Ethical Views On Animals May Influence Dog Training Choices

Your Beliefs About Animals May Determine Whether You Reach for Treats or a Prong Collar

A dog owner who thinks of themselves as an animal lover might still reach for a prong collar when their dog won’t stop jumping on guests. A new study suggests that training choices may reflect more than knowledge or experience. They may also reflect what owners believe, at a fundamental level, about the moral status of animals.

Research published in the journal Anthrozoös found a clear link between a dog owner’s ethical beliefs about animals and the training methods they use. Owners who placed human interests above animal interests were less likely to use reward-based training and more likely to use physical corrections, including leash jerks, prong collars, or citronella spray. Owners who believed animals deserve protection from suffering leaned the other way. The authors describe it as the first study to quantitatively examine this connection.

Dog training has long been a contentious topic. Professionals and pet owners argue about whether to use treats and praise, physical corrections, or some mix of both. What has been missing from that conversation is an understanding of why people land where they do.

How Dog Owners Were Recruited and What They Were Asked

Researchers surveyed 964 dog owners in the United States, ultimately analyzing responses from 500 participants. To qualify, participants had to be at least 18 years old, own a dog for a minimum of three months, and have actively trained that dog.

Participants were recruited through Facebook posts on the first author’s personal page and a wide range of dog-focused groups, from hunting dog communities and service dog circles to support groups for owners of reactive or fearful dogs. The survey ran from late January through late February 2022.

To measure ethical beliefs, researchers used an established tool that placed participants along a spectrum, from those who believe animals deserve the same rights as humans, to those who see animals primarily as resources that exist to serve human needs, with more moderate welfare-oriented views in between.

Participants were asked how often they used each of four training approaches across four common behaviors: coming when called, loose leash walking, not stealing objects, and not jumping on people.

Dog Training Methods Varied Widely, But Ethics Played a Clear Role

Reward-based training was widespread in some form. About 97% of participants reported using verbal praise at least sometimes, and about 86% used treats or toys. But the study’s stricter definition of Positive Training, meaning high use of praise and treats combined with very low use of verbal reprimands and physical corrections, was met by only about 18% of participants.

Two ethical belief categories were clearly tied to Positive Training. Owners who scored higher on human-centered beliefs were less likely to qualify as Positive Trainers, while owners who scored higher on animal protection beliefs were more likely to qualify. Owners who scored high on Animal Rights beliefs, meaning the view that animals matter as much as humans and deserve the same rights, were not significantly more likely to use mostly reward-based training.

For physical corrections, three of the four categories showed associations. Owners with higher human-centered scores were more likely to use them; those with higher Animal Rights or Animal Protection scores were more likely to avoid them. Lay Utilitarianism was not tied to either outcome.

Dog Training Classes, Age, and Other Patterns

A few other patterns stood out. Owners who had worked professionally with dogs were more likely to use Positive Training. Attending training classes was associated with both higher Positive Training use and less frequent physical corrections. Younger owners were more likely to use physical corrections than older participants, a finding that runs against the assumption that younger generations are automatically more progressive in how they treat animals.

Over 82% of participants identified as female, compared to 54% of primary dog caretakers nationally. More than 60% had worked professionally with dogs, and nearly 40% said their dog’s primary purpose beyond companionship was dog sports. German Shepherds were significantly overrepresented, likely due to recruitment from groups tied to a competitive sport with roots in working with that breed.

When the Survey Sparked a Backlash

Data collection hit a snag partway through. When participants encountered the survey’s definition of physical correction, which included leash jerks, prong collars, hitting, shoving, and electronic collars, some objected strongly, arguing that the definition lumped animal abuse together with what they considered legitimate training tools. Some Facebook group administrators removed the survey entirely, and a vocal contingent accused the researchers of running a covert campaign to get aversive tools banned in the U.S. Researchers acknowledged the backlash likely drove away owners who use physical corrections, meaning aversive-method use is probably more common in the broader population than the data captured.

Anyone trying to nudge a dog owner toward gentler methods may be pushing against a whole worldview, not just a stubborn habit. That’s a much harder sell than sharing a study or recommending a training class. And the gap between “almost everyone uses treats sometimes” and “only about 18% qualify as mostly reward-based trainers” says something on its own: a lot of owners believe they’re already doing the right thing.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on an observational study and reflects associations found among a specific sample of U.S. dog owners. The findings do not establish cause and effect, and the sample is not representative of all dog owners nationally.

---