Carrots versus sticks: The relationship between training methods and dog-owner attachment

Abstract

The use of aversive-based training methods has been suggested to negatively affect dog-human attachment. However, the scientific evidence for this claim is relatively limited. Previous studies relied upon owner reports of training methods or on potentially confounded measures of attachment (e.g., eye gaze). The aim of the present study was to comprehensively and objectively investigate the relationship between aversive-and reward-based training methods and dog-owner attachment. Companion dogs (n=34) recruited from 6 different dog training schools (3 reward-based and 3 aversive-based) were given a counterbalanced version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test. The presence and absence of the owner and a stranger in a room with the dog was manipulated over different episodes. Dogs' behavior was then analyzed for attachment-related behaviors: contact-maintenance, separation-distress and secure-base effect, as well as following upon separation and greeting upon reunion. Results showed no significant differences between groups for contact-maintenance and separation distress behaviors. However, dogs trained with reward-based methods, but not dogs trained with aversive-based methods, played more in the presence of the owner than in the presence of the stranger, and they also followed and greeted the owner more than the stranger, although these differences were found for only one procedure order. Our study is the first to investigate the relationship between training methods and attachment using a standard and well-validated method for the assessment of dog-owner attachment.Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/ A01/00 Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/

Using Principles from Applied Behaviour Analysis to Address an Undesired Behaviour: Functional Analysis and Treatment of Jumping Up in Companion Dogs

“…Only 1% out of all respondents mentioned that they often used punishment, which underscores the reluctance of both groups of professionals to implement these procedures [48]. This is consistent with current research on the use of punishment procedures in dogs, including the potential detrimental effects (e.g., stress-related behaviours, elevated cortisol levels, or aggression; [49][50][51][52][53]). It is also consistent with ethical guidelines put forward by the BACB ® (e.g., Sections 4.08 to 4.10 in the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts; [47,48]), and animal professional accreditation bodies regarding the emphasis on reinforcement procedures in behaviour change programmes (e.g., Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive Standard; [54,55]).…”

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Compulsive Behavior in Dogs: A Case Report

“…These findings strongly suggest that using aversive stimuli during the training impairs the welfare of companion dogs, both inside and outside the educational context. In parallel, one of the studies aimed at assessing the link between training methods and dog–owner relationship showed that a secure attachment seems to be more effective in dogs trained with reward methods, as revealed by behaviors observed during the “Strange Situation Procedure” ( 13 ). Therefore, in the present study we documented a TC case in a 7-year-old intact male German Shepherd mixed-breed dog, who was managed by means of an interdisciplinary strategy, based on nutraceutical, pharmacological, and behavioral approaches.…”

Exploring and Developing the Questions Used to Measure the Human–Dog Bond: New and Existing Themes

“…There are likely to be many other factors within the larger oval in Figure 1 (that encompasses adaptation, expectations, and boundaries) that influence each HDB in a unique way and could be explored further in future research. These other factors include training methods [ 27 , 28 ], individual differences or each party’s personality, previous experiences, aspects of the environment, other relationships and social support networks, husbandry responsibilities, time spent together, and quality of experiences shared. The three main themes that emerged in this study are discussed in more depth below.…”