Why we don’t do “one size fits all” training

By Stephanie Keesey-Phelan, Ph.D., BCBA

Earlier this month I reviewed Kim Brophey’s book Meet Your Dog. We received some questions about our characterization of the book’s training advice provided as “poor.” So we decided to take some time here to clarify: what makes poor training advice? In our opinion this comes down to two main things that I’ll outline in more depth below: 1) broad advice applied to any dogs or all dogs of a specific type, and 2) recommendations for the use of aversive procedures.

Broad advice for all dogs or all dogs of a specific type

Just like people, every dog is an individual. We know that a dog’s behavior will be impacted by their genetics to some degree. The extent to which this is the case is debated, and a recent article suggests that dog behavior may be much less attributable to breed than we may have previously thought. There is quite a bit to unpack in that article, but it does make us ask the question: to what extent do our dog’s genes influence how they behave? In his book Dog is Love: Why and How Your Dog Loves You, Dr. Clive Wynne describes multiple scenarios in which dogs that were actual clones were observed to have entirely different ways of behaving in the world. The dogs described had the same genetic make-up and were raised at the same time in the same home, but the ways in which they interacted with the world around them varied considerably. This suggests that though genetics will play an important role, it is not the only factor we should consider when observing a dog’s behavior.

As behavioral scientists, we spend our time evaluating how the environment influences behavior. We study the factors that evoke a particular behavior, and what consequences follow it resulting in the behavior occurring more or less often under similar circumstances in the future. Said differently, we study what triggers a behavior and what purpose that behavior is serving for the dog. Though there are common triggers and functions, the relevant ones for each dog will be very specific to their life. In Behavior Analysis, there is a great deal of research that tells us we will be more successful in promoting behavior change if we address the function or the reason that the behavior is occurring (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2019).

Let’s look at an example. A common challenge that many dog caregivers report is that their dog jumps up on people who enter the home. In our example, let’s say Simon, a 1-year-old Mastiff Mix (guardian breed type), has been engaging in this behavior. A thorough behavioral assessment suggests that he is jumping up to get the visitor to move away from him (e.g., to escape or avoid the visitor), as his jumping typically results in the visitor backing up or moving away. This is extremely valuable information! Simon is communicating through his jumping that he is not comfortable with visitors approaching. Now let’s consider another dog from the guardian breed type: Garfunkel the 1-year-old Rottweiler. Garfunkel’s behavioral assessment indicates that he is likely jumping on visitors to access the attention that visitors provide when he does it. Unlike Simon, Garfunkel isn’t behaving to escape or avoid visitors. Here we have two dogs from the same breed type who are jumping on guests for very different reasons. In Meet Your Dog,  Brophey addresses the guardian breed dog who jumps with the following training advice:

“Teach him that jumping up on anyone or anything will result in lost access to that desired object or person of interest due to a time penalty in the no-fun zone. The best way to do this is to decisively take him away from what he wanted and hook him up to a very boring time-out spot in the corner where you’ve smartly left a leash tied off to the foot of the piano.”  (p. 122)

Let’s consider this advice as it relates to Simon. Simon showed signs of stress when people approached and now when he jumps he gets a break from people. We might expect to see an increase in Simon’s jumping as a result - he jumps and he gets whisked away. Of course we aren’t suggesting that Simon should have to stay near visitors who he is uncomfortable with; we want Simon to be as comfortable as possible when guests arrive. The challenge here is that this specific training advice may result in an increase in Simon’s jumping and doesn’t at all address Simon’s welfare in the context of guests visiting.

What about Garfunkel? Garfunkel showed signs of comfort and excitement when greeting people.  Now when he jumps he gets whisked away and tied up somewhere he cannot access them.  This is a punishment procedure called negative punishment: something is taken away immediately after the behavior which results in a decrease in that behavior in the future. As we’ll discuss below, punishment procedures and those that utilize aversive contingencies have a slew of unwanted, and even dangerous, side effects that not only are likely to exacerbate behavioral problems, but that reduce the wellbeing of dogs exposed to them.

This is the problem with broad training advice. Two different dogs who jump on visitors will have entirely different experiences with this one training recommendation. The procedure is not tailored to the individual dog or their family life and environment. It center’s the experience of the people who interact with the dog as opposed to the dog himself. Additionally, it is based on the use of punishment (at least for Garfunkel, Simon’s experience with the procedure may be different as I described above). Although this advice may change Simon and Garfunkel’s behavior we have to ask - at what cost? Creating individualized training plans based on all of the factors that are relevant for each particular dog in their specific circumstance, who is engaging in the target behavior for a specific reason is going to be the most ethical option. A consideration of these factors will lead to the most effective and efficient treatment.

Recommendations for the use of aversive procedures 

This is a topic that we could go on and on about (and we will in an upcoming course offering!). In brief, there are well-documented, consistent side effects to using punishment and aversive procedures (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2019). These include: a decrease in desired behaviors; an increase in challenging behaviors, including aggression and avoidance; and the use of punishment can be incredibly reinforcing for the person who is implementing it, resulting in an increase in both the use of punishment procedures and the fallout of them. Oftentimes, punishment procedures do stop undesirable behavior immediately in the moment. However, in many cases they do not result in a long-term cessation of that behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2020; Sidman 2001). 

Scientific literature on canine welfare and training has demonstrated that training with positive reinforcement is more effective at addressing a target behavior than punishment-based methods (China et al., 2020). Confrontational methods applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases (Herron et al., 2009). In one study, dogs who were trained with aversive procedures displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense and low behavioral states, panted more during training, and exhibited higher post-training increases in cortisol levels than dogs who were trained with rewards. These findings indicate that aversive-based training methods, especially if used in high proportions, compromise the welfare of companion dogs both within and outside the training context (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020). In addition, although positive punishment can be effective, there is no evidence that it is more effective than positive reinforcement based training. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true (Ziv, G., 2017).

Relying on aversive procedures is problematic from all angles and will impact not only the dog herself but also the dog’s interactions with her caregiver and other people and animals that she encounters. Not only is this type of advice provided widely throughout Meet Your Dog, but there is no discussion about the negative side effects or considerations that one should take into account when even just thinking about the use of aversive procedures. 

Conclusion

When it comes to training advice, this is one of the areas in which Brophey’s book fell far short for us. The individual is not considered in the training recommendations provided and these recommendations demonstrate an overreliance on aversive procedures. In the past, there has been very little consideration of the dog’s experience when it comes to the application of training and behavior change procedures. We are in a position of extreme privilege and power when we decide to change the behavior of our dogs and, as Uncle Ben reminds us: “with great power comes great responsibility” (sorry I couldn’t help myself - I’m married to a Marvel superfan!). As Behavior Analysts and dog trainers, it is our responsibility to ensure that we are considering the whole individual and the relevant variables and functions before attempting to change behavior. At DBI when we are ready to implement a behavior change procedure we are committed to using humane, positive reinforcement-based techniques. We want to see the relationships between our clients' dogs and their families flourish, we want to train for joy.

—

REFERENCES

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd Edition). Hoboken, NJ. Pearson Education.

China L., Mills, D. S., & Cooper, J. J. (2020) Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 508. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00508

Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117, 1–2. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011.

Sidman, M. (2001). Coercion and Its Fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative; (Original work published 1989).

Vieira de Castro, A.C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020) Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLoS ONE 15(12). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023

Wynne, C. (2019). Dog is Love: Why and How Your Dog Loves You. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Ziv, G. (2017) The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs: A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50-60. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004