Assessing a Social Interaction
Social interactions seems to generate significant anxiety among dog owners, and even some trainers. Reducing anxiety is not an easy task, whether in humans or dogs! I believe (though I have no research yet to support this claim) that the anxiety of the human can be misread by the dog. Humans under stress exhibit a few physiological "tells" that dogs may be able to identify: increased heart rate, increased breathing rate, increased perspiration, as well as unique patterns of movement -- stiffer, more awkward, more hesitations.
Unfortunately, very rarely will you get to observe your dog in a social situation without YOU!
When a leashed social interaction takes place, there are at least 4 variables, not the commonly recognized 2. There are at least 2 humans, and at least 2 dogs. ALL of these components are present.
In the fairly recently posted video of a dog interaction, the camera work demonstrates the prevalence of the focus on the DOGS and the LEASHES as the only relevant elements of the interaction! I recommend reviewing this video frame by frame, identifying the actions of ALL 4 players as a sequence.
Identifying the sequence for all 4 is extremely difficult. Some reactions seem "unprovoked", because we cannot see the human, and we certainly cannot see what is going through the human's brain!
What I observe when looking at the video frame-by-frame, looking for a sequence of events, is that the snark is initiated BEFORE the leash tension which yanks the Malamute away from the brown dog. Yup, my first guess (and a lot of ours) was wrong.
I notice that the leash on the brown dog moves significantly more than the leash on the Malamute, suggesting to me the brown dog handler's discomfort with the situation. The glances given by the brown dog to her handler also underline to me that her handler is uncomfortable. The fact that the brown dog's handler does not approach or pet the Malamute further indicates reluctance about the situation.
The Malamute, in my opinion, hangs in there really well, given the level of stress he demonstrates in the first frames of the video. Notice that he doesn't seem affected by his handler's state of mind at all. It's hard to tell from the camera angle, but he may be catching the other handler in his perepheral vision. He may not be. I suspect the Malamute's personality is a bit more independent of humans, whereas the brown dog seems quite sensitive to her human's distress.
The brown dog does a fantastic job in a difficult situation. She is between a rock and a hard place -- if she moves (or if her handler moves her), she may provoke a bad reaction from the Malamute. However, she also seems concerned about the handler's condition. She seems to be mediating: Are you ok, Human?... I'm nice, Malamute.
I get the least read on the Malamute handler. The shadow movement on the ground suggests the Mal handler may move from behind the Malamute to slightly beside. I notice, too, that this handler does not approach or pet the brown dog. What kind of message do you think this sends to the Malamute?
The behavior of the leashes are only a reflection of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of the humans attached to them. These humans seem very awkward and reluctant to approach strange dogs, behavior to which I can't image their dogs are oblivious.
To accurately assess any event, observe and note ALL possible factors before dismissing any. Did these two dogs previously have a bad encounter, scaring their people? Was the Malamute attacked by a small brown dog moments beforehand, who he mistakes this dog for?
Trace every move each dog makes (word s/he says). Assume ALL movements result from some trigger, environmental, emotional, physical, etc. -- assume dogs don't add any random or unnecessary "words". This may or may not be true, but assume it is while examining an interaction.
The more you learn to observe, the more you know what to look for, the better you will become at seeing what is actually there, as well as what ISN'T there.
This point was brought home to me recently when I attended a juried art show. An artist was displaying some incredible works of what he called "photorealism". They were oil paintings with such incredible detail, you'd mistake them for photos. Amazing work. I asked him what his favorites were, and he brought me to a painting that looked, to me, not significantly different from the others.
So, I asked why it was a favorite. (I'm too unpretentious to be a sophisticated art lover!) He pointed out that the edges of the painting were out of focus, just as a photo would be, while the subject of the painting was crisp and clearly focused.
I could have looked at those paintings every day and NEVER seen the difference between what that painting HAD, and what the others DIDN'T. I didn't notice what anything "missing" from the other paintings until he pointed out what his favorite painting offered.
Observe carefully. Get comfy with being wrong. Now you can learn.
