Functional analysis and operant treatment of food guarding in a pet dog

Mehrkam et al. (2020) worked with one family dog that growled when people came near its food bowl.

They ran a short functional analysis in the living room. The test looked at four conditions: giving attention, taking the food away, being alone, and free access.

Each condition lasted only minutes. The team then picked treatments that matched the functions they saw.

The dog guarded for two reasons: to keep people away from the bowl and to get extra treats.

When the owners used function-matched plans—extinction plus differential reinforcement—guarding dropped to zero.

The calm behavior lasted two weeks later, with new people, and in new rooms.

Cullinan et al. (2001) first showed that brief analog conditions can pin down why kids hit. Mehrkam copies the same four-test script, but on a dog instead of children.

Feinstein et al. (1988) proved that treatments matched to the function beat unmatched ones. The 2020 case is a live demo of that rule outside the clinic.

Morris et al. (2023) used the same multiple-baseline-across-behaviors design to untangle mixed functions. Both papers show the design keeps each function’s effect clear.

If you work with clients who have service dogs or emotional-support animals, this paper gives you a one-session plan. Run the four standard conditions, pick the matching treatment, and watch the guarding vanish. No special gear, no kennel needed—just the family sofa.