In my dog training classes, people would often come to me
and tell me that they tried hitting their dog or yelling at him to get him to
stop a particular behavior, but nothing seemed to work. My response has always
been that rewards are better than punishment. However, this was based on my own
experience and on learning theory. All I had was anecdotal data, and a
conviction that dogs should not be treated this way.
Now an article in the February 2009 issue of the journal
Applied Animal Behaviour Science addresses this matter in a scientific survey
(Herron, M.E., F.S. Shofer and I.R. Reisner. 2009. Survey of the use and
outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in
client-owned dogs showing undesirable behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 117: 47-54).
In this article, the authors surveyed 140 dog owners whose
dogs had a variety of behavioral issues, such as aggression to familiar people,
aggression to unfamiliar people, aggression to dogs, separation anxiety, or a
variety of fears such as to thunderstorms and loud noises. The authors asked
the owners to list the methods that they used to deal with these behavioral
issues. The owners were also asked if they were bitten, snapped-at, or
growled-at as a result of using these methods.
The methods that were used could be grouped into two
categories: confrontational and non-confrontational.
Confrontational methods were subdivided into direct
confrontation and indirect confrontation.
Direct confrontation included the alpha roll, pushing the
dog down into a lying position, hitting or kicking the dog, jabbing the neck,
using a prong or choke collar, using leash corrections, using a muzzle,
forcibly removing something from a dog’s mouth, forcibly pulling the dog down
with a leash, grabbing the dog by the scruff of the neck, using a shock collar,
and rubbing the dog’s nose in soiled areas.
Indirect confrontation included yelling “no”, spraying the
dog with a water pistol or bottle, growling at the dog, or staring down the
dog.
Non-confrontational methods included using the “Look” or “Watch
Me” commands, food rewards, food-stuffed toys, use of food as a trade for an
item that the dog is holding, using the “Sit” command, and clicker training.
Among the direct confrontational methods, many provoked an
aggressive response (bite, snap, growl, bare the teeth, or lunge at person)
from some dogs. Each of the following direct confrontational methods is listed
with the percent of dogs who responded with an aggressive response: Hitting or
kicking the dog, 43%; Forcibly removing something from the dog’s mouth, 38%;
Muzzle use, 36%; Alpha roll, 31%; Dominance down, 29%; Grabbing the dog by the
scruff of the neck, 26%; Forcing the dog down with a leash, 17%; Choke or pinch
collar, 11%; Shock collar, 10%.
Indirect confrontational methods also provoked aggressive
responses from some dogs. Each of the following indirect confrontational
methods is listed with the percent of dogs who responded with an aggressive
response: Growl at dog, 41%; Stare down the dog, 30%; Water pistol or bottle,
20%; Yelling “no”, 15%.
Among the non-confrontational methods, the percent of dogs
responding with aggression ranged from 0-6%. The highest aggressive response
was when food was used as a trade for an object that the dog was holding (6%).
Using the “Look” or “Watch Me” commands and using clicker training showed a 0%
aggressive response, while using food rewards, the “Sit” command, and
food-stuffed toys each had a 2% aggressive response.
The results of this survey show that using aggressive methods
on a dog can result in an aggressive response. Some of this might be aggression
as a result of fear on the part of the dog. An earlier study published in 2007
reported that using punishment in training dogs can give rise to fear-related
responses (Blackwell et al. 2007. The relationship between training methods and
the occurrence of behaviour problems in a population of domestic dogs. In:
Proceedings of the 6th International Veterinary Behaviour Meeting,
Fondazione Iniziative Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche, Brescia, Italy, pp.
51-52).
Interestingly enough, the dog owners were asked in the
survey where they learned about the methods that they used.
Many owners reported that they learned about the direct
confrontation methods from dog trainers. The percent of owners who learned
about these methods from trainers is as follows: Force dog down with a leash,
70%; Choke or pinch collar, 66%; Leash correction, 50%; Knee dog in the chest
for jumping, 31%; Bark-activated shock collar, 40%; Remote-activated shock
collar, 29%.
Use of many of the non-confrontational methods fell into the
category that the authors of the survey called “Self,” in other words, the
owners thought of using these methods themselves, without any recommendations
from anyone. The percent of owners who fell into the “Self” category for the
different non-confrontational methods are as follows: Using food to trade for
an item held by the dog, 63%; Food rewards, 56%; Using the “Sit” command, 54%;
Food-stuffed toys, 54%; “Look” or “Watch Me” commands, 34%; Clicker training,
23%. However, between 31 and 60 percent of the owners reported that these
methods were also recommended by dog trainers.
The value of this study is that it presents quantitative
data showing that rewards work better than punishment in training dogs.
Let’s say that you are constantly exposed to
someone who yells at you, can hit or kick you at any moment, hurts you, and
generally scares you much of the time. Would you be willing and happy to do
things for that person? If you answered “No,” then why should we expect dogs to
be any different?
--Con Slobodchikoff
Recent Comments