Campbell test

[Cob-Web]

We have to be very careful on a forum such as this that people looking for puppies are not misled by such content especially if it means they might make the worng judgement calls when consdering which puppy might be right or even not right for them.......
There is too much danger of one of the unwanted behaviours being displayed and a new inexperienced owner then being worried they have an aggressive dog when they only have a normal healthy puppy who is very confused by what is being done to them - in the name of "play"

I tend to agree, Pammy - I have noticed on several forums that I am a member of, that people who are unprepared for "normal" puppy behaviour have been concerned that their pup, of only a few weeks, is "aggressive"  In many cases, this was significantly affecting the relationship the family were developing with the pup

Encouraging amateurs to apply a 1970's psychology test, which was developed at a time when check chains and "rubbing a dogs nose it it" were proven dog training methods, is fraut with danger, imo. 

Dog Psychology is now an extensive and well funded field - I wonder why Guisado et al felt the need to apply such an outdated method as the Cambell test as recently as 2005?


On a personal note, I am fairly sure that Molo's reaction in a test like this would have varied depending on factors such as tiredness, hunger, heat, and other distractions - I am sure most puppies would be the same  Never mind the fact that "dominance aggression" is, imo, an outdated term in itself  There is also the "nature vs nurture" element of the debate - can a dog that did not show signs of dominant aggression via the Cambell Test at 7 weeks not develop it due to poor training/handling/treatment in later life?

Have you got a copy of "the Culture Clash", Phil? If this sort of thing interests you - I think you will find it a facinating read 

[Colin]

I read about a similar test before getting Misty (the Volhard Puppy Aptitude Test) - however there was no way I was going to ask to turn the breeder's home into some kind of scientific laboratory to try out some half-baked theories whose results I wouldn't have had sufficient knowledge or expertise to process - I'd have been quite rightly kicked out on my backside, puppyless.  Instead I watched the puppies interact with each other, held them and listened to the breeder describe her own observations of her pups - a far easier and probably far more accurate way of assessing things. 

[Annette]

I read about a similar test before getting Misty (the Volhard Puppy Aptitude Test) - however there was no way I was going to ask to turn the breeder's home into some kind of scientific laboratory to try out some half-baked theories whose results I wouldn't have had sufficient knowledge or expertise to process - I'd have been quite rightly kicked out on my backside, puppyless.  Instead I watched the puppies interact with each other, held them and listened to the breeder describe her own observations of her pups - a far easier and probably far more accurate way of assessing things. 

I agree.

My previous post was not taking either one side or the other. I was just making an observation. Bit alarmed that it seems to have been taken the wrong way slightly!

[Petra]

Surely any good breeder who knows her dogs and spends time with the pups can give some kind of indication as to the pup's temperament??
Dill's breeder told us he was one of the most laid back of the litter.   Now at 9 months that is still totally true.   He is easy going, laid back and placid  (except when we have visitors, then he turns into an attentions seeking loon!)
Likewise, the pup that was most dominant in Dill's litter has turned out to be a handfull!!

The breeder's observation was enough for us - if she had started experiments and recording them on a chart I may have been a bit worried.....

[silkstocking]

I agree Petra any breeder worth their salt will know the answer without having to do the test!

[jools]

Give the guy a break - he's just posting something that may be of interest to some people. Looking back, Millie displayed signs of aggression at a very, very young age.

[sooty strikes back]

Confused as to why some people are so defensive in regards to the issue of cannine aggression in cocker spaniels? After reading a fair amount of research the least aggressive cocker spaniels were:
Neutered Females, of particolour, who were either show / working dogs as well as companion animals, who were exercised for at least 80mins per day and who were groomed at least 10 mins a day. They also were owned by people over the age of 55.

The most aggressive cockers were solid reds, companion only, intact male, little exercise or grooming, and with young owners.

Of course this doesnt take into account individual differences, of dogs or owners. How do you find a breeder worth their "salt", KC? Breeders club? What checks do these organisations make? Or personal recommendation?

Whilst since the 1970's man has invented the internet, mobile phones, and missiles that can follow road maps and turn corners, man still hasn't invented a perfect toaster, and dogs have not developed at all.

Yes if I was buying a pup then I wouldn't wear my white coat, but if it bit me when I picked it up (if allowed by the breeder) then I would pass on it, also I would request an optigen test before a campbell test. I await your knee jerk abusive and defensive comments

[jools]

No defensive or abusive response here, Phil - have researched this too and had similar findings to you.

[sooty strikes back]

Encouraging amateurs to apply a 1970's psychology test, which was developed at a time when check chains and "rubbing a dogs nose it it" were proven dog training methods, is fraut with danger, imo. 

Dog Psychology is now an extensive and well funded field - I wonder why Guisado et al felt the need to apply such an outdated method as the Cambell test as recently as 2005?

The Campbell test is still a valid test, valid in that every scientific test has to undergo reliability analysis, say we take 100 puppies, test them at 7 weeks and find that 95 display aggression in situation x (when all other influences have been limited or removed). 3 or 5 years later an independent scientist evalutes each dog, the results are then compared to the original findings, if 90 puppies are still aggressive in situation x then the test is valid, if only 89 are the test is invalid, and must be redone, and changed. This is the 5% error rule, clinical medicine has a 1% error rule.

[sooty strikes back]

Maybe we should only buy puppies from top breeders, perhaps even Crufts judges? There again the following article is from the Daily Telegraph:
Crufts breeders admit cruelty to champion dogs
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 02/11/2004)

A Mother and son team of top dog breeders and regular Crufts exhibitors yesterday admitted causing appalling suffering to their own championship-winning spaniels.

Brenda Parmenter, 66, a championship show judge with the Kennel Club, and her son Roy, 42, had established an international reputation during more than quarter of a century of breeding cocker spaniels.

   
But an anonymous tip-off led to an RSPCA raid on their home, where inspectors found one dog half-blind, three with open wounds and all seven of their animals being kept in "filthy" conditions in steel cages in the hallway.

Yesterday, the Parmenters pleaded guilty to four specimen counts of causing unnecessary suffering. They were banned from keeping dogs for two years and fined £100 each plus £50 costs.

Magistrates in Bexley, Kent, were told that RSPCA officers were "horrified" at what they found when they raided the Parmenters' home in Parsonage, Manorway, Belvedere, Kent. Three dogs were so thin that their spines and other bones could be seen protruding from their skin.

Andrew Willes, prosecuting, said that all the dogs were suffering from "easily treatable" conditions but had not been taken to a vet.

Mr Willes said that they had all improved within seven days of being taken away and treated by an RSPCA vet. "They went from being muddy, smelly, scratching creatures to moderately healthy dogs," he said.

Mrs Parmenter told an RSPCA inspector that she was going to take the dogs to a vet but had not done so because she had been unwell with ulcers on her legs and had become wheelchair-bound temporarily. Her son admitted he noticed the dogs were "bad" but he said he had "put it down to their old age".

John McGie, defending, said that the Parmenters kept seven dogs as pets and show dogs. "If they are not in pristine condition there is no point in taking them to shows so there certainly would be no point deliberately leaving them in this condition," he said.

Sentencing them, John Berry, chairman of the bench, took account of Mrs Parmenter's health and age and the fact that three of their dogs had not been badly treated. Otherwise, he said, he would have punished them more severely.

Beth Clements, an RSPCA inspector, said afterwards: "This was a lenient sentence. We're pleased there has been a ban but the magistrate had the power to impose a life ban and it is sad he has decided not to impose that."

A spokesman for the Kennel Club said that, if the RSPCA lodged a complaint, an investigation would be held which could result in the Parmenters being stripped of their status as judges and the club refusing to register their dogs.

[Petra]

Phil - from what I can see, no one is being knee-jerk or defensive.   We all know that aggression can exist in dogs of any breed.   I think people merely responded to the scientific test, stating that no breeder will allow prosepective owners to carry out these tests, and that perhaps the test is not necessarily a valid / bomb-proof indication of a pup's temperament.

I still think the best way to get to know the most likely personality of a pup is by observing it over a period of time.   This can therefore only be done by the breeder.   Therefore it is important to find a breeder you like, trust, does healthchecks and who obviously loves his/her dogs. No, this does not necessarily have to be a Crufts judge 
By frequently chatting with the breeder as the pups are developing, you will gain insight into the pups's personalities and this will help when choosing the correct pup for you!!
 
Also, how old is your research regarding aggressive male red Cockers?  Whilst that was the common belief when I was growing up, now a days I am sure that aggression in reds is no higher than say in blacks or choccies, and that females can also suffer from agression....

[Annette]

Phil, I don't know where you are going with this thread.

As far as I can see you posted about an old test. Some of the COL members have indicated that they think the test has little or no real use, and some have said that they feel it is out of dat and questionable.

You have accused some of those people of being defensive against the test, but it seems to me that you are also slightly defensive in favour of the test.

I think we have a good history on this forum of allowing each other to have opinions which we wouldn't necessarily agree with. So I'm not very happy with the way some of your arguments are going.

I find this kind of testing to be marginally interesting, but not the be all and end all. I agree with the opinion that any good breeder would know the temperaments of all their puppies pretty well, this is why many of them would only choose exactly which pup should go to which home after the personalities have become apparent. I know that this is what our breeder did. In their case, they just did the aptitude test in a non scietntific way as a sort of fun exercise for themselves. It did no harm and made no difference to their decisions about which home each pup should go to.

Having said all that, I do not think the pups personality is set in stone at this young age. Many things can and do contribute to aggression (or lack of it) as the dog grows and develops. So I am certain that such tests can only be use as a "guide", but certainly they should have no more importance attatched to them than that.

I would love to see this thread become less heated, or even closed if that cannot happen. I value the relationships which are formed on this forum, and I would guess that you do to in light of the fantastic advice and encouragement you have already received since joining. It would be a pity to lose that goodwill wouldn't it?

In applying anything you have said in this thread to your experiences with Sooty, I am not at all certain that he would have shown signs of aggression if the test had been carried out on him when he was in full health, in a stable environment (i.e. not having been rehomed a couple of times in a short period) and with good eyesight. It would seem to be very likely that many dogs would react in the same way as him given his particular set of circumstances.

If, in your dealings with him, you are searching for a way to maintain that his aggression is terminal, perhaps you shpuld consider giving him to a reputable and very experienced shelter such as Dogs Trust where he will be allowed to live out his remaining days happily if he is unable to be rehomed. Do, please, give that some thought before you make the decision to pts.

[*Jay*]

How is that news article relevant to testing a puppies temperament?

If, in your dealings with him, you are searching for a way to maintain that his aggression is terminal, perhaps you shpuld consider giving him to a reputable and very experienced shelter such as Dogs Trust where he will be allowed to live out his remaining days happily if he is unable to be rehomed. Do, please, give that some thought before you make the decision to pts.

I have a feeling that the decision has more or less been made as Phil himself has already stated that he is still on "Death Row". I think about that poor dog every day and I think the kindest thing to do would be to either give him up or put him to sleep now and stop faffing. He is going to be kept waiting (all the while settling into his new home) until it can be determined that a litter mate had rage (how long will that take? weeks? months?) and then you will have him put to sleep. To me that is cruel beyond belief and I'd like to know what goes through your head every time you look at him. You were the one that wanted a free dog and didn't care if it had behavioural problems - so you got one, and the minute he bit you, he was sent packing back to the rescue centre. If you take on a dog with behaviour problems, chances are you will be bitten on more than one occasion. Did you not realise that? Have you had him assessed by a behaviourist? Of course not, because that will involve spending money on him won't it?

Now that little rant also had no relevance to testing puppies temperaments but I sure as hell feel better for getting it out my system

[sooty strikes back]

Phil - from what I can see, no one is being knee-jerk or defensive.   We all know that aggression can exist in dogs of any breed.   I think people merely responded to the scientific test, stating that no breeder will allow prosepective owners to carry out these tests, and that perhaps the test is not necessarily a valid / bomb-proof indication of a pup's temperament.

I still think the best way to get to know the most likely personality of a pup is by observing it over a period of time.   This can therefore only be done by the breeder.   Therefore it is important to find a breeder you like, trust, does healthchecks and who obviously loves his/her dogs. No, this does not necessarily have to be a Crufts judge 
By frequently chatting with the breeder as the pups are developing, you will gain insight into the pups's personalities and this will help when choosing the correct pup for you!!
 
Also, how old is your research regarding aggressive male red Cockers?  Whilst that was the common belief when I was growing up, now a days I am sure that aggression in reds is no higher than say in blacks or choccies, and that females can also suffer from agression....

I agree with what you say, cocker specific research had a massive uptake during the 1980's from the bad publicity the breed recieved in the popular press. Dr Roger Mugford cited in Bruce Fogles "Pets and their People" noted that cocker spaniels were the second most frequent breed of dog brought in for "behavioural" problems. Dr Fogle hypothessised at the time that lots of these dogs were understimulated and living in luxurious prisons.

Of course this bad publicity affected the breed, and breeders,which is shown by the following figures; 4.5% of dog registrations with the Kennel Club in 1981 were cocker spaniels, this fell to to around 3.6 % in 1987, however by 1993 the breed had recovered to over 5%.

Of these dogs, in 1981 solid colours were slightly ahead of particolours, however in 1988 nearly 60% of registered cockers were particolours, nearly 40% solids, in 1992 it was around 55% particolours to 45% solids.

More specifically in 1993 of cocker registrations, 55% were particolours, 25% Red/Golden and 20% Black.

The specific research on most aggressive / least aggressive, I have quoted was from 1996 and 2005

[sooty strikes back]

I find this kind of testing to be marginally interesting, but not the be all and end all. I agree with the opinion that any good breeder would know the temperaments of all their puppies pretty well, this is why many of them would only choose exactly which pup should go to which home after the personalities have become apparent. I know that this is what our breeder did. In their case, they just did the aptitude test in a non scietntific way as a sort of fun exercise for themselves. It did no harm and made no difference to their decisions about which home each pup should go to.

If, in your dealings with him, you are searching for a way to maintain that his aggression is terminal, perhaps you shpuld consider giving him to a reputable and very experienced shelter such as Dogs Trust where he will be allowed to live out his remaining days happily if he is unable to be rehomed. Do, please, give that some thought before you make the decision to pts.

This was why I put it on in the first place,"I find this kind of testing to be marginally interesting, but not the be all and end all" and if people had read it first and not jumped to conclusions then it would have died off quietly! As a scientist, and psychology is a science, then I am interested in fact, and information, I've recieved a lot of good advice and information on COL in regards to sooty and have implemented it. Only this morning we recieved our samples from Burns! A scientist questions everything, until it is proved beyond doubt, and then questions it again.

The Telegraph post was in response to a post, stating that "any breeder worth their salt", I was mearly seeking to demonstrate that unless you are personally familiar with the breeder then it would be quite difficult to assume just who and who not was worth their "salt".

As regards to sooty, then I am seeking to understand him, from his perspective, I did briefly give up on him, that is true. However he is back with me, why? Because his not all bad, and I believe his aggression is due to bad previous handling made worse by blindness. Sooty may well be naturally aggressive, and there has been a failure to control this natural aggression by his previous keepers. I am now having to train him not to be aggressive.

I could have had Sooty PTS by now (my vet still thinks I should) however at this time it is not something I am considering. If I knew now what I knew then, then I would have a spayed particolour bitch. However I am determined to pull him round and make him into a happy, obedient dog. I have no plans to hand over sooty to any rescue centre. Linda Ward of the CockerspanielRage helpline has since assured me that my sooty is not the sooty she has a record off. Whilst sooty may have been free, he has proven to be as expensive as had I just bought a puppy. I could see an animal behavioursit except that everyday I go to a building that has at least 6 doctors well experienced in animal behaviour and an extensive library of texts and scientific journals, without causing offence, it would be a bit like having a dog and barking myself!