The Science of Dog Training Methods: Unveiling Canine Welfare

When welcoming a furry friend into our homes, one thing stands true: a well-behaved dog is a joy to be around. Unfortunately, behavioral issues often lead to dogs being rehomed or even euthanized, underscoring the crucial role that effective training plays in creating a harmonious human-canine relationship. But not all training methods are created equal. This journey takes us through a groundbreaking study investigating dog training methods, revealing the potential effects on our beloved companions’ welfare and well-being.

Table of Contents:

The Aversive vs. Reward Dilemma

Imagine you’re trying to teach your dog a new trick. One approach involves aversive methods, which rely on unpleasant stimuli like collar pulls to discourage undesirable behaviors. On the other hand, reward-based methods use positive reinforcement – treats, praise, and toys – to encourage desired behaviors. While aversive methods have stirred controversy due to concerns about their impact on dog welfare, the scientific jury has remained out due to inconclusive evidence.

This study sets out to unravel this mystery, aiming to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of various training methods on the welfare of our furry friends. The underlying hypothesis suggests that aversive-based methods might increase stress during training and result in more pessimistic cognitive judgments compared to reward-based methods’ positive and uplifting effects.

Training Schools: The Starting Line

Eight dog training schools in the picturesque city of Porto, Portugal, each with unique methods. The head trainers were invited to participate and were informed about the aim and methodology of the study. To avoid bias, trainers were unaware that the results would be compared among different training methods. Seven schools emerged, representing diverse training sites, class structures, and environments. From rural fields to bustling urban centers, these schools aimed to teach dogs standard commands like sit, lie down, stay, and come when called. Some schools even added a touch of magic with trick training. After the study, a debriefing session was held to share the insightful results with the trainers.

Classifying Training Methods: A Balancing Act

The heart of the study lay in the meticulous assessment of training methods employed by the different schools. Six randomly selected video recordings revealed that some schools dabbled in aversive-based techniques while others focused solely on reward-based strategies. The complex variations within the aversive-based group led to their categorization into subgroups, further illuminating the intricate landscape of training methods. The analysis revealed that Schools A, C, D, and F used aversive-based techniques to some extent, while Schools B, E, and G did not. However, variations in the levels of aversive-based techniques used within the aversive-based group led to the categorization of Schools A and D as Group Aversive and Schools C and F as Group Mixed. The remaining schools, B, E, and G, were classified as Group Reward due to their lack of intended aversive-based techniques.

Selecting the Perfect Participants

The chosen dogs – stars of the show – were handpicked by trainers and met specific inclusion criteria. These criteria aimed to minimize familiarity with training methods, ensuring a level playing field. Behaviors such as aggression and fearfulness were red-flagged to prevent potential stressors. This careful selection process paved the way for meaningful data collection.

Unveiling the Dark Side of Training

Enter the realm of aversive methods: the sphere of negative reinforcement. The study exposed various unpleasant stimuli used in dog training, including collar pulls and hanging dogs by choke collars. The dark side of training was unveiled, highlighting the potential discomfort experienced by our four-legged friends.

A Glimpse into the Study’s Journey

The study’s timeline spanned from October 2016 to March 2019, involving 122 companion dogs. However, as with any journey, some dropped off, leaving a final sample of 92 subjects. The study’s participants hailed from different training groups, each with a unique story. The demographics painted a vivid picture, revealing the average age, gender distribution, and breed groups of these charming canines.

Peering into Canine Stress Levels

The study’s two-phased design aimed to measure stress levels during training and beyond. In Phase 1, saliva samples were collected from dogs after each training session and on non-training days. Like frozen fragments of time, these samples were stored at -20°C, ready to reveal the secrets of canine stress. Phase 2 introduced a cognitive bias task, offering a peek into dogs’ emotional states beyond training sessions.

Evaluating Welfare Beyond Training

Phase 2 delved deeper, with dogs participating in a cognitive bias task after completing Phase 1. This task, set in an unfamiliar indoor room, explored dogs’ emotional responses to positive and negative stimuli. Like a puzzle, the test sought to create a picture of canine welfare beyond the training context.

Questionnaire: The Canine Tell-All

Owners were key players in this journey, providing insights into their dogs’ lives and their own experiences with training. Ethograms were developed to capture stress-related behaviors during training sessions, as three keen observers analyzed videos to decipher these subtle signals. Saliva samples, like windows to a dog’s inner world, were collected and analyzed for cortisol levels.

The Dance of the Paws: A Tense Tale

Ever observed a dog lifting a forelimb in a slow, tense movement? This unique behavior, known as “paw lift,” captivated researchers’ attention. It was a behavior not driven by external manipulation nor a playful gesture. This fascinating behavior was observed and noted, a testament to the intricate world of canine communication.

A Peek into Cognitive Bias

The study’s cognitive bias task revealed intricate insights into canine emotions. With 73 participants, the task showed the journey’s complexity as dogs faced challenges, overcame distractions, and showcased their unique responses to ambiguous situations. Each response was a note in the symphony of canine emotion, contributing to the study’s evolving narrative.

Numbers, Stats, and Beyond

Behind the scenes, the study’s statistical analyses painted a colorful picture. Software tools like SPSS and SAS University Edition brought the data to life, revealing patterns and nuances. Tests assessed normality, multivariate relationships, and the significance of various factors. Confounders danced in the spotlight, ultimately shaping the study’s conclusions.

Demographics and Beyond

Peeling back the layers, demographics took center stage. Owners and their dogs came from diverse backgrounds, contributing to the study’s rich tapestry. The section highlighted the impact of factors like the presence of children and the age of dogs on their behaviors.

The Cortisol Chronicles

Cortisol levels, like rhythm guides, revealed the physiological responses of dogs to different training methods. Group Aversive stood out, experiencing a higher increase in cortisol compared to Group Reward. This finding sheds light on how training methods can influence canine physiology.

Welfare Unveiled: A Complex Web

The study’s core unveiled a fascinating web of canine welfare, as dogs in Group Aversive and Group Mixed showcased poorer welfare during and beyond training. Stress-related behaviors became signposts, guiding researchers through this intricate journey. Aversive-based methods bore the weight of increased stress behaviors, revealing their potential negative impact.

A Balancing Act: Training’s Impact

As the study’s conclusion drew near, the balance between training methods became clearer. Dogs trained with aversive methods demonstrated higher stress levels and lower positive affect. The proportion of aversive stimuli wielded a profound influence on dog welfare, overshadowing the specific tools used. A mix of aversive and reward-based methods emerged as a potential compromise, offering a glimpse into the complex interplay of training methods and canine well-being.

Conclusion

The results indicate that dogs trained with aversive-based methods experienced poorer welfare during training sessions and outside the training context. Higher proportions of aversive-based methods were associated with even poorer welfare outside of training. Interestingly, different proportions of aversive-based methods did not lead to differences in welfare outside training among aversive-based schools. Still, a higher proportion did result in poorer welfare during training. This study is the first comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the effects of dog training methods on companion dog welfare, highlighting the risks to the welfare of dogs trained with aversive-based methods, particularly when used in high proportions.

References: