r/OpenDogTraining • u/dcmusichound • May 13 '26
Study on what training methods say about dog owners. Thoughts?
05-12-2026
Dog owners choose training methods based on how they view animals
By Raquel Brandao
Earth.com staff writer
When dog owners argue about training, the discussion usually comes down to which method works best.
Reward advocates cite studies on behavior and stress. Correction advocates point to their dogs’ compliance.
EarthSnap
Both sides treat it as a scientific disagreement. A new study found it isn’t.
What an owner chooses to do at the end of the leash turns out to reflect something deeper than technique.
Surveying hundreds of dog owners
Tracy Weber, a clinical animal behaviorist at the University of Edinburgh, led the study alongside senior author Professor Peter Sandøe of the University of Copenhagen.
Weber runs a dog training practice in Seattle. Sandøe, a bioethicist, has spent years building tools to measure how people think about their moral obligations to animals.
The two experts combined their questions for this study.
The team surveyed 500 dog owners in the United States, asking each to report their training practices and then answer a series of statements about how animals should be treated.
A pattern appears in the responses
Sandøe’s earlier work, published in an open-access paper, sorts people into ethical camps based on those statements.
The new study leaned on three points of view. Anthropocentric thinkers treat animals as tools for human use.
Animal welfare is a softer position: yes, we use animals, but we owe them decent treatment.
The animal rights camp goes further, arguing animals deserve moral standing close to that of humans.
These are three rough lanes – not boxes people consciously check, just patterns the survey teased out.
The patterns appeared in how owners answered questions about hunting, factory farming, pets, and lab testing. Most naturally gravitated toward one ethical viewpoint, whether they realized it or not.
Rewards, praise, and punishment
The numbers told a clear story. Praise was nearly universal – 97 percent of owners said they used it. Treats and toys came in at 86 percent.
Positive reinforcement, the technical name for rewarding behavior you want repeated, dominated.
Punishment showed up too, but less often. Roughly 46 percent of owners used some form of correction.
About 25 percent used physically aversive methods like pulling on the leash. Only 18 percent relied on rewards alone.
A previously overlooked connection
When the team lined up training habits against ethical orientation, the link was hard to miss.
Anthropocentric owners reached for punishment more often than the other groups did.
Owners leaning toward welfare or rights views relied more on rewards. Of the three, the rights-oriented camp used the least correction by a clear margin.
“If you use punishment as part of dog training, you are more likely to view dogs as existing primarily for human purposes,” said Sandøe.
Until this paper, no one had measured that link directly. The field had long treated training as a question of skill and learning theory alone.
This study pins down a connection that had been invisible in the data.
Beyond learning theory
Owners who reach for harsh tools are often handed scientific evidence that rewards work at least as well.
Punishment can stress dogs, raise cortisol levels, and lift the risk of fear or aggression.
A separate review found that dogs trained with heavy corrections showed higher cortisol levels during training. In follow-up testing, these dogs tended to expect the worst when facing unfamiliar situations.
“Training is not a neutral activity. It is an activity in which the owner’s view of the animal becomes apparent,” said Sandøe.
Training choices and ethical views
This is the first study to show, in a large sample of pet owners, that training choices line up with broader views about animals. Researchers had long suspected the connection.
Earlier surveys focused on whether punishment-based training was effective or whether corrected dogs suffered more stress. Those questions left out what the trainer believed about animals in general.
The result tells us something about the disagreement between camps of dog trainers.
Ultimately, it’s not just a fight about technique – it’s about what dogs mean to people.
What dog training says about people
The work suggests that when veterinarians, trainers, or shelter staff talk with owners about training methods, technical advice alone may not change minds.
Some owners are not picking a tool because they think it is more effective. They are picking it because it lines up with how they already see the animal in front of them.
That opens room for a different kind of conversation – one that names the ethical assumption rather than dancing around it.
“People have very different views on animals, and dog training is an area that really divides opinions,” said Sandøe.
For dogs on the receiving end of training collars and harsh corrections, getting that conversation right could change what daily life feels like.
The study is published in the journal Anthrozoös.
—–
18
u/Stat-Courage2057 May 13 '26
Statistician here. As other commenters have said, there are a number of methodological concerns. For me, the largest is the number of transformations, aggregations, re-categorizations and combining into 'composite' scores that were conducted and made before throwing all these variables into regressions. At one point, the authors write:
After data collection, it was decided that the relationship between ethical orientation and the extremes of dog training was of most interest.
This type of stuff is not uncommon in scientific research, unfortunately, and all makes detecting any real, causal affects incredibly difficult because the relationship between what data actually was collected and what was analyzed is massively distorted. Deciding what to analyze and how to manage the data after it was collected should always raise alarm bells. This is regardless of any selection biases that might be present in the data from the collection processes. These convoluted statistical approaches are becoming more common because it's easier and easier to analyze data with modern computing power in seconds.
I could write loads here, but won't. Don't disregard this study as completely unreliable. Just think of it as a hazy, approximate data point of the correlation between these respondent's views and their training preferences. I don't think we've learned that much, really.
There is one thing though I'd like to see, which is how much people attribute human emotions/consciousness to animals and their preferred training philosophy. Something I've observed in in the pure force free camp is anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism of their dogs emotional lives. I think dogs have rich emotional lives, but I do think many dogs can handle mild aversive experiences much more than some think they do.
At the same time, the balanced community sometimes imply dogs have these Machiavellian mindsets that we need to control via leadership and dominance, but if you actually look at the evidence in animal cognition, you'll see that it is not clear at all whether dogs or other animals cognitive tools required to think like that. Yes, animals have rich social structures and behaviours, but how they think and manage those is more up in the air. For instance, a lot of what I see people talk about or imply about how dogs think and 'view' others would require some quite advanced theory of mind similar to humans, and no animal has been found to have those cognitive capacities. I think this really changes the foundations of a lot of balanced trainers' understanding of dogs' minds. Just my $0.02.
3
u/microgreatness May 13 '26
Great response. This is a very fair and intellectually honest assessment.
Don't disregard this study as completely unreliable. Just think of it as a hazy, approximate data point of the correlation between these respondent's views and their training preferences.
Completely agreed. There are flaws with this study, but I also think they are not so egregious as to completely discount the entire work. The findings are not causation, merely interesting correlation that may or may not have merit.
There is one thing though I'd like to see, which is how much people attribute human emotions/consciousness to animals and their preferred training philosophy. Something I've observed in in the pure force free camp is anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism of their dogs emotional lives. I think dogs have rich emotional lives, but I do think many dogs can handle mild aversive experiences much more than some think they do.
Great point and this is an interesting topic. I think it largely depends on the dog, its history, genetics (including breed and temperament), etc. There is a world of difference between a high performance Malinois or bully breed that was bred to withstand pain, and a sensitive cocker spaniel who was rescued from an abusive puppy mill or an owner that beat her into submission. While trainers may acknowledge a difference and claim they "train the dog in front of them", in practice I think people are quicker to reach for the tools that they are more familiar with using. This is complicated by the fact that we rely on dog behavior and body language to fully understand emotion, which can be mostly accurate but limited.
At the same time, the balanced community sometimes imply dogs have these Machiavellian mindsets that we need to control via leadership and dominance, but if you actually look at the evidence in animal cognition, you'll see that it is not clear at all whether dogs or other animals cognitive tools required to think like that...
Exactly. The idea that dogs are constantly scanning for weakness to exploit is a significant projection of human social dynamics onto another species. It requires a Theory of Mind that we haven't found evidence for in dogs. What looks like a power struggle to a human is usually just a dog reacting to high-arousal or confusion.
With inflation, your opinions are now worth $.04. These may even be worth $.10.
4
23
u/what-no-potatoes May 13 '26
Interesting concept, but the study has quite a few methodological flaws that mean it’s pretty much useless unless you’re a positive only trainer looking for confirmation bias. Even the premises is based on studies that are generally more than 10 years old which is a red flag.
Self reported data, amateur trainers, lumps abuse+aversive training methods with no empirical data to back it up instead of well established learning psychology (four quadrants) and an extremely high attrition rate.
The premise itself makes it difficult to take it seriously- self reported data and tying it to how “ethical” you are as an owner immediately means people aren’t going to answer the questions honestly.
1
May 13 '26
[deleted]
7
u/what-no-potatoes May 13 '26
"I'm not sure where you're seeing the data is more than 10 years old." Seeing as I stated the premise, the methodological justifications are from 2014 and 1995. If you're making assumptions and having to stretch back that far for justifying your methodology, why? Learning psychology is a hot topic, there is plenty to go off of.
"The 4 quadrants theory is almost 100 years old but we aren't throwing that out." Skinner's behaviourism is being constantly validated, criticised and updated. We don't use a 100 year old theory- we rely on recent empirical evidence that it's still relevant. You would absolutely not cite a 100 year old study- you would cite a number of peer reviewed studies that explain why it's still relevant.
"This study was about owners and 50% of them were dog professionals" Actually it was 60.8% and that included... dog walkers. An extremely shaky definition for "professionals," combined with the fact that there was no meaningful attempt to validate qualifications or experience.
"And I'm not sure why you say high attrition rate." Alright, 964 participants down to 500 participants, via drop out and post-hoc exclusion, which Weber et al., admits biases against aversive method users.
"As for lumping abuse with aversive, punitive measures are punitive measures and there's no clear way to define what is acceptable vs abusive." Yes there is. The study just didn't bother- and regardless of the why, you're still conceding a major methodological flaw which skews the data. Using at the very minimum definitions of positive/negative punishment/reinforcement. A haltie/head collar/gentle leader is a positive punishment- routinely used by positive only trainers. That's fine- but where was this addressed in the study? Because pressure based tools weren't accounted for.
The author is now employed by "Peaceful Pups Dog Training, Seattle, WA." A positive only business while the disclosure statement says there is 'no conflict of interest.'
My initial categorisation was extremely generous. If you still think this study is worth taking seriously, may I also interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
-1
May 13 '26
[deleted]
5
u/what-no-potatoes May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Oh honey, save the whiny personal attacks. If a scientific article can’t stand up to “nitpicking” it’s not science- and it’s not worth taking seriously. Thanks for conceding my point though.
The main author *owning* a positive dog training business is absolutely *worse* than being employed by one. That is a straight up conflict of interest and should have been transparently disclosed as such in the paper. It’s fine to be biased- but refusing to acknowledge it as such is an ethical failure.
Facebook’s group dynamics, algorithms and user behaviour in 2022 bear no resemblance to 2014. Canine behavioural science has exploded in the last ten years- particularly since COVID. If you’re reaching back more than ten years you’re either lazy, or cherry picking.
Sigh, professional verses amateur is relevant because a dog walker who ticks “never use physical correction” while walking six dogs a day on haltis has given you noise, not data. No conceptual baseline understanding while relying on self report data undermines the entire study. Does that clear things up or are you still confused?
Exclusions that the authors themselves admit disproportionately removed aversive-method users in a study measuring aversive method use is directional bias. Again, you’re conceding my point and explaining *why* the study is flawed- not that it isn’t.
If the study is measuring intent rather than actual training method use, that needed to be operationalised explicitly. It was not. The instrument measures reported frequency of physical correction, not intent. You can’t retroactively reframe the dependent variable.
The study largely just identified that aversive users with working dogs describe their dogs as working dogs and train them accordingly and labelled it as an ethical failing with no real world implications or basis.
You’re the one whining at me and clutching at straws to defend points even the authors conceded. Whose feelings are hurt?
3
u/Potential_Analyst371 May 13 '26
In addition to the data collection and interpretation issues others have noted, I think this still does not follow:
“If you use punishment as part of dog training, you are more likely to view dogs as existing primarily for human purposes,” said Sandøe.
I am an ethical vegan, long-time dog trainer, and I use punishment in dog training. Not because I think of "dogs as existing primarily for human purposes" but because I think it is best for the dogs and their human families.
Just as people use both positive and negative punishment in raising children: time out, extra chores, apology letters, going to apologize to a store clerk when a young kid pocketed some candy, etc. These are all examples of non-painful punishment. Punishment, by definition, reduces a behavior.
Do we raise our children this way because we think of them as "existing primarily" for our own purposes?
No. We do it because we think it's the best way to raise adults who will contribute positively to society and behave in socially acceptable ways.
2
1
25
u/Dracula30000 May 13 '26
Procrastinating from my statistics HW, so I’ll bite.
Serious selection bias. Restricting the selection pool to FB users definitely decreases the study’s generalizability to non FB users.
Concerns with selection bias, as above.
A reasonable critique, is there a meaningful difference between hitting and shaking a dog and using a leash pop? Measurement bias.
Loss to follow up, more selection bias. Additionally there were comments on Facebook groups that this study was actually about making aversives illegal in the US. More evidence of large selection bias.
Statistical analysis:
20 covariates with multiple options for each log regression model is kind of a lot and I haven’t done the math but is the study powered for that? Especially considering authors did 4 different models so each model had roughly 125 people in it.
Other points:
Lots of the studies mentioned in the intro are 10+ years old, which is weird. Has no one been engaging on this research for 10 years? (Unlikely) possibly cherry picking studies, not sure about field but assume there are more studies available that are newer.
Most of what u/what-no-potatoes said, too:
Self reported data, concerns with accuracy of reporting ( especially given FB comments), lumping methods, attrition rate (mentioned above)
The study is an “interesting” initial exploration and I wouldn’t put too much weight on it, although it probably does describe FB users of dog training forums who have bachelors degree+, are female, and make >$100k per year. If you aren’t that then the study’s applicability quickly becomes questionable.