# Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Can anyone give a definition of "social"?



Is it a trait you need your dog(s) to have?


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Having looked up definition of social as a synonym it can mean several different things. Socialable, gregarious, companionable & public. So I'll take two out of four and yes they are traits my dogs must have. Having those traits & the need are dependent upon what the dog does, where & for whom. My dogs are social around people and other dogs,& especially kids. Just my expectations


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

To me it means the dog has to except anything I expose them to and remain neutral unless I say otherwise. They don't have to play with people or other dogs. They don't have to even like people and other dogs, just be neutral to them because I've exposed them to it.


----------



## Jami Craig (Jul 5, 2010)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

This is probably a more "pet dog" side of looking at things but....

If released from command or told to greet my mal will sit down in front of anyone with a huge smile on his face (literally...with the bared teeth "grin" it's adorable and scares the crap out of people) and bask in attention from human contact...even if it's only eye contact. If in a public relaxed setting his response to new things or different approaches (in wheel chairs, on crutches, children, etc) is curious and interested. Once I say something is okay it is....until I say otherwise. He loves everyone and everything and has been known to snuggle perfect strangers if given permission. I would consider him a very VERY social dog (and a goofball...but that's another thing...).

My ACD is comfortable in public but seeks little to no human attention even if instructed to greet for him it's a command. He can enjoy and tolerates most petting, is safe with children, and neutral to things strange and new once told they're okay. He has no interest in making friends, he has no interest in meeting people, if training or working in public I've never had to teach him not to go near people, he has no interest in them. I would consider him not a social dog (but not an antisocial dog) that does a good impression of social if commanded to.

My friend's Akita is well trained and appears neutral in public. However he actively avoids people if released from command. When not under command his response to even a friendly approach is barking and staring them down. When not under command he will not stand for human contact outside his pack. He does not like people, he will never like people, however because he has solid training he appears neutral in public. He does not like other dogs, he does not like anything really, except his owner and even that is often debatable. I would consider this dog anti-social.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Is there any downside to requiring the working dog to be social? Can such temperament requirements ever work against a breed?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

When talking to people, social has to reflect OK or not, to me. Black and white. Period. You know your dog. If he's okay around people, then he's social. If he is not okay (going to bite) then he is not social. If the dog is trained not to bite in certain circumstances, he is not social, he is under control. 

I had someone ask me when I worked at Tarheel Canine if the dog I had on leash was social? I jokingly said, "Extremely. Well, dominance IS a social behavior right." 

So for me, no baggage, no ifs, no buts. Otherwise they are not social. 

Have to keep it very simple or people get hurt. 

He's social.....but/or if....... just doesn't work for me.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



Connie Sutherland said:


> Is there any downside to requiring the working dog to be social? Can such temperament requirements ever work against a breed?


 
There is. If you have a man eating killer on leash, and I speak from expereince, you never have accidental bites, because you know the dog will bite. If the dog is "social" you'll have more incidents, because petting is ok. No petting, not close = No bites. Overconfidence in your abilities to keep an animal doing what you want, in what a reasonable person would think questionable circumstances = Dog bite.

This is a stupid owner problem in my opinion. I do believe dogs that are trained to bite, have a lower incidence of bites, as the owners know either they will or they wont, as training reflects. I can't statistically back that up though.

I can't count how many dogs have lunged at me seemingly with the intent to bite, that owners swear "wont' bite".

What dogs in the US have the most bites right now? I bet its breeds that "don't traditionally bite"


----------



## Robley Smith (Apr 20, 2012)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Will a dog we are defining as "social" have a greater bite inhibition that causes a problem with the work?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

I'm kinda like Bob, I think in terms of neutral and reliable in the public. All my dogs have fit this category. The only thing that would provoke some of them is some act of violence toward me. From there I divide them up between aloof [don't engage strangers for interatction and remain neutral] to the suck-up corgis who love everybody and always engage anyone they see.

Is it an advantage for a working dog? I think it will have to depend on the work. Certainly they seem to deem it so from a PR standpoint with dual purpose dogs. Got to know several of the airport handlers and it was obvious with the amount of interaction and toy play that they did that they wanted the dogs to be considered pretty warm and fuzzy. My dogs have to deal with people and dogs in the trial environment and at the beginning of most trial runs there is a person or persons and a dog on the field. So a certain degree of social reliability for work and sport is required.

T


----------



## Isaiah Chestnut (Nov 9, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

So I have a question. How social should a PP dog be? I know all people have a different want or need. But, what is a desired PP dog social ability? And also for PSD? Is it prefered for most handlers to have a man eater under contol or a dog with more people tolerance?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

since there never has been any agreement on what a PPD is, why not just drop that question and eliminate the arguments b4 they start 

psd's and mwd's need to be seriously aggressive and fearless when called on; anytime anyplace ... they are not trained to be social in the general sense of the word
..... but given the defs by Dave and Bob, which i agree with, i guess you could say the good ones are also social, as in under control and not dangerous when working in public

side bar ... petting ....
a major pet peeve of mine 
why should ANY dog, pet or professional, be a petting accessory for strangers who want to meet them ???
- why do so many people encourage petting and consider it a sign of a well behaved "socialized" dog ?

if people want a face licker they should get a well bred lab or a toy poodle and be done with it and then go out in the world and let everyone pet it ](*,)

all my dogs have been "pettable" but i still turn down 95% of the requests
..in another post i went into some detail about a method to reduce reactivity...guess you could also call that "social conditioning"....but for SURE, it wasn't an endorsement of trying to change the genetics of dogs who tend to be on the civil side or have no interest in making friends with strangers so they could be "petted" safely ...huge difference for me


----------



## Isaiah Chestnut (Nov 9, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



rick smith said:


> since there never has been any agreement on what a PPD is, why not just drop that question and eliminate the arguments b4 they start
> 
> psd's and mwd's need to be seriously aggressive and fearless when called on; anytime anyplace ... they are not trained to be social in the general sense of the word
> ..... but given the defs by Dave and Bob, which i agree with, i guess you could say the good ones are also social, as in under control and not dangerous when working in public
> ...


I agree with you. I personally dont care for my dogs to need or search for attention outside of my family. Didnt want to raise up a debate about PP dogs, just a question i had if anyone wanted to answer with their own opinion about their PP dogs social abilities.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



rick smith said:


> side bar ... petting ....
> a major pet peeve of mine
> why should ANY dog, pet or professional, be a petting accessory for strangers who want to meet them ???
> - why do so many people encourage petting and consider it a sign of a well behaved "socialized" dog ?
> ...


 
I allow my dogs to be petted occasionally. Not in cold and flu season though, and not if someone reaches before they ask.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

I only allow my dogs to be petted by good looking women and only when my wife isn't watching. ;-)


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

My personal preference is for a social dog. Having dogs that are comfortable with and perhaps even enjoy meeting strangers is easier for me because I am out and about a lot with my dogs.

I would call my dogs social - not Golden Retriever, love everyone they meet social, but relaxed and confident in the presence of people. My Mali seems to enjoy it when I allow kids to pet him in places like the mega pet store, and is quite happy to stand and be loved on a bit by them. The DS doesn't really care about other people, though she is curious and will approach strangers, but just doesn't care if there's nothing in it for her, like food. She is not particularly affectionate with me either, and I would consider her more neutral than social.

I would consider the other end of the scale aloof - just not interested, like my friend's hound, who will comfortably be near you, but rarely solicit attention, or outright anti-social - aggressive, fearful, or both, either avoiding people completely or reacting agressively to any approach.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



Bob Scott said:


> .... remain neutral unless I say otherwise. They don't have to play with people or other dogs. They don't have to even like people and other dogs, just be neutral to them because I've exposed them to it.




So is neutral, social enough?

Neutral is all I want .... is this what others mean when they say "a social dog"?




Steve Estrada said:


> Having looked up definition of social as a synonym it can mean several different things. Socialable, gregarious, companionable & public. So I'll take two out of four and yes they are traits my dogs must have. Having those traits & the need are dependent upon what the dog does, where & for whom. My dogs are social around people and other dogs,& especially kids. Just my expectations



Is "neutral" sufficient to satisfy these preferences?



(ETA: From a PM thread seeking to define, in a general-usage way, some temperament terms ..... "social" seems a lot easier to get some agreement on than, say, dominant, civil, hard, sharp .... :lol: )


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Neutral is fine for me & in spite of my post my dogs aren't "a petting accessory" I love that term Rick! I prefer my dogs never seek someone else's attention & they don't but I try to be an ambassador for dogs, so kids I go further teaching dog etiquette. It's what I do


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

My year old pups are both aloof but still social, it's in their nature. My adult male is not now, and never was social. He must be neutral because that's my rule, but he clearly is not a social dog.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

I think for many people, especially with a working dog, that neutral would be most desirable, unless you have a therapy dog or employ your dog in some capacity that requires interaction with humans.

To me 'social' would describe a dog that seeks out attention or engagement from both strangers and familiar people. I don't think this is a bad thing if the dog can focus on his job when needed and not be distracted from it by the presence of people when working. 

There are people who think every dog loves them, so are flattered when a dog solicits petting. Personally, being pestered by a dog to be petted can be annoying, but I accept that some dogs (my friend's Goldens) are like that, and indulge them for as long as I can take it.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

So is neutral, social enough?

Yes but that takes in to play what Dave C said about a dog that is "controlled" as opposed to being social. That's wouldn't be a "neutral" situation. That's a .......wait for it......leadership issue. :-o 8-[ :grin: :wink:

Sorry Dave! I just couldn't pass that one up. I agree with your "controlled" vs "socialized" statement 100%.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

I've had aloof dogs that could care less about interacting with strangers and that's fine. The dogs that were serious and instinctively protective were still neutral and absolutely sound with kids which is a requirement for me. I'm not one that gets into the man eater and PP concept. One of my favorite GSDs was a go anywhere type of dog and would play fetch with anyone. One dumb move from a friend of mine towards me and I had to pull her out of his chest. For me a PP has sense and knows threatening behavior and doesn't otherwise react so whether or not they are social is irrelevant. Back in the day, we used to talk in terms of whether the dog was "sound." That pretty much included environmental nerves and people reliability.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



Bob Scott said:


> So is neutral, social enough?
> 
> Yes but that takes in to play what Dave C said about a dog that is "controlled" as opposed to being social. That's wouldn't be a "neutral" situation. That's a .......wait for it......leadership issue. :-o 8-[ :grin: :wink:
> 
> Sorry Dave! I just couldn't pass that one up. I agree with your "controlled" vs "socialized" statement 100%.


 
Bob. Today I believe in leadership. Operant conditioning is only a piece of the pie. I'll be going to that other thread and arguing with myself now!!!:-$

Agreeing on terms is important. Imagine the difference "civil" can have in a dog and a non-dog person interaction, with a "civil" dog. Hopefully he's civil, but neutral, with good leadership and conditioning. I hope his threshold for defense is high as well, and the prey is high enough that he'll be clear headed enough to release after the "accidental" bite from showing his civil side...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Who came up with the term "civil" any way. I always thing of civilized and/or social politeness. How did it become to mean what it does [depending on who you ask] in bite work?

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

gotta start another thread for that...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Couldn't a dog be both civil and social, or are they mutually exclusive? But can see how the origins of the use of "civil" in the bite sport world could be another thread.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

People like to make things so difficult. Too many words. It's simple. A dog who isn't social has to be *trained* to be neutral. nuff said.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



susan tuck said:


> People like to make things so difficult. Too many words. It's simple. A dog who isn't social has to be *trained* to be neutral. nuff said.


but what is the definition of social?


RE: This thread


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

To me, a social dog is one who naturally falls somewhere in the spectrum between friendly and aloof. A dog who is not social does not fall within that spectrum and must be trained to be neutral.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

re: "Who came up with the term "civil" any way"
.... maybe civilians ?? 

i need humor ... going thru some adjustments these days and feeling pissed off in general ... my patience level has been duly noticed by my house dog, so i must also be showing some negative leadership  thankfully he's remained neutral and social to me and hasn't been civil 

but i did get a pick me up when my brother in the states sent me an email saying how he had recently donated one of his kidneys to a friend ... kidney didn't match up as well as it was planned so it went to someone else but they are alive because of his donation .... was a good reality check for me tho and a helluva lot better than supporting kids in africa imo


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

_"my brother in the states sent me an email saying how he had recently donated one of his kidneys to a friend ... kidney didn't match up as well as it was planned so it went to someone else but they are alive because of his donation"_

This is fantastic.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Can dogs be „sociable“?

I would say as far as you make them and as far as you let them. However, the idea of a bitch letting all and sundry come and visit her pups without trying to protect them, has me thinking.

Eberhard Trumler wrote in one of his books about a Dingo dog he had on his research farm. Up to his being 3 years’ old, the dog let the staff in to check on the bitch and pups. However, afterwards, the dog growled and refused their entry.

Today, people “ooh” and “aah” about their dogs visiting bitches with new born pups. It’s regarded as “the utmost in sociability”.

Very often the bitch would not allow the dog within a few yards of her pups until they were about 6 weeks. (wild dogs).

The Briard was very neutral towards other dogs but never welcomed “idle fingering” by strangers.

The younger GSD was over friendly to people but once being taken in the clinch by a neighbour in a friendly manner – growled at him. He barked at our neighbours who have the sister of our older GSD – because they took it upon themselves to scold him.

The Landseer was friendly but once being near a large schoolboy who playfully threatened his schoolmates, was ready to spring in and divide.

The Fila was friendly to a point – he actually liked humans. However, as Dave Colbourn said, it is easier to own a dog that is not completely “sociable” as you know better how he will behave (or not behave).

The older GSD is not “sociable” but manageable and knowing this, it more or less excludes silly accidents where a “sociable” dog suddenly turns to true type, i.e. canine. 

Not all dogs accept very small pups, especially on their home ground – a throwback to the days of wild dogs where a pup who strayed into strange pack of dogs would be eaten alive.

There is so much literature available on the web about canine instincts and behaviour but Mr. & Mrs. “know everything about dogs” want a soft cuddly 4-legged that even welcomes the postman when he comes through the dog’s territorium.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



susan tuck said:


> People like to make things so difficult. Too many words. It's simple. A dog who isn't social has to be *trained* to be neutral. nuff said.


I think all of us know what a social dog is, and a civil dog, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Mine is social, but definitely civil, she will bite, period.

Definitions are sometimes hard, even when we know when the dog is social or not,


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



jim stevens said:


> I think all of us know what a social dog is, and a civil dog, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Mine is social, but definitely civil, she will bite, period.
> ,


Agreed.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



jim stevens said:


> I think all of us know what a social dog is, and a civil dog, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Mine is social, but definitely civil, she will bite, period.
> 
> Definitions are sometimes hard, even when we know when the dog is social or not,


Some definitions may be difficult for some people, but I don't think "social" is difficult to define for most people. I also don't think "civil" is difficult to define. I do think some people over think things.
:lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*



susan tuck said:


> Some definitions may be difficult for some people, but I don't think "social" is difficult to define for most people. I also don't think "civil" is difficult to define. I do think some people over think things.
> :lol:


At least not until they join a forum. :twisted: ;-)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

I assume we are talking about being social with relative strangers or in situations with people outside the dogs social circle.

Interesting topic either way you look at it, within the social circle of the dog, or outside of it.

Is a dog that is outside of his territory that looks to get people to do stuff for him, like pet him, social? maybe...maybe not.

look at some people who are very social people, they are always out and about, they may be social but also have poor social skills as well. 

when I think of a social dog I usually think of a dog that truly likes people and likes to interact with them, even strangers, and is trustable in most situations.


When trying to look at a dog being social, how does interaction with other dogs play into it? or does it? intersesting for sure.

neutral to me does not mean social, could be naturally like that or under control to appear to be neutral. I have had dogs that could be called neutral, that would not hesitate to be antisocial if allowed to.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

_"neutral to me does not mean social, could be naturally like that or under control to appear to be neutral. I have had dogs that could be called neutral, that would not hesitate to be antisocial if allowed to."

_

Yeah, this is kinda my feeling. But then,"social" to me is not a particularly desirable trait (in my definition of social as wanting interaction with everyone he meets) and neutral is.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

*re: Temperament: how to define "social" (etc.)*

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a social dog can and often will be very suspicious of people outside of his circle of friends.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

For me, I want a dog who is social with "the pack"- meaning me, my family, friends, and others within those dynamics. 

In public settings, I want a dog who is friendly to people when appropriate, and neutral to others dogs. 

For example- I like to take mine in the pet store and not worry if someone stands too close to us in line. I also use him to demo obedience sometimes during Jerry Lyda's classes. He needs to be polite in these situations.

On the other hand, if someone does something stupid, he will bite. I am fine with that.

As far as other dogs, I really only care if he is social to other dogs in my home. He was very dog aggressive not long ago, but has made huge progress tolerating other dogs around with little to no reaction. The aggression to dogs was learned behavior- which I hated, but now he mostly ignores their presence. He does not need to wrestle or romp in a dog park, or bump noses with every dog who passes us on a walk. 

Many people ask me if he is "social", which I believe they just want to know if he will bite if they pet. 

My definition of social is to understand when to be nice, and when to not.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

So social/friendly vs. neutral/aloof?

T


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

That is a good way to sum it up...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So social/friendly vs. neutral/aloof?
> 
> T


I don't think so. As long as a dog is naturally OK around people he is social, but that doesn't mean he has to be "friendly" he can be "aloof". A dog who is not naturally OK around people has to be trained to be neutral and therefore is not a social dog.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> I don't think so. As long as a dog is naturally OK around people he is social, but that doesn't mean he has to be "friendly" he can be "aloof". A dog who is not naturally OK around people has to be trained to be neutral and therefore is not a social dog.


so a social dog is OK with a guy getting on the ground smiling at him and hugging him while baby talking him...or if the guy just sits in a chair and the dog comes for a pat and doesnt try to bite him, is the dog neutral or social? what is naturally OK with people? people doing what? 

confused


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> so a social dog is OK with a guy getting on the ground smiling at him and hugging him while baby talking him...


If out of the blue a strange man came up to me, sat next to me, grabbed me in a bear hug, and started making gobbledygook kissy smacking sounds right in my face, I would definitely feel threatened and would try to defend myself if I couldn't extricate myself, and I'm pretty sure most dogs would do the same, but that wouldn't mean either I or a dog who reacted in a similar manner should be labeled anti-social. 

I don't think social means a dog must be stuffed animal like bomb proof, though of course there are dogs like that and they are most definitely social, at the other end of the spectrum are dogs who are naturally aloof/reserved, but still ok in NORMAL social settings.



Joby Becker said:


> or if the guy just sits in a chair and the dog comes for a pat and doesnt try to bite him, is the dog neutral or social? what is naturally OK with people? people doing what?


In my opinion, this would be a normal interaction, one that a naturally social dog on one end of the spectrum would perhaps lean into the person for more attention, while a dog at the other end of the spectrum, an aloof/reserved dog probably wouldn't come close for a pat, but if a person did try to pat them, would just simply ignore the person, or move out of reach, but both reactions would still be socially acceptable.

I don't think a dog has to seek out interaction to be considered social.


----------

