For owners of unruly dogs, a short yank on their lead and a stern telling-off can sometimes seem the only way of keeping their wayward pets in line.
But a new study claims that such methods of making sure your dog behaves can cause the animal mental trauma and have an impact on its welfare.
It found that pets who are trained using such, “aversive” techniques were 15 times more likely to exhibit symptoms of stress than those trained using more “positive” techniques, such as the use of treats for rewards and softer voices.
Dogs taught using the latter methods were also found to display greater contentment and enjoy a better relationship with their owners.
The research serves as a repudiation of the authoritative style – still used to train many British dogs – popularised in the 1970s by Barbara Woodhouse and now advocated by many modern trainers, such as Cesar Millan, a prominent international expert known as the Dog Whisperer.
However, the study has sparked controversy, with some experts claiming that relying solely on “positive” methods can lead to dogs failing to properly learn the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and can make them too “spoilt”.
The research, published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, involved monitoring two dog training schools. One relied primarily on “negative reinforcement” where the animal is encouraged to perform tasks by the use of unpleasant stimuli, such as having a collar pulled, a harsh voice sounded, or being pushed to sit, until it learns to complete the tasks without them.
The other school involved “positive reinforcement” teaching, with dogs receiving treats, being petted, praised and played with when they have obediently performed a task.
Those taking part were from a cross section of breeds and ages, while their owners were from a range of social backgrounds.
All had been training for several months and were enrolled in an “advanced” class.
The two groups were then observed undertaking tasks, such as being ordered to sit, and walking on a lead.
The researched monitored the owners’ behaviour and recorded the animals’ body postures.
When told to “sit”, the dogs who had been trained using the negative reinforcement methods showed far more signs of stress, such as mouth licking (in 38 per cent of cases, compared to eight per cent among the other group), yawning (12 per cent, compared with none in the other group) and lowered body posture (46 per cent, compared with eight per cent). Almost one in ten (eight per cent) from the negative group also shook or whined – a behaviour not seen at all in the other group.
Altogether, 65 per cent of dogs in the “negative” group demonstrated at least one stress-related behaviour, compared with only eight per cent among those who were trained with more positive methods.
On the other hand, the dogs trained with rewards were far more likely to offer spontaneous gazes at their owner – behaviour that is interpreted as an invitation to visually interact, and a sign of a healthy relationship. Almost nine out of ten of these dogs did this, compared with just a third of those from the other class.
While observing the walking on a loose lead exercise, again, those from the “negative” school had a lower body posture (15 per cent, compared to four per cent), and, again, more dogs in the positive school offered a spontaneous gaze (63 per cent, compared with four per cent).
Dr Florence Gaunet, from Aix-Marseille University, in France, who led the study, said: “What we noticed is that it was bad for the relationship to be trained “negatively”. They were more likely to show a lower posture and more signs of stress. Of course there are concerns about welfare.
“There are welfare issues with the negative method. There is a trade-off between obedience and welfare. It is an ethical question. All countries need dogs that are under the control of humans, but I think it requires more thinking how this is done. We are now trying to think more about welfare and I think we should be more careful.”
But Dr Roger Mugford, an animal psychologist and author of The Perfect Dog, said there were benefits to “negative” methods and that a reliance solely on “positive” training, could lead to indulged and badly behaved pets.
“It is a bit like realising that children need boundaries and having to say no. That doesn’t mean using cruel methods. It means owners have to be not so indulgent.
“There is a feeling that dogs have to be our friends and always trust us. But if a dog is out chasing sheep, or jumping up at old ladies, or chasing joggers, or trying kill next door’s cat, then he is not my friend and I have got to stop him.
“They need to have boundaries. It is rather like an indulgent form of parenting. Often it produces poorly behaved children. What we are seeing at the moment is a marked increase in anti social behaviours amongst British dogs, and dog bites, and dogs out of control.”
This study comes at a time of greater scrutiny of the psychological well-being of dogs, as well as concerns about their behaviour. Research in 2012 found that 80 per cent of dogs exhibited some sort of behavioural problem. At the same time, an increasing number are being diagnosed with conditions such as “phobias”, “obsessive compulsive disorders” and “separation-related problems”.
The training issue also echoes a wider debate on the raising children and the comparative merits of using positive or negative reinforcement.
The “negative” dog method is based on showing who is in charge. At its most extreme, it can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars, restricting dogs’ air supply using nooses – although none of these methods were covered in the study.
The more positive approach is about making pet ownership more of a partnership. It is now practised by, among others, Victoria Stilwell, who appeared in the Channel 4 series It’s Me of the Dog.
The late Mrs Woodhouse became a household name with her TV series Training Dogs the Woodhouse Way. She was known for saying that there were 'no bad dogs’, only owners who lacked experience at asserting the pecking order.
