There is something real being described when we say our dog lacks impulse control. It is a reflection of the frustration and desperation we may feel when our dog behaves in a seemingly unpredictable way that disrupts our lives.

When we explain the cause of the behavior as “lack of impulse control”, it then becomes easy to start thinking the problem lives inside the dog; A defect that needs to be fixed or corrected. This is what Israel Goldiamond referred to as a “pathological approach”, which “considers the problem in terms of a pathology which, however it was established or developed, is to be eliminated or overcome.”

Instead, Goldiamond urges us to “help construct new ways of producing these critical consequences by means which are accompanied by satisfaction rather than distress”.  This leads us to ask what the dog is getting out of the behavior, and what behaviors repertoires would I prefer?

But before we decide what the dog needs to learn, we need to understand what the behavior is doing for that dog in that situation.  While we may have an idea, until we assess the situation, we can only guess.

For example, jumping may be a way to get interaction and attention from humans, it may be to get the person to go away, or it’s just become part of their behavior repertoire for greeting people.  Different dogs can do the same behavior for different reasons. And different behaviors can sometimes serve the same purpose.

That is why assessment matters. We need to look at what happens before the behavior, what the dog does, and what happens after. In other words: what sets it up, what does the dog do, and what does the dog get out of it?

A constructional approach starts there. If a dog is jumping for attention from the human, instead of asking, “How do we stop this dog from jumping?” we ask, “What would we like the dog to do when people come in, and how can we make that easier to learn?”

To paraphrase Goldiamond “The organism is always right... The responsibility rests with the [human], not with the [dog].” It does not mean that we just have to live with whatever behavior our dog is doing no matter the cost. It means the dog is doing the behavior that makes sense to them under the current conditions. The environment is telling them what to do. Their history supports it. The outcome has mattered in some way.

Our job is not to blame the dog for responding to the occasion in front of them. Our job is to understand the occasion well enough to build something we like better.

The dog is already learning from the situation

When a dog jumps on a visitor, it may look like the dog is “out of control,” but the behavior is often more organized than it looks:

The doorbell rings, the dog perks up. Their human stands up, the dog follows. The door opens, the dog wags his tail and does a “play bow”. The guest walks in, the dog launches into jumping behavior on the guest. The dog is engaging in the behaviors that are cued by their environment.  It is a behavior-environment interaction.

From the dog’s point of view, jumping may be the behavior that fits. It has worked before. It may have produced touch, eye contact, laughter, talking, pushing, or a very interesting reaction from the person. Even when people say “off” or push the dog away, the dog may still be getting a lot of interaction.

This is why “he knows sit” may not help when guests come over. The dog may know “sit” in the living room, with one person, when nothing exciting is happening. That does not mean the dog can do it at the front door, with visitors, movement, voices, and a long history of jumping. Changes in the context mean a change in the behavior-environment relation.

The dog is not being “stubborn” or “spiteful” or “lacking impulse control”. The behavior is just telling us that their environment is arranged in a way that permits the behavior, and we need to adjust that environment to teach the behavior we prefer.

The goal is not a dog who wants people less

In addition to issues with explaining away behavior due to an “inner mechanism”, another reason we caution against using terms like “impulse control”, is that it does not give us a clearly defined goal to work towards. We don't just want the dog to stop behaving completely (otherwise we might as well get a stuffed animal).

Most people would be happy to let their dog greet guests, as long as specific repertoires occur.  So let’s define it using Goldiamond’s BBQ (Basic Behavior Question):

“What behaviors under what conditions?”

That might mean approaching with four feet on the floor. It might mean going to a bed while the person enters,  sitting in place until the guest approaches or checking in with the handler first.

The point is not to suppress the dog’s interest in greeting people, but to build greeting behaviors “which are accompanied by satisfaction rather than distress”.

A better question than “How do I stop it?”

When we find ourselves thinking “My dog needs impulse control!”, we can use that as a reminder to ask better questions:

What is happening before the behavior?

What is the behavior?

What changes after, or how do I typically respond?

What would I like the dog to do instead?

Instead of getting frustrated or angry, get curious: make observations, assess the behavior-environment interaction, and define your goals.

Source Notes

This post was inspired in part by Tromplo’s two-part series, “Impulse Control: Mindset Matters”, and Murray Sidman’s “Reflections on Stimulus Control”.

The constructional framing comes from Israel Goldiamond’s work, especially the shift from eliminating problem behavior to building useful repertoires. I first came into contact with the constructional approach from the non-profit organization CAAWT.