Civilpooch

 

The problem

Every writer and reader has biases. These biases can influence the way dog trainers deal with the volumes of information they confront each day.  Biases are always present, but there is a way to help sort through information you come across.

 

 

The problem

Every writer and reader has biases. These biases can influence the way dog trainers deal with the volumes of information they confront each day.  Biases are always present, but there is a way to help sort through information you come across.

These four questions can help you help you chose the best information for you and your clients.

1. What is the issue?
2. What is the conclusion?
3. What is the evidence?
4. What else can we conclude?

1. What is the issue?

The issue is the question raised by the article -- explicitly, or implied.
An advertisement selling a seminar about a technique for aggression asks: "Can this new technique reduce aggression better than other techniques?"
A good question is one which can be measured or tested. If an idea is vague or can't be measured, it may be of limited use.   

2. What is the conclusion?

The conclusion answers the question raised by the issue. In our example, the conclusion is that the technique reduces aggression.

3. What is the evidence?

Evidence is what the author provides to support the conclusion.
Quality of evidence can vary -- from nothing to anecdotes to the best evidence, a placebo-controlled double-blind experiment, published in a peer-reviewed journal1.

Peer-Reviewed Research

Claims published in peer-reviewed journals using placebo-controlled double-blind research provide the most reliable evidence. Researchers are aware they have biases; the peer-review process is designed to minimize the impact of bias on important claims. Such research uses the scientific method2 to test claims so they can be verified by others.

Research subjected to peer-review may be rejected or sent back to the author for revision if it fails to adhere to accepted research methods or contains unsupported or unverifiable claims.

Anecdotes

Anecdotes are illustrative stories used to make a point. Often given in the form of a story about one or several dogs, anecdotes can be enticing, but alone don't provide good evidence. Anecdotes usually represent a small sample -- and may reflect personal biases. Research shows "misuse of anecdotes can cause misleading overgeneralizations3".

Look for more than "my doggie..." stories. My Aussie, Preston, likes string cheese. Therefore all Aussies like string cheese. This may be true, but is NOT compelling evidence.

Anecdotal evidence can be useful for suggesting further research.

Interpretations and observations

Some information offered as evidence is an interpretation. The dog is mad. The dog is dominant. These are interpretations, or constructs. We have difficulty knowing what a person is thinking or feeling even if we talk with them. Dogs are more challenging.

Look for evidence based on behavior that can be observed, measured and repeated. For example, an author might offer evidence aggression has been reduced by reporting a 10 percent reduction in lunging at dogs on leash 20 feet away. Observations should be stated so others can verify them if needed.

Observations form the basis of solid evidence.

Surveys and samples

Surveys can be good evidence, providing they are well written and the sample is representative.

Questions should be simply worded and include a complete choice of answers. Watch for questions where people might feel pressured to answer one way or another. For example, people may not want to admit their dog behaves aggressively. Look out for questions that ask for interpretations of what a dog is thinking or feeling.

Look for representative samples. A sample should parallel the group being examined and be large and randomly selected.

Common sample problems in animal behavior research

• People who select themselves may not represent everyone. I.E, people who answer Internet polls must visit the website holding the poll.
• Dogs at an urban shelter may behave differently than those at a rural shelter.
• Dogs from wealthy areas may behave differently than those from poor areas.
• Owners seeing a trainer or behaviorist may not represent those who don't.
• Purebred dogs at obedience trials may not represent mixed breeds at the beach.

Remember, surveys are answered by owners -- not dogs.

4. What else can we conclude?

Examine the issue, conclusion and evidence and ask if there are other possible conclusions. Is something else more likely or obvious?

Trust your expertise. Try to explain results using learning theory or applied behavior analysis  principles. Does the conclusion make sense based on what you already know?

If you can't explain what you see through learning theory, look for something that could cause the effect. Be skeptical if results seem magical or require a special gift or belief. Everything should have a cause that can explain an effect. Claims based on invisible internal states or extremely diluted or intangible treatments should be carefully considered.

Fallacies

Fallacies are flaws in reasoning4.  Here are a few common ones.

Causal fallacies

Causal fallacies are logic problems where something seems to cause something else, but doesn't.

"The sun comes up every time the rooster crows. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to come up." Just because something happens along with something doesn't mean one caused the other. The causes could be reversed -- maybe the sun coming up causes the rooster to crow.

Two things could both change because of something else or by coincidence.

Appeal to authority or celebrity

An expert or celebrity is often used to support a claim. A veterinarian can be considered an authority and their words may appear credible even when unfounded. An endorsement by a popular talk show host may seem convincing. Look for evidence. Even experts and celebrities should provide evidence.

Appeal to verbosity

A common trick is to wrap claims in wordy, scientific-sounding language. This often goes along with appeal to authority. Scientific sounding-language does NOT mean a technique has value. Think the "Emperor's New Clothes5."

Ad Populum

This is also known as an "appeal to the people" or "appeal to common knowledge" and takes the form of "Everybody knows that ..."

For example, many people believe dogs evolved from wolves and observe a pack-oriented dominance hierarchy. This belief may lead some people to believe it's OK to alpha roll a dog.

Appeal to fear

Many presentations play on fears of getting hurt or embarrassed. Anything claiming to reduce aggression can be an appeal to fear. Owners of reactive dogs may feel willing to try anything to help their dog.

Hasty generalization

Making a broad generalization on a small sample or anecdotal evidence. Sometimes referred to as an "N of 1" problem. "That chow-chow has fleas, therefore all chow-chows have fleas."

The false dilemma

The false dilemma, or black or white thinking, is when the author gives only two choices when others exist.

"Dogs are running loose on the streets. We must either increase animal control spending or let them continue to be a menace."

There are clearly other choices -- including owner education.

Do your own mini-study

When evaluating techniques and trainers, compare what is said to what is done. Dissect the technique.

Take note of antecedents, behaviors and consequences. Connect what you see back to operant or classical conditioning principles.

Try making an ethogram6 of trainer behavior. List and count behaviors, such as praise, food rewards, leash jerks and pops, clicks, prompts, etc.

It may help to draw a picture of what is going on. If you can't explain to yourself what's going on you may need further research before accepting the new information.

Conclusion

When you come across new information, ask these four questions:

1. What is the issue?
2. What is the conclusion?
3. What is the evidence?
4. What other conclusions are possible?

While you consider:

• Be wary of anecdotes
• Look for peer-reviewed research
• Follow footnotes to original research for clarification
• Seek observations, avoid interpretations
• Accept only tangible explanations for cause and effect
• Remember the common fallacies

A little time spent thinking critically about new information will benefit you, your clients and dogs everywhere.

1 For examples of peer-reviewed journals see:  Hanover College web site. Electronic Journals and Periodicals in Psychology and Related Fields. Retrieved April 2006 from: http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/journal.html . The magazines Science and Nature are peer-reviewed as well.

2 For information on the scientific method see Dummies.com web site. Designing experiments using the Scientific Method. Retrieved June 2007 from:  http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1203.html, and California State Board of Education Content Standards web site :

Investigation & Experimentation - Grades 9 to 12 Retrieved June 2007 from : http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/scinvestigation.asp

3 Wiley Interscience Journal web site,Abstract: Misuse of anecdotes in primatology: lessons from citation analysis.

4 Neil Browne , Stuart Keeley , (2006), Asking the Right  Questions 8 Rev Ed edition, Prentice-Hall

5 H. C. Anderson (18-5-1875), The Emporors New Clothes, public domain

6 Wikipedia web site. Ethogram. Retrieved April 2007 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethogram

< Prev		Next >