Two dogs sit before you, both labeled “highly distractible” by the same assessment tool. Dog A’s head swivels at every bird that crosses his peripheral vision. Dog B’s nose never stops working, cataloging every scent trail that drifts past. Same score, same category, completely different dogs.
This is the fundamental flaw of what I call “big bucket” assessments – the crude measurement systems that lump vastly different temperament traits into broad categories like “confident/fearful,” “dominant/submissive,” or “distractible/focused.” These oversimplified labels aren’t just inadequate – they’re failing the dogs who depend on us to understand them.
The Problem with Painting Dogs in Broad Strokes
Traditional temperament assessments operate like someone describing every human as either “introverted” or “extroverted.” Imagine trying to understand your best friend, your teenage nephew, and your elderly neighbor using only those two categories. You’d miss everything that makes them who they are – their specific fears, their unique motivations, the nuanced ways they navigate the world.
Yet this is exactly what we’ve been doing to dogs for decades.
When we use these “big bucket” systems, we create a false equivalency between dogs whose behaviors stem from entirely different sources. Dog A scanning for birds isn’t experiencing the same internal state as Dog B processing scent information. Their training needs, their ideal environments, their stress triggers – everything differs. But the assessment tool sees only surface behavior and assigns them identical scores.
The Consequences Are Real
This oversimplification isn’t just academic frustration. It has real-world consequences:
For trainers and behaviorists: You develop training plans based on incomplete information. The “highly distractible” dog gets the same attention-building exercises, regardless of whether their challenge is visual persistence or olfactory awareness. One size fits none.
For rescue organizations: You make placement decisions using crude categories. Two dogs with identical “social” scores might include one who craves interaction and another who merely tolerates it. The mismatch leads to returns, stress, and sometimes worse outcomes.
For service dog organizations: You select candidates based on broad temperament buckets, missing the nuanced profiles that predict success. A guide dog needs minimal olfactory persistence but strong visual awareness – distinctions lost in simplified assessments.
For dog owners: You receive a puppy or rescue dog with a label that tells you nothing useful about who they really are or what they need to thrive.
When Assessment Categories Confound Rather Than Clarify
The issue runs deeper than incomplete information – these systems actually confound our understanding. Consider the example from Dog A and Dog B. In a “big bucket” system, they might both score as “distractible” and receive similar management recommendations. But their needs are completely different:
Dog A might benefit from controlled visual stimulation and impulse control work around movement. Dog B might thrive with structured scenting activities that channel their natural olfactory drive. Treat them the same, and you’re set up for frustration on both ends of the leash.
Or consider two dogs labeled “reactive.” One might be a dog with low social tolerance who needs careful management around people. Another might be a highly aroused dog with poor self-modulation who needs help learning to regulate their internal state. Same label, completely different intervention needs.
The Individual Lost in the Average
Here’s what haunts me about “big bucket” thinking: it erases the individual. Every dog becomes a collection of general tendencies rather than a unique being with a specific combination of traits that influence, exacerbate, mitigate, and enhance each other.
It’s like trying to understand a symphony by only knowing it’s “loud” or “quiet.” You miss the interplay between instruments, the way the strings support the brass, how the percussion drives the rhythm. The magic happens in the interaction of individual elements, not in broad categorizations.
Dogs are symphonies, not single notes.
The Path Forward: Seeing the Individual
There is a better way. Instead of asking “What’s wrong with this dog?” or forcing them into predetermined categories, we can ask “Who IS this dog?”
We can look at the specific traits that create their unique temperament profile:
- How do they regulate their arousal and recover from stress?
- What types of stimuli capture their attention and for how long?
- How do they prefer to use space and interact socially?
- What’s their natural approach to novel situations?
- How do they respond when asked to yield to another’s direction?
When we understand these nuanced characteristics and how they interact, we can finally see the individual dog clearly. We can make training decisions based on who they are, not who we think they should be based on a broad category.
It’s Time to Move Beyond Big Buckets
The dogs in our lives deserve better than crude categorizations. They deserve to be seen as the complex, individual beings they are. Whether you’re a professional working with dozens of dogs or a dedicated owner trying to understand your one special companion, the path forward is the same: look deeper, observe more carefully, and resist the temptation to reduce any dog to a simple label.
Because every dog, like every human, is written in fine print. The big bucket assessments only read the headlines.
Ready to learn how to see every dog as the individual they truly are? Discover CARAT assessment training and join professionals and dedicated dog enthusiasts who’ve discovered that CARAT changes everything. New class opens February 15, 2026, and will be offered regularly.
About Suzanne Clothier
Suzanne Clothier developed the CARAT (Clothier Animal Response Assessment Tool) in 2007 as a revolutionary approach to understanding individual temperament. Through her Relationship Centered Training methodology, she helps professionals and dedicated dog enthusiasts learn to see beyond behavior to the individual.
