problems (see chapters 9 and 10).
Eighty-eight percent of dog owners do at least some training at home, according to a report in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, but it seems that most do not use reward-based methods exclusively.7 Unfortunately, when people use outdated methods to train dogs, perhaps because they don’t realize science recommends reward-based methods, they are using methods that rely on fear and pain. It’s just a tap, a correction, or information, they say. But prong collars, choke collars, leash corrections, electronic collars, and alpha rolls (rolling the dog on their back and holding them there until they stop moving) work because they are painful or fearful for the dog. These are aversive methods.
A survey published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior asked owners about their dog training methods and attendance at dog obedience classes.8 The owners were then asked to look at a list of thirty-six possible dog behavior problems, including attention-seeking issues (e.g., jumping up, pawing, or mouthing the owner), fear issues (e.g., avoiding or hiding from familiar or unfamiliar people), and aggression, and indicate which one(s) their dog exhibited. Seventy-eight percent of dogs jumped up at people, 75 percent pawed at people or demanded attention, and 74 percent were excitable with visitors. These are all friendly, pro-social behaviors (at least in the eyes of the dog!). The three most common behavioral issues people described as problematic were aggression towards family members, house soiling when the owner was at home, and chewing or destroying things when the owner was out. Owners who used only positive reinforcement in training were less likely to report behavior problems related to fear, aggression, and attention seeking. Interestingly, the highest levels of fear, aggression, and attention seeking were found in dogs whose owners used both positive reinforcement and positive punishment (so-called “balanced” dog training methods).
A study in Vienna published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science looked at whether the size of the dog made any difference.9 Dog owners in that city are required to register their dogs, and researchers sent a questionnaire to a random sample of owners, which means the results of the survey are representative of the population there. The study rated a dog as small (up to 20 kg or 44 pounds in weight) or large. Eighty percent of owners used punishment to train their dog, most commonly leash jerking, scolding, and holding the dog’s muzzle. Ninety percent of owners used rewards either often or very often. For both small and large dogs, the more often their owners used punishment, the more aggressive and more excitable the dog. The relationship was strongest for small dogs. In contrast, the more often people used rewards, the more obedient they rated their dog, and also less aggressive and less excitable. Another finding of note is that owners of small dogs are less consistent with their training, put less emphasis on training, and engage in fewer activities with their dog than those who have large dogs. And consistency matters when it comes to obedience: the less consistent the owner, the less obedient their dog.
In another study published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science fifty-three dog owners were asked about how they had trained their dog and video was taken of them asking their dog to sit, lie down, and stay.10 Researchers then gave the owner a bag of treats and a ball to use as rewards if they wished, and gave them five minutes to teach their dog a novel task—touching one of two spoons on command. All of the participants had used a mix of rewards and punishment to train their dog in the past. If the owners had tended to use punishment more often than rewards, the dogs were less playful with the owner and less interactive with the researcher. The dogs whose owners had previously used rewards more were quicker to learn the new task. Dogs also performed better at learning the new task if their owners were patient and used more rewards. The most likely reason for the improved results is motivation.
Another study, published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, observed dogs at two different dog training schools, one that used positive reinforcement and another that used negative reinforcement.11 Dogs in the negative reinforcement group showed more signs of stress, such as a lowered body posture (keeping their body closer to the ground), whereas dogs in the positive reinforcement group looked at their owners a lot more. This matters because you need the dog’s attention to ask them to do something. So positive reinforcement was not just better for the dog’s welfare but also for the human–canine bond.
Gaze is an important part of the human–canine relationship. JEAN BALLARD
A questionnaire study published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science found that confrontational methods can lead to an aggressive response.12 At least a quarter of dog owners reported getting an aggressive response to an alpha roll, dominance down (rolling the dog on its side and holding it there), muzzling the dog, forcibly removing something from its mouth, and grabbing the dog by the jowls. Use of a choke or prong collar got an aggressive response from 11 percent of dogs, and use of a shock collar got an aggressive response from 7 percent of dogs. Less aversive techniques such as growling at the dog, staring it down, or yelling “no” also sometimes got an aggressive response (yes, you read that right—some people growl at their dog).
A review in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior of seventeen journal papers about dog training methods, including those mentioned above, concluded that reward-based methods are better for dogs’ welfare and in some cases even seem to be more effective.13 Although many of these studies are correlational and so can’t prove a causal relationship between training methods and signs of fear, anxiety, or stress, the existing research has led organizations such as the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior and the Pet Professional Guild to warn against the use of aversive methods in dog training.14
THE RISKS OF ELECTRONIC COLLARS
ALTHOUGH MANY TRAINERS get excellent results without them, some trainers still use electronic collars, also known as shock collars. Despite claims they merely “tap,” “stimulate,” or “tingle,” they only work insofar as the dog finds the sensation unpleasant and worth avoiding. Otherwise these collars would have no effect at all (or the opposite effect to that intended). Alternately, some people say an electronic collar is a last resort, although the science does not support this view.
Research published in PLOS ONE shows that even when used by experienced trainers and in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines, electronic collars pose a risk to animal welfare.15 The researchers tested the collars specifically for training recall (dogs coming when called) in the presence of livestock (in this case, sheep). There were three groups of dogs: dogs trained with an electronic collar by a trainer recommended by the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, dogs trained with positive reinforcement by those same trainers, and dogs trained with positive reinforcement by trainers who specialize in using positive reinforcement. All of the dogs wore either an active or deactivated electronic collar so that observers who rated the videos could not tell which group the dogs were in (i.e., they were blind to the condition). The dogs in the activated electronic collar group more often showed signs of stress (such as low tail and yawns), although there were no differences in levels of the hormone cortisol (a measure of arousal). The study concluded that using electronic collars has risks for animal welfare and does not produce better results than positive reinforcement.
What about the use of electronic collars as a fence mechanism to keep a dog contained within a particular area? A fence is created by burying sensors underground along the line the dog is meant to stay inside, with visible markers above for training purposes. When the dog goes past one of the sensors, the collar delivers a shock.
A survey of dog owners in Ohio, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, found that 44 percent of people who used an electronic fence said the dog had escaped, compared with 23 percent of those who used a physical fence.16 Unfortunately, if a dog escapes from an electronic fence (for example, to chase a passing cat), they may be reluctant to return to the yard because they will receive a
