Why Every Dog Trainer Seems to Say Something Different

It doesn't take long when you search the internet for dog training advice, for you to be bombarded with contradictory information. One minute it's "positive reinforcement is the best way to train your dog" and the next you hear things like "using treats in training will spoil your dog". If you've ever had the pleasure of working with numerous trainers, it shouldn't take long before you realize every single trainer has a different way of doing things. 

So, why is that? Where does this all begin? And why isn't training more streamlined, if it stems from behavior science? Let's take a quick dive in history to learn why!

Understanding How We Got Here: The History of Behavior Change

Before Science: The Era of Control and Compliance (1800s–1900s)

Before scientific learning theory was developed (1800s–1900s), the dominant assumption was that unwanted behavior—whether in humans or animals—was a sign that more discipline, control, or correction was needed. Those with the most power over resources or physical control were often the ones who determined which behaviors needed to change and what methods were acceptable for achieving compliance.

The horse-training world provides a clear example of this mindset. The term "breaking a horse" reflected the idea that a horse's resistance and spirit needed to be broken in order to ride it. Historical accounts describe methods such as food and water deprivation, restraining their legs, physical punishment, and the use of harsh equipment designed to force compliance. While many training practices have evolved, unfortunately some of these methods and philosophies continue to exist today.

The Birth of Learning Theory: When Behavior Became Something We Could Study

During the early 1900s, as the field of behaviorism began to emerge, scientists became increasingly interested in studying observable behavior. Around this time, the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov made an accidental discovery while researching digestion. Each time he fed his dogs, he rang a bell beforehand. Over repeated trials, the dogs began salivating at the sound of the bell alone, even before the food appeared. They had learned to associate the bell with the arrival of food. This discovery became known as classical conditioning—the process by which a previously neutral stimulus comes to elicit a response through repeated association (Pavlov, 1927).

In the 1930s-1960s Skinner discovered that consequences determine whether behaviors are more or less likely to happen -- a process now referred to as operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938). Skinner also discovered a whole magnitude of other behavior-science concepts like shaping, extinction, and reinforcement schedules.

His work wasn't always pretty, and his research also included exposing animals to aversive stimuli (like electric shocks) and depriving them of food and water to study how consequences shape behavior. A few decades later, a related and even darker discovery came out of this same tradition: in 1967, Martin Seligman and Steven Maier exposed dogs to shocks they had no way to escape or control, and found the dogs eventually stopped trying to escape at all - even once escape became possible. This became known as learned helplessness, and it remains one of the most cited (and most ethically criticized) studies in behavioral science today (Seligman & Maier, 1967).

When Behavior Science Was Applied: Dark Lessons From ABA

In the 1960s Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) sought out to take this research and apply it to children with autism. Although it was revolutionary at the time, early ABA practitioners tried to train children with autism to appear more neurotypical in grueling and abusive ways. This included 40+ hours/week spent trying to get them to behave as they saw fit (Lovaas, 1987) and administering things like electric shocks to suppress stimming and other punishment procedures (Lovaas & Simmons, 1969). Many individuals who experienced these programs describe them as incredibly traumatic.

Then, these concepts spread over to "gender conversion therapy" (Rekers & Lovaas, 1974), where practitioners would try to punish atypical gender expression out of adolescent children until they conformed -- a practice which is now broadly condemned as unethical and harmful.

As ABA evolved from the 1980s to today, many behavior analysts realized that quality of life, communication, autonomy, consent, and function of behavior all matter...not just blind compliance. Beliefs of ABA practitioners did not change uniformly and unfortunately the application of ABA practices, can still vary dramatically from provider to provider. Some are still focused on highly compliance based models, where others are more trauma-informed.

Dog Training's Delayed Evolution

Animal training has lagged behind psychology by decades. Up until the 1990s, it was widely still believed that "dogs must respect you" and methods to get respect included leash pops, choke chains, alpha rolls, ear pinches, and physical intimidation — methods later shown to compromise welfare rather than build cooperation (Ziv, 2017; Vieira de Castro et al., 2020). The influence behind it was driven largely by military dog training programs that moved into civilian obedience training after WWII (Koehler, 1962), along with early interpretations of wolf behavior that were later deemed inaccurate (Schenkel, 1947; Mech, 1999).

The positive reinforcement revolution traces back to Karen Pryor's clicker training work with dolphins at Hawaii's Sea Life Park in the 1960s (Pryor et al., 1969). She introduced those principles to the wider animal training community with her 1984 book Don't Shoot the Dog!, and clicker training caught on with dog trainers specifically through the 1990s, showing that positive reinforcement works incredibly well (Pryor, 1984).

Moving From Obedience to Emotional Wellness (2000s–Today)

In the early 2000s the focus of positive reinforcement training was more based-off precision and excellent application of learning principles. It wasn't until the mid 2000s-early 2010s when more trainers began working with fearful and reactive dogs that they noticed obedience skills like "sit" simply weren't enough. Dogs could know dozens of cues and still panic around other dogs. This led to people getting curious about how dogs were feeling instead of just relying on how they were behaving.

Simultaneously, in the 2010s we were learning more about neuroscience and stress physiology. Trainers talked more about cortisol, arousal, and chronic stress and began recognizing the impact of physiological stressors on dogs' behaviors. Training became more interdisciplinary with veterinary behaviorists, physical therapists, neuroscientists, trainers, and behavior consultants working together.

Around the same time there was an animal welfare revolution. Instead of asking, "Can I train this behavior?" it became, "should I?". Concepts like cooperative care, agency and choice became popularized in training, and frameworks like the Five Domains Model of animal welfare formalized (Mellor et al., 2020). Zoos and aquariums also had a major influence over the pet training industry with the success of their cooperative care training practices for things like voluntary blood draws and participation in their care for a wide-range of species.

From 2020 to now, more trainers and behavior consultants have been drawing on attachment research and interpersonal neurobiology, discussing concepts like co-regulation, resilience, and emotional safety.

Where We Are Today: Science vs. Culture

Unfortunately, scientific progress is not the same as cultural progress. Research evolves much faster than public opinion, professional standards, or media representation. While the scientific literature over the past two decades has increasingly supported reward-based, welfare-centered approaches to behavior modification (Ziv, 2017; Vieira de Castro et al., 2020; AVSAB, 2021), television, social media, and popular culture have often continued to elevate trainers whose methods rely heavily on intimidation, physical corrections, or outdated concepts such as "dominance" and "alpha theory."

These methods persist not because they are supported by the strongest available evidence, but because they are compelling television. Confrontation is dramatic. Rapid behavioral suppression makes for memorable before-and-after clips. Unfortunately, suppressing behavior is not the same as addressing the underlying emotional state driving that behavior. A dog that stops growling, barking, or resisting may not be calmer—it may simply have learned that expressing discomfort is unsafe.

Today's goal is no longer simply to ask, "Can we stop this behavior?" but rather, "Why is this behavior occurring, what is the animal experiencing, and how can we change both the behavior and the underlying emotional processes in a way that improves welfare?"

That is why many of the methods popularized in earlier decades—including those still promoted by some high-profile television personalities—are increasingly at odds with recommendations from organizations such as the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the Pet Professional Guild, and many contemporary researchers in animal behavior and welfare (AVSAB, 2021; ACVB, 2021).

Scientific evidence is only one force shaping the dog training industry. Media exposure, commercial success, professional identity, tradition, and long-held beliefs all influence which methods are promoted—sometimes long after the science has moved on. So if you've ever wondered why every trainer seems to tell you something different, now you know: not everyone is drawing from the same body of evidence, the same ethical framework, or the same motivations.

References

Koehler, W. R. (1962). The Koehler method of dog training. Howell Book House.

Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.1.3

Lovaas, O. I., & Simmons, J. Q. (1969). Manipulation of self-destruction in three retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-143

Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196–1203. https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-099

Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Pryor, K. (1984). Don't shoot the dog: The new art of teaching and training. Simon & Schuster.

Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O'Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(4), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-653

Rekers, G. A., & Lovaas, O. I. (1974). Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1974.7-173

Schenkel, R. (1947). Ausdrucks-Studien an Wölfen: Gefangenschafts-Beobachtungen [Expression studies on wolves: Captivity observations]. Behaviour, 1(2), 81–129.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024514

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.

Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219

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), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023

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