Positively Perfecting Our Pet-Human Relationship

Old habits die hard. Particularly when they have been reinforced with knowledge that is seemingly incorrect for decades on end. In the world of pet training, this is something that many behaviorists and trainers often grapple with. Not only when teaching their clients, but when calling their methodology into question in the ever evolving world of animal behavior. Aversive-based techniques in training domestic animals have been the go-to for a good chunk of animal training history. Hailing from the controversial belief that dogs are like wolves in their hierarchical “pack animal” mentality, viewing humans as part of their pack, this narrative has just recently come into question through empirical research and the debunking of “pack theory”, originally published by Dr. David Mech (Stillwell, n.d.). Unfortunately, many dog professionals have witnessed the effects of these coercive methods – ranging from learned helplessness to debilitation and death. Moreover, punishment is well documented to lead to aggression toward the person responsible for the aversive stimulus, as well as displaced aggression with whatever the dog associates with the stimulus in that moment (Frenandes et al., 2017). This response is less than ideal when it comes to adjusting canine behavior as well as creating a healthy relationship between dog and owner. With the switch to positive reinforcement and force-free methods taking the spotlight, we are beginning to see a much more amiable relationship between humans and pets (Deldalle & Gaunet, 2014). While little research has been done in the effects positive reinforcement methods versus aversive methods have on dog owners, in this article we will attempt to explore the different effects of each method. Using empirical studies on the communication that is created and the bio-chemical components affecting both dogs and humans we will compare the difference between these two popular training methods.

The first factor we must expand upon is what we mean by communication. In a study exploring this topic, Maya Diane Braem and Daniel Simon Mills (2010) defined communication as when “a handler sends a signal…to which their dog responds. This response is dependent on the dog’s perception of the signal rather than the intention of the sender.” This signal that Braem and Mills speak of is something known as a cue – in other words, telling your dog to “sit”. The understanding of the cue, however, can be complicated with environmental and psychological properties playing a huge role (Braem & Mills, 2010). Some of those psychological properties are reflected in how dogs respond to owners that have used punishment-based training methods versus reward-based training methods.

Deldalle and Gaunet (2014) investigated the stress-related behaviors in dogs between these two training methods and illuminated some rather telling information. Dogs that were trained with reward-based methods were more likely to visually interact with their owners. The dog’s gaze has been used to gauge the dog-human relationship in several studies (Braem & Mills, 2010; Rooney & Cowan, 2011; Deldalle & Gaunet, 2014). Furthermore, it was found that dogs who are trained using punishment are less likely to interact and play with their owners (Rooney & Cowna, 2011). While the topic of interaction may seem trivial, assessing the chemical components of the dog-human relationship can reveal how much interaction plays a role in not only the dog-to-human bond, but our physiological responses to them as well. 

Oxytocin is often related to behaviors that have anti-stress effects in both dogs and humans. While previous studies have shown interactions between dogs and humans increase oxytocin in both, the question of whether this beneficial relationship would also increase interactions remained unconfirmed. Petersson et. al (2017) set out to explore the effect  this chemical may have on the quantification of positive interactions between dogs and humans. They found that pairs with low-level oxytocin would interact more until their levels of oxytocin had increased. This went both ways – if a human was low on oxytocin, the dog would interact with the human more, and when the dog was low on oxytocin, the human would stroke the dog more (Petersson et. al, 2017)! This is likely due to the evolutionary history that dogs and humans share, which can also be referred to as “mammalian heritage” (Miklosi, 2009). 

On the contrasting side of the spectrum, a different set of chemical components reveal their effect. Instrumental aggression relies on the intent to harm using dominance in the name of “leadership” (Chichinadze et. al, 2011). I contend that in the context of this overview, instrumental aggression is the closest relative to the emotional state of owners' training with punishment-based methods. In studies done on dominants in both humans and animals, a decrease in testosterone points to a nervous-emotional state (Chichinadze et. al, 2011). I would akin this to the methodology reflected in aversive-based training methods, wherein the owner is supposed to take on the role of the “dominant”. This reflects a much more adversarial human-dog relationship than that of the positive reinforcement-based groups.

While the field of canine psychology and dog-human relationship studies have yet to explore this topic in pure empirical detail, the evidence does seem to reflect what many dog professionals already know – that humans are happier training their dogs using positive reinforcement and force-free methods, as opposed to aversive methods. Between the high interactive probability (why even get a dog if you don’t want to interact with them?) and the chemical components involved, I argue that positive reinforcement training can not only be seen to generate a higher likelihood of positive behaviors in pets but in their human companions as well. Happy training!

References

Braem, M. D., & Mills, D. S. (2010). Factors affecting response of dogs to obedience instruction: A field and experimental study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.03.004

Chichinadze, K., Chichinadze, N., & Lazarashvili, A. (2011). Hormonal and neurochemical mechanisms of aggression and a new classification of aggressive behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.002

Deldalle, S., & Gaunet, F. (2014). Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog–owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9(2), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.004

Guilherme Fernandes, J., Olsson, I. A. S., & Vieira de Castro, A. C. (2017). Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 196, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.07.001

Miklósi, Á. (2009). Evolutionary approach to communication between humans and dogs. Veterinary Research Communications, 33(Suppl 1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-009-9248-x

Petersson, M., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Nilsson, A., Gustafson, L.-L., Hydbring-Sandberg, E., & Handlin, L. (2017). Oxytocin and cortisol levels in dog owners and their dogs are associated with behavioral patterns: An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1796–1796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01796

Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007

Stilwell, V. (n.d.). Why pack theory is wrong. Positively.com.

https://positively.com/dog-training/article/ethology-why-pack-theory-is-wrong