Eileen Stein Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 FWIW: Dogs bred for looks lose mental bite Although I guess it's a little like the study that showed rich people were happier than poor, healthy people happier than sick, young people happier than old . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetlander Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Although I guess it's a little like the study that showed rich people were happier than poor, healthy people happier than sick, young people happier than old . . . Though actually studies show that wealth does not appear to correlate with happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdarling Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 A Similar Article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://www.thelocal.se/blog/20090121/383/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hmm. I've heard of the Telegraph and the Times, but what's the Local? Did the Times and the Telegraph both misquote him? Did the Local? Had he read the Telegraph article or did the Local describe it to him? Guess there's no way to know the truth about the study without tracking it down, and then it's probably in Swedish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyT Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 So is Melanie getting in touch with the guy to find out what he really said? I vaguely recall a study done in Sweden about breed standards, advertising, and buyer choices. I may recollect this wrongly. I'll have to go look. When I read it initially, the study sounded like a marketing tool funded by AKC about how standards and appearance affect buyer choices. Penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyer Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Weren't there studies about ten yrs. ago that pointed this up as well? As all on this board well know breeding for show has led to the downfall of many a good dog whether it be physical issues or mental issues. The horse world is seeing this too. It's a sad thing how we humans think we have a right to fool with another species simply for our pleasure. Fact is though, today there seem to be so many people stepping up to the plate and fighting the good fight for the dogs and horses, again like folks on this board, that I hope we see a return to a good sound working dog and hunting dog, etc. Facts are the world has changed and there is just not as great a need for these attributes anymore, though if people can see that it is the inherent nature of the dog, a good mind, if you will, that is most important to having a good solid companion, perhaps the pendulum will swing a little faster. Public awareness is paramount. It is often the outrage and shock of the non/animal people that catch a glimpse of the show world and all it's bizarreness that creates change. JMHO, Flyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLloydJones Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Guess there's no way to know the truth about the study without tracking it down, and then it's probably in Swedish. If you follow the link to his site, you'll find a series of articles -- in English. Having skimmed through them, I can see why he isn't amused. Not least, because the most recent was 2005, if I remember right. Edited: OK, I'll spoon feed you folks who are scared of a little Swedish. Find some articles here . Down on that page you'll find a short version of his thesis Engelsk sammanfattning från avhandlingen (in english). There are a number of papers referenced below that build on the same work (with English titles). Only the last one seems to have anything remotely close to the newspaper artcles -- and even then, it's a far stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well, that is strange. If that dissertation really is the "new research" the newspapers are referring to--and I assume it is--I agree that it ain't new and the aspect the newspapers are reporting is at best a fragment. I do find at pp. 20-23 of the dissertation statements that sorta kinda say what the newspapers say. Here Svartberg was studying whether behavioral differences between breeds reflect what the breeds were originally selected for (e.g., herding, ratting, pointing and retrieving), as some have hypothesized, or not. He notes that "new selection criteria, such as selection for physical appearance, have replaced breeding for function. Previous studies have shown that basic emotional traits, such as fearfulness, can be altered rapidly in canids, given that the selection is intense. Thus, recent changes in selection may have led to changes in personality in the domestic dog, and differences in dog breeds may be due to differences in recent selection." In investigating whether the differences in traits resulted from the purposes the breeds were originally selected for or from more recent selection criteria, he found no differences in trait scores among breeds originally bred for four different purposes: herding dogs, working dogs, terriers, and gun dogs. "Instead, there are indications that more recent selection has influenced breed-typical personality. The most pronounced of these new uses is use in dog shows, which seems to be the dominant selection criteria in all breeds with a few exceptions. Selection for this new use seems to be related to a low interest in playing, low curiosity, and low aggressiveness, and related to an increase in social and non-social fearfulness." He didn't attempt to measure intelligence per se--although presumably curiosity, interest in playing, and boldness (lack of fearfulness) bear on intelligence--and so in that sense the Times and Telegraph seem to be projecting beyond the conclusions of the study itself. OTOH, it IS interesting that the personality differences you'd expect in breeds originally developed for such different pursuits were absent in these dogs whose recent breeding has been primarily for show. But what about the quotes the newspapers give? They sound like the sorts of things researchers say when presenting their findings and being asked questions by the media. Are they quotes from back in 2003? Are they quotes from a telephone interview now? Did the papers just make them up? How did the papers even know about this research, if it was done more than five years ago, and only presented in a dissertation? Very odd. But I have to say that after reading the dissertation, I don't consider it all that significant, and if I were the editor I'd have spiked that story. Thanks for the spoonfeeding, JohnLloydJones. I'd have never found it without you, that's for sure. ETA: I never found the later articles in English you mention, which I guess means Swedish isn't my only problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLloydJones Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 ETA: I never found the later articles in English you mention, which I guess means Swedish isn't my only problem. Here you go then... (Hint -- you can reach the links by clicking on the dog-head icon to the left of the title) Svartberg, K. & Forkman, B. 2002. Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79, 133–155. Svartberg, K. 2002. Shyness–boldness predicts performance in working dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79, 157–174. Svartberg, K., Tapper, I., Temrin, H., Radesäter, T. & Thorman, S. 2005. Consistency of personality traits in dogs. Animal Behaviour, 69, 283-291. Svartberg, K. 2005. A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91, 103-128. Svartberg, K. 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 96, 293-313. Did the papers just make them up? How did the papers even know about this research, if it was done more than five years ago, and only presented in a dissertation? Very odd. I guess it's one more case of the fine journalistic tradition of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story. [Disclaimer, my wife was a freelance journalist.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks again. Looks like the last article was a more likely source of the newspaper articles. Looks like it's just a more expansive and focused write-up of the section of his dissertation that I referred to above. Looks like Svartberg's main conclusions are: (1) breeding dogs for certain uses causes changes in behavioral traits; (2) these changes can take place over a relatively few generations; (3) differences between breeds in playfulness, social and non-social aggression, curiosity and aggressiveness are not explained by past selection in the breeds' origin, but instead are caused by more recent selection; and (4) selection toward use in dog shows correlates positively with social and non-social fearfulness, and negatively with playfulness, curiosity and aggressiveness. The newspapers sure spiced that up a lot and garbled it some, but I guess I can follow the thread. ETA: Mary, Nancy, Anna, et al.: Note extensive use of semicolons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.