 727   and Rapp, 2011). However, human stereotypy is rarely maintained by attention (e.g. 728   Iwata et al., 1994b), making it unlikely that a therapist may incidentally reinforce the 729   stereotypy while re-directing the behavior. In some of the dogs we tested here, however, 730   we found that stereotypic behavior was reinforced with attention, and thus re-direction 731   procedures (e.g. telling the dog to sit), exacerbated the problem behavior. For other dogs, 732   however, attention was not a reinforcer and re-direction procedures may be effective for 733   these dogs, without incidentally reinforcing the problem behavior. This individually- 734   tailored treatments hypothesis, however, requires further testing because our sample size 735   was too limited to estimate whether the fact that reinforcers for stereotypy varied in our 736   sample represented the norm for the population or rather was an exception. 737   Generalizations to the larger population of dogs with stereotypy from the present 738   study are limited given the sample size. Our direct assessment of putative reinforcers 739   (Study 2), and subsequent manipulation of the reinforcer contingency to decrease 740   stereotypy (Study 3) were limited to five and three dogs respectively. Therefore, we 741   cannot generalize the prevalence of various reinforcers and environmental consequences 742   to the broader population. Additional study will be required to assess the prevalence of 743   different reinforcers maintaining stereotypy. Importantly, the present study demonstrates 744   that the Functional Analysis methodology is a viable method for assessing possible 745   environmental reinforcers of stereotypy for individual dogs, and can lead to individual 746   tailored treatments to reduce stereotypy.   33     747   This study provides some of the first empirical evidence demonstrating that 748   environmental variables can and do influence canine stereotypic behavior. It is important 749   to note, however, that the present analysis does not exclude the biological hypothesis, but 750   instead adds to it. The stereotypic behavior in our present analysis may also be influenced 751   by genetic factors or may have started as a medical condition. Identifying the 752   environmental determinants of the behavior helps further our understanding of the 753   variables maintaining canine stereotypic behavior that are susceptible to direct 754   manipulation. 755   In sum, the environmental consequences of stereotypy should be considered as 756   potential reinforcers for stereotypy. The Functional Analysis procedure can be utilized to 757   assess whether stereotypy is reinforced by any of its consequences. Once the reinforcer is 758   identified, programs can be designed to target it and thereby reduce the behavior. This 759   may be preferable to treatments not tailored to individual circumstances, such as 760   redirection, that may have the unintended consequence of reinforcing the behavior. 761   Future research exploring the environmental antecedents and consequent events of 762   stereotypy will help further understanding of the variables controlling canine stereotypy. 763     34     764   765   Acknowledgments 766   We thank Brenda Griffin for her helpful comments on the survey. This project was 767   supported by the AKC Canine Health Foundation. The contents of this paper are solely 768   the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the 769   Foundation. The foundation had no involvement in this study. 770   Conflict of Interest Statement 771   The authors declare no conflict of interests. 772   Authorship 773   N.H, A.P. and C.D.L.W all contributed to the idea for the paper, the design of the 774   experiments, analysis of the data, and the writing of the paper. The experiments were 775   conducted by N.H. and A.P. 776   Ethical Statement 777   This study was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use 778   Committee (IACUC).   35     779   References 780   781   Bécuwe-Bonnet, V., Bélanger, M., Frank, D., Parent, J., Hélie, P., 2012. Gastrointestinal 782   disorders in dogs with excessive licking of surfaces. J. Vet Behav 7, 194-204. 783   784   Brown, J.D., 2009. Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. Shiken: JALT 785   Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 13, 20-25. 786   787   Burn, C.C., 2011. A vicious cycle: a cross-sectional study of canine tail-chasing and 788   human responses to it, using a free video-sharing website. PLOS One 6, e26553 789   790   Cassella, M.D., Sidener, T.M., Sidiner, D.W., Progar, P.R., 2011. Response Interruption 791   and Redirection for vocal stereotypy in children with autism: a systematic replication. J 792   App Behav Anal 44, 159-173. 793   794   Dodman, N.H., Karlsson, E.K., Moon-Fanelli, A., Galdzika, M., Perloski, M., Shuster, 795   L., Lindblad-Toh, K., Ginns, E.I., 2010. A canine chromosome 7 locus confers 796   compulsive disorder susceptibility. Mol Psychiatry 15, 8–10. 797   798   Dorey, N.R., Rosales-Ruiz, J., Smith, R., Lovelace, B., 2009. Functional Analysis and 799   treatment of self-injury in a captive olive baboon. J Appl Behav Anal 42, 785-794. 800     36     801   Dorey, N.R., Tobias, J.S., Udell, M.A.R., Wynne, C.D.L., 2012. Decreasing dog problem 802   behavior with functional analysis: linking diagnosis to treatment. J Vet Behav 7, 276-282. 803   804   Hall, N.J., Wynne, C.D.L., 2012. The canid genome: geneticists’ best friend? Genes, 805   Brain, Behav 11, 889-902. 806   807   Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M.F., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E., Richman, G.S., 1994a. Toward a 808   Functional Analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal 27, 197-209. 809   810   Iwata, B.A., Pace, G.M., Dorsey, M.F., Zarcone, J.R., Vollmer, T.R., Smith, R.G., 811   Rodger, T.A., Lerman, D.C., Shore, B.A., Mazaleski, J.L., Goh, H., Cowdery, G.E., 812   Kalsher, M.J., McCosh, K.C., Willis, K.D., 1994b. The functions of self-injury behavior: 813   an experimental-epidemiological analysis. J Appl Behav Anal 27, 215-240. 814   815   Low, M. 2003. Sterotypies and behavioural medicine: confusions in current thinking. 816   Australian Veterinary Journal 81, 192-198 817   818   Luescher, A., 2000. Compulsive behavior in companion animals. In: Houpt, K.A., Recent 819   Advances in Companion Animal Behavior Problems. International Veterinary 820   Information Service, Ithaca N. 821     37     822   Martin, A. L., Bloomsmith, M. A., Kelley, M. E., Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L., 2011. 823   Functional analysis and treatment of human-­‐directed undesirable behavior exhibited by a 824   captive chimpanzee. J Appl Behav Anal 44, 139-143. 825   826   Ogata, N., Gillis, T.E., Liu, X., Cunningham, S. M., Lowen, S. B., Adams, B. L., 827   Sutherland-Smith, J., Mintzopoulos, D., Janes, A., Dodman, N.H., Kaufman, M. J. 2013. 828   Brain structure abnormalities in Doberman Pinchers with canine compulsive disorder. 829   Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 45, 1-6. 830   831   Overall, K.L., Dunham, A.E., 2002. Clinical features and outcomes in dogs and cats with 832   obsessive-compulsive disorder: 126 cases (1989-2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc 22, 1445- 833   1452. 834   Protopopova, A., Hall, N. J., & Wynne, C. D., 2014. Association between increased 835   behavioral persistence and stereotypy in the pet dog. Behav Proc, 106, 77–81. 836   837   Schumacher, B.I., Rapp, J.T., 2011. Evaluation of the immediate and subsequent effects 838   of response interruption and redirection on vocal stereotypy. J App Behav Anal 44, 681- 839   585. 840   841   Seksel, K., Lindeman, M.J., 2001. Use of clomipramine in treatment of obsessive 842   compulsive disorder, separation anxiety and noise phobia in dogs: a preliminary, clinical 843   study. Aust Vet J. 49, 252-256. 844     38     845   Tiira, K., Hakosalo, O., Kareinen, L., Thomas, A., Helm-Bjorkman, A., Escriou, C., 846   Arnold, P., Lohi, H., 2012. Environmental effects on compulsive tail-chasing in dogs. 847   PLOS One 7, e41684 848   849   Vermeire, S., Audenaert, K., Dobbeleir, A., Vandermeulen, E., Waelbers, T., Peremans, 850   K., 2010. A Cavalier King Charles dog with shadow chasing: clinical recovery and 851   normalization of the dopamine transporter binding after clomipramine treatment. J Vet 852   Behav 5, 345-349. 853     39     Have something Lots of Attention Before or After Play "Stressed" Lack of stimulation Crated Command Noise Unpredictable Other # Reporting 854   Circling 26.8 19.5 19.5 34.1 26.8 4.9 2.4 0.0 14.6 12.2 37 Licking 13.6 20.5 40.9 15.9 25.0 18.2 0.0 4.5 25.0 11.4 41 0.0 7.1 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 64.3 0.0 14 6.3 33.3 12.5 29.2 0.0 6.3 6.3 22.9 14.6 43 Light Chasing Fixation 37.5 855   856   857   Table 1. Owner-reported antecedent events for each stereotypy. Numbers indicate the 858   percentage of owners reporting each antecedent. The last column indicates the number of 859   owners reporting antecedents for that stereotypy. 860   861     40     862   Component 1 2 3 4 Ignore .745 -.033 -.080 -.125 Give Attention .848 .120 .099 Say “stop” -.022 .820 -.053 -.263 Block (prevent) .152 .701 .300 Remove Something .386 .048 -.635 -.137 Give Desirable .163 .194 .710 -.062 Other: distract -.267 .325 -.391 .543 Command .001 -.150 .108 .829 .054 .231 863   864   Table 2. Correlation matrix for Principal Component Analysis. The correlation in 865   each component for each behavior is indicated. Component loadings greater than .4 are 866   indicated in bold. 867   868     41     869   Subject Breed Age Sex Maisey 2 Boxer F Norman Labrador retriever mix 6.5 M Shellie Shetland sheepdog 7 M Jimmie Cattle dog mix 4 M Tina Miniature dachshund 4 F 870   871   872   Table 3. Subject Information. Breed, sex and age for each subject in Experiment 2 and 3 are given. 873   874     42     875   Figure Legends 876   Figure 1. Owner-reported frequency of stereotypy. Each graph indicates the 877   frequency of each behavior reported in the survey. Low Daily indicates between one and 878   two times daily, whereas as High Daily indicates three or more times a day. 879     880   Figure 2. Prevalence of responding for owner responses to stereotypy. 881   Percentages reflect the number of owners responding to each response of the 83 owners 882   that responded to this question. Owners could select more than one response. 883     884   885   Figure 3. Functional Analysis results for Maisey (A) and Norman (B) for Light chasing. Each data path is labeled with the appropriate condition. 886   Figure 4. Functional Analysis for Shellie (A) and Jimmie (B). Each data path is 887   labeled with the respective condition. Gap in data path for Shellie indicates where the 888   owner acted as the Experimenter. 889   Figure 5. Functional Analysis for Tina. Each data path is labeled with the 890   appropriate condition. The breaks in the data paths indicate when the owner became the 891   experimenter. 892   Figure 6. Treatment for Maisey’s light chasing. Dashed line indicates a change in 893   procedure. BL represents Baseline and DRA indicates when differential reinforcement of 894   alternative and the removal of the light contingent on pouncing was in effect. Intensity 1 895   stands for the 9 lumen light, Intensity 2 is the 85 lumen light, and Intensity 3 is the 134 896   lumen light.   43     897   Figure 7. Treatment for Shellie’s circling. Dashed line indicates a change in 898   procedure. DRO stands for differential reinforcement of other behavior. The DRO 899   procedure for both doors is shown. TO stands for timeout. TO Step outside indicates 900   when the owner would fully step outside. 901   Figure 8. Treatment for Tina’s licking. Dashed lines indicate changes in 902   procedure. Double dashed line on the x axis indicates where additional Functional 903   Analysis sessions were conducted (see results). BL stands for baseline, DRO stands for 904   differential reinforcement of other behavior, TO stands for timeout.     44