Yes, I definitely agree that we shape a dog’s behavior through operant conditioning techniques. In operant conditioning, there are two classes of techniques – reward techniques (positive reinforcement and negative punishment) and aversive techniques (negative reinforcement and positive punishment).

As you know, reward training does not just include giving treats. Reward training includes both positive reinforcement and negative punishment techniques. Positive reinforcement is used to reinforce desirable behaviors and negative punishment is used to discourage bad behaviors. According to dog psychology and dog behavior, both reward and aversive methods can be used to both encourage good behaviors and stop bad behaviors.

As you say, dogs are not humans. Similarly, humans are not dogs. When we try to bite a dog’s neck with our fingers, the dog does not suddenly think that we are a dog or even a mama dog.

Rather, we are applying an aversive stimulus to a sensitive part of the dog (his neck). If we apply that stimulus with the right timing and the right force, then we will get an aversive response from the dog and he will be discouraged from performing a given behavior.

A very common aversive stimulus is pain. Leash corrections, for example, ‘work’ by applying a pain stimulus.

But at the end of the day-most dog owners are lazy and will NOT follow what you teach no matter HOW long you talk about it.

I agree that it can be a challenge to convince people to change. However, I also believe that most people love their dogs very much, so if they see that changing their ways is important and will result in significant positive results, then they will make the effort to change.

As you say however, it can be difficult to execute certain methods well, which is why aversive methods are risky. When not applied properly, aversive techniques can cause aggression, stress, and degrade quality of life. Similarly, using the wrong equipment on the wrong dog can cause bad results.

Lastly, people wanting dogs should really really research breed based on their own lifestyles.

That is true and I agree.

I just wanted to say that its nice to see a discussion that doesnt include “bad mouthing” Ceasar Millan. You made so many good points and I commend you on doing so. As a lifetime dog trainer myself I just wanted to add to some of the things you discussed. The biggest problem that I encounter on a daily basis is the inability of dog owners to avoid humans from treating their dogs like people. Dogs DO NOT rationalize as we do…no matter how much you think they do. They react to your own body language and tone and a condtioning response we give them. Every time your dog acts crazy and you pet and say “ok, its ok” you are totally praising bad behavior. So their conditioned response when they see you is to act in that way that gets them praise. Alot of the big pet stores treat train. The dog isnt thinking about “oh Im sitting yay!” Its thinking “I want that treat-its food” and will do the “trick” as I call it. Dog behavior and the Ceasar methods work the instinctive insides of a dog. He isnt harsh, he isnt mean, he is acting like a dog would act. I tell my clients to watch wolf behavior. The way they interact with each other and you will find a lot of simular behavior in your own dog. Dogs are family memebers to us, we are a pack to them only. You mentioned Ceasar not talking about equipment enough. Im glad that he doesnt because Ive seen it MANY times in my career. You show how to use a leather collar-you train the owner, the dog. But at the end of the day-most dog owners are lazy and will NOT follow what you teach no matter HOW long you talk about it. Its been my most frustrating issue with dog owners over the years. I believe that is why he doesnt emphasize it. Plus, in the long run, equipment shouldnt determine your dog. Behavior and respcet should. Lastly, people wanting dogs should really really research breed based on their own lifestyles. Ive seen numerous cases with clients who picked a dog because it was cute. If you are a person who cannot walk a dog at a fast pace or get involved in agility type activity-please please please do NOT get a border collie type breed. If you are a timid person, please please please do not get a pitbull, a bulldog, a rottweiller, or a mastiff because you want protection. It NEVER EVER works out in the end. Cheers and have a great day!

As described in the paragraph above, these were the aversive techniques most commonly used by dog owners in the survey.

Here is another excerpt from the article -
“But according to a new study from Penn’s School of Veterinary Science, Millan’s approach may not be quite so effective as he makes it out to be. In fact, the study suggests “firm” discipline—and so-called “aversive” discipline techniques, in which dogs are corrected using aggressive measures—may actually backfire, making dogs more likely to lash out at other dogs, people and even their owners.”

According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.
~~[Questions about ‘aversive’ training]

Perhaps you are questioning the study itself, in which case it is best to take it up with the behavioral scientists and their students at UPenn.

Indeed neither I nor the study say that aversive techniques will never work. However, the results show that they are risky and can cause more behavioral issues.

There are also studies on the use of shock collars and choke collars.

Congratulations on your new future dog.

I must take issue with your cavalier reference to the Penn 2009 study on aversive techniques. If one reads the linked article, it becomes clear that the “aversive techniques” used by the dog owners are clearly NOT techniques that responsible trainers using aversive techniques would use: 43% HIT the dog, for heavens’ sake! It’s irresponsible on your part to equate without qualification the “aversive techniques” used by Millan and other trainers with “aversive techniques” used by desperate nd/ignorant dog owners.

That said I look forward to reading your other blogs. I always appreciate it when people approach topics, especially controversial ones, with an open mind and balanced attitude.

You are absolutely right that aversive techniques can work. This has been proven by many years of study in animal psychology. Both reward techniques and aversive techniques can be used to modify dog behavior.

However, aversive techniques are a lot more risky. As you say, it needs to be applied with the right timing, right technique, right energy, and on the right dog. Applying aversive techniques, especially physical aversive techniques on the wrong dog will bring bad results for both dog and owner.

Every single episode commercial break return warns not to attempt these techniques without the help of a professional.

This message is a stroke of genius. It allows the show to feature more risky aversive techniques without putting the network and others at risk for any financial or personal liability.

To me, it is a strange message. Which techniques should I not attempt? Some of them? All of them? In that case, is the show only for entertainment and I should just ignore everything that Millan says?

Millan is charismatic, and a very effective communicator. I think it is only natural that we will follow the advice of someone whom we respect and who comes across as so effective over the t.v.. I see people alpha rolling their dogs here, there, everywhere – often times for exhibiting normal dog behavior.

As for causing discomfort or unpleasant sensations for the dog, I think that this is a teaching tool for any situation. If we get a speeding ticket in our adult life, it causes a degree of discomfort.

Very interesting example! A speeding ticket, to me, is more like a reward technique – you are taking away a resource – i.e. money or freedom to drive from someone who is exhibiting an undesirable driving behavior.

This is very different in my mind compared to a physical aversive technique. There, you are adding an aversive stimulus – often pain – to deter a behavior.

A “bite” with the hand that Cesar utilizes hardly causes true pain to my dogs, when they play with one another they use more force than that.

You bring up a very good point here – physical aversive techniques are often based on the degree of force applied. Too little force, and the dog will just ignore it, too much force and the dog will become overly stressed and be unable to learn. The degree of pain felt by the dog, I imagine, will be based on the temperament of the dog and the level of force applied.

Some sensitive people ‘feel pain’ when others may not. Some dogs get very stressed even from a yell and no physical touch at all. Pain/stress is relative.

You are right that a tap can be used to startle someone if it is wholly unexpected – but this would only work if you use the tap very rarely. The ability to startle is quickly lost in cases where the ‘touch’ is used over and over again. In those cases, it is the amount of ‘force’ that matters.

I write more about the magical touch here is you are interested …
http://shibashake.com/dog/the-squirrel-instinct-can-it-be-retrained

Also dogs have great control over the placement and force of their bites. When they are young, they learn what level of force is appropriate during play because if they hurt their siblings, there is a squeal and play stops. Through this process dogs learn bite inhibition which is a very useful skill to have.

He encourages with alpha rolls to make it a pleasant experience for the dog once calm-submissive.

Your comment really made me think and it made me realize that people’s opinions on dog training techniques are often highly determined by their own experiences with their dogs – that is only natural. You have had great success with alpha rolls etc – and so in your experience they are a useful and effective tool. I, on the other hand, have had bad experiences with aversive methods and so I have a negative perception of them.

It is just not possible to stay truly objective when it comes to our dogs – similar to our kids.

One thing we can do though is to look to scientific studies that have been conducted on dogs and other animals.

Another thing that has been interesting for me is to also look at what different dog-breed communities say about the techniques in general. There definitely seems to be a general slant towards or against the techniques depending on type of breed.

This makes sense because certain breeds have temperaments that are very unsuited towards aversive methods – including truly stubborn and truly independent breeds.

Aversive techniques can work. If they didn’t work at all – there would be no issues because nobody would use them. The question, I think, is not whether aversive techniques work but whether there are alternative techniques that work better.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion.