Breed-specific behaviour of German Shepherd Dogs

BIO This article has been kindly provided by it's author, Pat Tagg, of DogTaggs based on her sheep farm in Dorset. Pat has been working with GSDs in farming since the late 1970s. Having gained her MSc from Southampton she offers her services as a Behaviour and Training Consultant and has a wealth of knowledge coupled with lived experience working her team of GSDs. In 2021 her stunning dog Anna became HGH Anna von Tharandter Wald and achieved the accolade of being the first British trained and handled HGH.

"We train people who would like to learn how to work with the natural skills that their dogs have. We offer activities involving tracking, searching, and traditional herding (with or without sheep). Whether you are new to these activities or more advanced and seeking progression, whether your interest is recreational or professional, we can accommodate your training and development. Come and join us if you would like to learn how to work with your dogs exceptional natural olfactory and environmental skills . Discover tracking as a means to fulfilment of mental and physical exercise for your dog. Discover herding games workshops (no sheep involved) to deepen and develop the relationship you have with your dog."

Introduction

In canine temperament and personality research the German Shepherd dog is the most studied dog breed (Jones & Gosling, 2005). Studies have proposed the existence of the shyness-boldness trait (Starling, et al, 2013, Svartberg, 2002, Turcsán, et al, 2011). Several personality traits are suggested to be influenced by the shyness-boldness continuum, including trainability. Studies suggest breed differences in boldness and trainability (Starling, et al, 2013, Turcsán,et al, 2011) and that the herding breeds (and GSD in particular, Fuchs, et al, 2005, Svartberg, 2002) are more trainable than other breeds, the most bold animals being the most trainable (Starling, et al, 2013, Svartberg, 2002, Turcsán, et al, 2011). Further it is suggested that enhanced performance in human directed tasks (Udell, et al, 2014) and behavioural tendencies are influenced by the original work purpose for which the breed type was selected (Spady, et al, 2008, Starling, et al, 2013) with a cautionary note that environmental factors ‘can mask, or even enhance potentially existing genetically potentiated breed differences’, Mirkó, et al, 2012.

The original work of the GSD requires them to be independent and diligent in application to the task. These two characteristics are consistent with breed specific action and activity on borders and could easily be described or perceived as ‘boldness’. A central requirement for tending sheep is that the dog is talented in interspecific communication with humans, a characteristic that renders dogs trainable.

The (general) difference between three styles of moving livestock with dogs

There are three main sheep ‘economies’ in which dogs are employed in livestock systems. The differences between them can broadly be described in terms of the spatial arrangement between dog, livestock and handler.

Where gathering dogs (collie types) are utilised the livestock are moved between the dog and the handler

Where droving dogs (heeler types) are utilised the livestock are driven ahead of the dog and handler

Where tending dogs (shepherd types) are utilised the livestock follow the handler and dog.

Photo Courtesy of Enrico Adler

Die Arbeit – The work

The term ‘working dog’ has become popularly synonymous with various dog sports and a variety of service roles alike. In this presentation what is meant by the work of the German shepherd dog is briefly described below.

The purpose of sheep tending is to utilise available grazing and grazing animals in an environmentally efficient way. It is known that environmentally sensitive areas benefit from grazing management: rare and threatened flora can be restored, protected and flourish where grazing can be finely tuned.

Areas to be grazed may be surrounded by sensitive cropping or an unsafe landscape. The area might be very large requiring animals to be contained in order to prevent wastage, or very small requiring the animals to be moved in and out very quickly. Often grazing might be available in remote or wooded areas. Fencing in any of these situations would be unviable.

Shepherd type dogs enable livestock to be taken into all these areas and contained there for a required time, moved or held in specified sections, increase or decrease livestock stocking or grazing density.

This is possible because the shepherd (or tending) dogs have an innate attraction to borders, edges, paths, differentials in vegetation height or type. These physical features in the environment can be found at the edge of areas to be grazed. The dogs automatically choose or are shown a border that the shepherd wishes to use to define the edge of grazing. The dogs patrol on these lines and effectively contain the sheep. With experience (training) comes the ability to use the edge of the flock itself as a border when no other is available or when the flock is mobile.

Colloquially, tending dogs are referred to as ‘living fences’ and this is why. They are literally used as fences. From a practical perspective, the most valuable behavioural characteristic a dog can have is the ability to work on a border, independent (often distant) from the shepherd.

The task is very simple. Sheep may not cross the border. Dogs move instinctively to the points on the border where grazing animals are applying pressure (grazing up to the edge of the border and where a breach is most likely to occur). The dogs do not move out of their upright ‘travelling’ gait, which in turn does not change their body orientation. Thus, sheep recognise no threat and continue to graze undisturbed.

If there is a breach, an animal straying onto or across the border the dog accelerates, the change in gait alters body posture and orientation. The intention and focus changes from moving along a clear border to clearing the border. These behaviours are recognisable by prey species as an advancement through a sequence which we know as the canine foraging (predatory) sequence. In this case the shift is in the direction of the biting behaviours. The smallest change is recognised by prey species as a threat.

Sheep respond immediately, usually by seeking the safety of the flock returning to the grazing area. When an animal returns to the flock, it is not pursued, the task from the (trained) dogs perspective is to maintain a clear border.

When the border is clear the dogs switch back to patrolling. This reversal of direction in respect of the canine predatory sequence, restores body posture orientation to ‘upright’ and is perceived once again as neutral by the sheep. Grazing continues.

Animals not returning to the flock, might trigger chase behaviour which may be followed with a breed specific manifestation of the grab bite. The sequence ends either with intervention from the shepherd (“pfui”) or when the sheep attempts to turn back to the flock, experienced dogs break off the pursuit and return to the border. Inexperienced or untrained dogs have the potential to pursue, injure or kill sheep in the same way as any other dog.

The defining points of The Work are;

• Characteristic action and activity with particular cognisance of borders/potential breaches of borders.

• Cooperation with a shepherd, forming an obvious close working relationship to complete an ever fluid and challenging task.

• Developed interspecific communication skills between dog, shepherd and sheep.

1. Characteristic action and activity with particular cognisance of borders/potential breaches of borders.

Shepherd dogs inherit action patterns of behaviour. They recognise and follow the ‘line’ of borders. Borders can be variable in form, such as the difference in height of two areas of vegetation, animal tracks, variations in terrain such as height, colour or substrate, or the ‘line’ formed by the edge of a flock ( horizontal and vertical edges are recognised). The strength of inheritance of ‘border recognition’ is important to farmers. There is evidence of ‘border recognition’ in the pet dog population.

A line in the grass or the edge of the road:  both are recognised and followed as borders.

Border recognition is accompanied by a propensity to maintain the upright travelling posture of canine exploratory behaviour. This is seen when dogs move along borders or stand at ‘placement points’. This orientation of posture in shepherd dogs is responded to by sheep as less threatening than the crouched posture that immediately precedes chasing (predatory behaviour) and which is more typical of the sheep dogs. Even when close to the edge of the flock, shepherd dog attention is given to the border, the farmer and flock. Looking behaviour directed to border or handler seems to be associated with upright body orientation. The net effect of which is reduced disturbance of sheep whilst grazing or moving. In trained dogs, shifting into predatory chasing and livestock-directed looking appears to be triggered by sheep actually becoming present on the border and the need to keep the border clear. The flock is watched for potential infringements on the border. This draws the dog, at speed, to that area of the border. A differential use of directed looking appears to exist between the two modes of action. Movement on or close to the border is a significant trigger to a change in action. These propensities are significant in the training of farm shepherds and the behaviour of pet shepherd dogs.

A shepherd dog focuses on the border at the edge of the flock which means she can run beside the flock, causing minimal disturbance in sheep ‘following’ behaviour.

A shepherd dog responsible for sheep passing an obstacle safely looks away so as not to disturb their forward movement. 

Dogs have many bite motor patterns. Unfortunately the specific predatory grab bite of shepherd dogs is very similar in ‘shape’ to a bite motor pattern described in Coppinger and Coppinger (1996) as an intraspecific dominance bite used when an animal refuses to submit and aimed at the top of the neck. In the case of the trained shepherd dog, the bite is directed at neck, wither or flank as the dog runs beside the sheep (below). The bite appears to aid dogs controlling speed and direction of individual sheep and should result in no injury to sheep. Differential diagnosis for the motivation of biting in shepherd dogs is therefore potentially difficult. The potential for misdiagnosis is high.

A trained shepherd dog directing an inhibited predatory grab-bite at a sheep’s flank.

2. Cooperation with a shepherd, forming an obvious close working relationship to complete an ever fluid and challenging task.

Traditional sheep tending is used in open fields systems and in transhumance. Both systems present complex spatial problems for farmer and dog teams to solve. Shepherds and shepherd dogs have highly developed inter-specific communication skills. Shepherd dogs possess powerful and sensitive observational skills. They are  perfectly adapted to receive and respond to cues. Equally cues and signals must be delivered with appropriate skill, clarity and emphasis. Shepherd dogs are ‘designed’ to work in a dog-human-sheep team. Humans must be aware of the impact and effect of their signalling. A lack of awareness and indiscriminate signalling causes significant problems, particularly in pet environments.

A small section of an open field system with multiple borders around which the farmer must direct the dog and around which the dog must move quickly and accurately

A farmer uses a Schäferstab (Shepherd’s staff or crook) to signal to a dog to remain standing as he walks backwards and leads the sheep away.

3. Developed interspecific communication skills between dog, shepherd and sheep.

Dogs responses can be influenced by the specific qualities of verbal and non verbal cue signals (Braem & Mills, 2010). The same is true for sheep. Performance is affected by the ability of the animals to identify and interpret sensory information and by inclination towards different behaviour in the sender (human trainer). Evaluation of these effects in practice is scarce. There has been less emphasis on the importance of interspecific communication in teaching and learning with animals than on the acquisition of association between cue words and behaviours through reinforcement (Mills, 2005).

In the working environment cues are given in a fluid and changing environment which affects the contiguity of verbal and non verbal elements. For example, high pitched notes are thought to elicit changes in activity and movement in dogs (McConnell,1990). It is likely that high pitched notes also elicit changes elsewhere in the environment e.g. sheep behaviour. High pitched cues may then predict a contingent response from others and be perceived as contiguous with sheep mobility. It has been suggested that dogs might not generalise the learning of cues as well as previously thought (Braem & Mills, 2010). It might be that context is an influential factor, it might be necessary to consider the effects of tone of voice and other non verbal signals in context (Pettersson et al, 2011).

Evidence appears to be emerging about the advanced quality of dogs abilities in inter-specific communication with humans. Natural communication from human to dog is suggested to beneficially affect performance, Bräuer et al, 2013. Context type and training experience are suggested to increase dogs abilities to ‘offer human directed communicative behaviour’, Marshall-Pescini et al, 2009. Gácsi et al, 2013 suggest that, even where it is contradictory, dogs have ‘advanced abilities to understand human forms of communication’. And Kaminski & Nitzschner, 2013, conclude that canine communication abilities are ‘more specialised than most thought and possibly as a result of adaptation for specific activities humans have used them for’. The points about natural communication, advanced communicative ability and specialism in communication are all relevant to herding work and shepherd dogs.

There are many non verbal elements to communication. How space (proxemics) and time and timing (chronemics), touch (haptics), body movement and gestures (kinesics), looking behaviour (oculesics), scent (olfactics) and use of the voice (outside language) (paralanguage) are utilised conveys detailed information. This information is received and acted upon according to how it is perceived. Perceptual experience is likely to be different between prey and predator species. Verbal and non verbal signalling appropriate to handling sheep without indicating threat or triggering defence behaviours are specific and involve understated signals. It stands to reason that dogs selected to accompany the shepherd in flock management needs to be equally adapted to reading and responding to such signals.

Shepherd dogs are predominantly trained in situ with sheep. Which means that preferentially and necessarily the verbal and non verbal communication utilised in training the dog, is specific for the handling of sheep. Body movements, for example, to call the dog or direct the dog are either very small or very smooth. The voice is used very specifically in what is known as the “lullaby voice”. The “lullaby voice” contains soft vocal elements and is natural (conversational) in verbal construction. This is used particularly in the training phase with progressively more paralanguage emerging which is applicable to both sheep and dog as experience develops.

The intention is to utilise the dogs intrinsic ability to perceive and respond to the smallest of signals such that dogs learn to be responsive to signalling that will not disturb grazing sheep. The obvious consequence is greater control; the more diligent the dog is (or needs to be) checking with the handler, the more it is employed to execute innately rewarding actions, the more bound together the team becomes effectively excluding external distraction to the task in hand. Experience results in dogs responding correctly even to involuntary cues given by the shepherd. This is the Clever Hans effect in practice.

In addition to mindful application of sheep and dog appropriate kinesics and careful use of vocal properties, dog initiated touch (haptics) and proximity (proxemics) are also key in the training and handling of working GSDs. Arousing the sheep (particularly in early training) may trigger a cascade of behaviours resulting in damaging and unwelcome predatory responses.

In order to minimise the risk of this happening, handlers spend significant time on relationship building and simply ‘hanging out’ with the dogs around the flock. Any contact offered by the dogs, especially leaning on the handlers legs is useful and encouraged.

This contact is a foundation for a number of practical actions, but most importantly the protection and nurture of the dogs confidence. To abandon the dog to close proximity with sheep exposes the dog to the interspecific exchange between those species. Sheep are not a push over. Should they (in large flocks) detect anxiety in a (especially stationary or slow moving) inexperienced dog they have the potential to push back, pressurise the dog. The result, dependent on individual experience and temperament, includes damaged confidence, fear, aggression and avoidance, rendering the dog unreliable or unusable for work. It is the handlers role to intervene between sheep-dog interactions, progressively judging withdrawal of intervention as experience develops on both sides. The handler’s close proximity is necessary, proximity must be perceived by the dog and the sheep as making the environment safe.

‘Leg leaning’ or an approximation to ‘leg leaning’, has practical application in signalling the direction of the handlers attention (without the requirement for the dog to look away from the border or flock) and therefore an unconscious signal for the send away, as ‘support’ in the learning of “stehe” (stand and stand at corners and obstacles to protect, regulate sheep flow), to indicate a neutral or ‘off duty’ border and of course as a very real manifestation of companionship.

References.

Armstrong, H. G. (1997). A model of the grazing of hill vegetation by sheep in the UK, II. The prediction of offtake by sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology 34 pp 186-207.

Barja, I. (2009). Decision making in plant selection during the faecal-marking behaviour of wild wolves. Animal Behaviour, 77(2), 489–493. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.004

Bekoff, M. (2001). Observations of scent-marking and discriminating self from others by a domestic dog (Canis familiaris): tales of displaced yellow snow. Behavioural Processes, 55(2), 75–79. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00142-5

Boitani, L., Francisci, F., Ciucci, P., & Andreloi, G. (1995). Population, biology and ecology of feral dogs in central Italy. In J. Serpell (ed), The Domestic Dog, its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. (pp. 179-198). Cambridge University Press.

Braem, M. D., & Mills, D. S. (2010). Factors affecting response of dogs to obedience instruction: A field and experimental study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125(1-2), 47–55. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.03.004

Bräuer, J., Schönefeld, K., & Call, J. (2013). When do dogs help humans? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 148(1-2), 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.009

Callow, N., & Waters, A. (2005). The effect of kinesthetic imagery on the sport confidence of flat-race horse jockeys. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6(4), 443–459. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.08.001

Campo, J. L., Gil, M. G., Dávila, S. G., (2005) Effects of specific noise and music stimuli on stress and fear levels of laying hens of several breeds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Volume 91, issues 1-2, pages 75-84.

Christiansen, F. O., Bakken, M., & Braastad, B. O. (2001). Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second-year confrontation with domestic sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72(2), 131–143. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00203-3

Christiansen, F. O., Bakken, M., & Braastad, B. O. (2001). Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with domestic sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72(2), 115–129. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00202-1

Cooper, J., Ashton, C., Bishop, S., West, R., Mills, D., & Young, R. (2003). Clever hounds: Social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (3) , 229-244.

Coppinger, R., & Schneider, R. (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In J. Serpell (ed), The Domestic Dog, its Evolution, Behaviour and Interaction with People (pp. 21 47). Cambridge University Press.

Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (1996). Biologic Bases of Behavior of Domestic Dog Breeds. Readings in Companion Animal Behavior, Veterinary Learning Systems, Trenton, NJ., 9–18. Retrieved from http://www.ao.net/~holmanh/CoppBioBases/CoppBioBases.htm

Coppinger, R. (2008). Selection for performance in working dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3(4), 189. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2008.01.009

Deldalle, S., & Gaunet, F. (2014). Effects of two training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog-owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.004

Dorey, N. R., Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2009). Breed differences in dogs sensitivity to human points: a meta-analysis. Behavioural Processes, 81(3), 409–15. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.011

Fox, M (1969). The Anatomy of Aggression and Its Ritualization in Canidae: A Developmental and Comparative Study. Behaviour, 35(3/4), 242–258. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4533307

Fuchs, T., Gaillard, C., Gebhardt-Henrich, S., Ruefenacht, S., & Steiger, A. (2005). External factors and reproducibility of the behaviour test in German shepherd dogs in Switzerland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94(3-4), 287–301. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.016

Gácsi, M., Vas, J., Topál, J., & Miklósi, Á. (2013). Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145(3-4), 109–122. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.007

Gazit, I., & Terkel, J. (2003). Domination of olfaction over vision in explosives detection by dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 82(1), 65–73. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00051-0

Helton, W. S. (2010). Does perceived trainability of dog (Canis lupus familiaris) breeds reflect differences in learning or differences in physical ability? Behavioural Processes, 83(3), 315–23. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.01.016

Hennessy, M. B., T. Williams, M., Miller, D. D., Douglas, C. W., & Voith, V. L. (1998). Influence of male and female petters on plasma cortisol and behaviour: can human interaction reduce the stress of dogs in a public animal shelter? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61(1), 63–77. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00179-8

Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A. M., Mustaca, A. E., & Bentosela, M. (2010). Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behavioural Processes, 84(2), 602–7. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.04.003

Jones, A, C, and Gosling, S, D (2005)Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): A review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Volume 95 (1-2) Pages 1-53

Kaminski, J., Neumann, M., Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Dogs, Canis familiaris, communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Animal Behaviour, 82(4), 651–658. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.015

Kaminski, J., & Nitzschner, M. (2013). Do dogs get the point? A review of dog–human communication ability. Learning and Motivation, 44(4), 294–302. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2013.05.001

Kathryn, Lord. (2012). A Comparison of the Sensory Development of Wolves (Canis lu-pus lupus) and Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Ethology, 119(2), 110–120. doi:10.1111/eth.12044

Kerepesi, A., Jonsson, G. K., Miklósi, A., Topál, J., Csányi, V., & Magnusson, M. S. (2005). Detection of temporal patterns in dog-human interaction. Behavioural Processes, 70(1), 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2005.04.006Lord, K. (Umass). (2010). A heterochronic explanation for the behaviorally polymorphic genus Canis: A study of the development of behavioral differences in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and …. Umass Amherst. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3409623

Lord, K. (2013) Making sense of social behaviours in dogs and wolves. SPARCS. Retrieved 7 February 2014. http://caninescience.info/sparcs-videos/kathryn-lord-making-sense-of-social-behaviors-in-dogs-and-wolves/

Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Ferrario, A., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2011). Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour, 81(6), 1177–1183. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.029

Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Barnard, S., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2009). Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behavioural Processes, 81(3), 416–22. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.015

McConnell, P. B. (1990). Acoustic structure and receiver response in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour, 39(5), 897–904. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80954-6

McConnell, P,B, and Baylis, R. (1985) Interspecific communication in cooperative herding: Acoustic and visual signals from human shepherds and herding dogs. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. Volume 67, issue 1-4, pages 302-328.

Meyer, F., Schawalder, P., Gaillard, C., & Dolf, G. (2012). Estimation of genetic parameters for behaviour based on results of German Shepherd Dogs in Switzerland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140(1-2), 53–61. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.05.007

Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2004). Comparative social cognition: what can dogs teach us? Animal Behaviour, 67(6), 995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.008

Mills, D. S. (2005). What’s in a word? A review of the attributes of a command affecting the performance of pet dogs. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 18(3), 208–221(14). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279305785594108

Mirkó, E., Kubinyi, E., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, Á. (2012). Preliminary analysis of an adjective-based dog personality questionnaire developed to measure some aspects of personality in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 138(1-2), 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.016

Moran, A. (2009). Cognitive psychology in sport: Progress and prospects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(4), 420–426. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.010

Moran, A. (2012). Thinking in action: Some insights from cognitive sport psychology. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 85–92. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.005

Nickelsberg, E., & Rixon, J. (reprinted from Der Gebrauchshund 2004, January). A visit with schafermeister Manfred Heyne. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from German Shepherd herding.com: http://www.german-shepherdherding.com/manfred- english/index.html

Ostrander, E., & Wayne, R. (2005). The canine genome. Genome Research 15 , 1706-1716.

Parker, H., Kim, L., Sutter, N., Carlson, S., Lorentzen, T., Malek, T., et al. (2004). Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog. Science Vol 304 Issue No 5674 , 1160-1164.

Pearson, D. G., Deeprose, C., Wallace-Hadrill, S. M. A., Burnett Heyes, S., & Holmes, E. A. (2013). Assessing mental imagery in clinical psychology: a review of imagery measures and a guiding framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.001

Pettersson, H., Kaminski, J., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 133(3-4), 235–245. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.008

Riedel, A. (2004). Animal bones from the Nickelsdorf roman villa rustica in Bergenland (Austria). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien A Mineralogie Petrologie Geologie Palaeontologie Archaeozoologie Anthropologie Praehistorie , 449-539.

Ruefenacht, S., Gebhardt-Henrich, S., Miyake, T., & Gaillard, C. (2002). A behaviour test on German Shepherd dogs: heritability of seven different traits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(2), 113–132. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00134-X

Saetre P, S. E. (2006). The genetic contribution to canine personality. Genes Brain and Behaviour. Volume: 5 Issue: 3 , 240-248.

Simonson, R. (2008, June 25). Parliamentary Enclosure. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from Surrey County Council: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/

Smeeton, N. J., Hibbert, J. R., Stevenson, K., Cumming, J., & Williams, A. M. (2013). Can imagery facilitate improvements in anticipation behaviour? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 200–210. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.008

Spady, T. C., & Ostrander, E. A. (2008). Canine behavioural genetics: pointing out the phenotypes and herding up the genes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 82(1), 10–8. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.12.001

Starling, M. J., Branson, N., Thomson, P. C., & McGreevy, P. D. (2013). “Boldness” in the domestic dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural Processes, 97, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.04.008

Strandberg, E., Jacobsson, J., & Saetre, P. (2005). Direct genetic, maternal and litter effects on behaviour in German shepherd dogs in Sweden. Livestock Production Science 93 (1) , 33-42

Svartberg, K. (2002). Shyness–boldness predicts performance in working dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(2), 157–174. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00120-X

Svartberg, K., Tapper, I., Temrin, H., Radesäter, T., & Thorman, S. (2005). Consistency of personality traits in dogs. Animal Behaviour, 69(2), 283–291. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.04.011

Svartberg, K. (2006). Breed typical behaviour in dogs-Historical remnants or recent constructs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96 (3-4) , 293-313.Turcsán, B., Kubinyi, E., & Miklósi, Á. (2011). Trainability and boldness traits differ be-tween dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(1-2), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.006

Udell, M. A. R., Ewald, M., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2014). Exploring breed differences in dogs (Canis familiaris): does exaggeration or inhibition of predatory response predict performance on human-guided tasks? Animal Behaviour, 89, 99–105. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.012

Virányi, Z., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, A., & Csányi, V. (2004). Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behavioural Processes, 66(2), 161–72. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012

Willis, M. (1995). Genetic aspects of dog behaviour with particular reference to working ability. In Serpell (ed), The domestic dog; its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. (pp. 51-64). Cambridge University Press.

Further Reading

Ausbildung von Hütehunden. Hans Chifflard and Herbert Sehner.

Ulmer. 2004. ISBN-10: 3800142279 ISBN-13: 978-3800142279 (NB this book is only available in German)

Coppinger, R.,& Coppinger, L. Dogs; A startling new understanding of canine origin behaviour and evolution.

Scribner. 2001.ISBN-10: 0684855305 ISBN-13: 978-0684855301