Terms and conditions policy applies to all content. I am all about sharing and giving credit where it is due. Please read the disclaimer. Thank you
Underlying Factors Influencing Dog Owner’s Choice of Training Methods
Vivian Zottola-Gefke ANZ518 Psychology of the Human-Animal Relationship Canisius College Fall Semester 2018 Abstract Dog training is an unregulated profession in the United States and anyone can practice regardless of qualifications or lack thereof. Dog trainers traditionally used punitive measures to train the dog owning public. They began to change their approach in the 1990’s following the success of animal trainers using positive reinforcement operant conditioning techniques with other non human animals (Pryor, 2009). An abundance of scientific literature to support a direct link between aversive dog training methods and psychological stress including aggression, anxiety and excitability in dogs has been published over the past ten years (Schilder andVan der Borg 2004; Blackwell, Twells, Seawright, Casey, 2008). And while there is consensus among canine professionals and scientists about detrimental effects of punitive dog training, including the development of phobias and increased aggression (Overall 2013, Schilder andVan der Borg 2004, Gal Ziv 2016), the practice remains unrestricted to the public. Short of legislative intervention to ban the practice of punitive training methods with dogs, the onus is on the public to learn about potential welfare effects and impending outcome. In this paper I explore current literature and empirical evidence underlying factors which may influence a dog owners’ decision to use reward based or punitive training/teaching methods when training. Environmental learning, parenting styles, attachment styles, personality, attitudes and cultural factors are examined. I will attempt to offer gaps in research and direction for future efforts. Environmental Learning and Training The development of behavior in any species is influenced by genetic and environmental factors and while some individuals are predisposed to develop more pronounced characteristics due to susceptibility of their genotype, environmental learning becomes that more crucial (Overall et al.,2006). According to Dr. Susan Friedman PhD, Utah State University (n.d.) when considering environmental learning, humans and dogs learn from their emotions and how they feel about something (internal environment) and from antecedents including people, places and things around them (external environment). Humans are part of a dogs’ environment thereby affecting learning. The first step toward improving challenging pet dog behaviors in a relationship is early recognition that the dog owner affects both environments for dogs directly or indirectly. In many cases antecedent management will result in improved pet dog behaviors. For example, covering the waste basket to reduce unwanted scavenging behavior is a quick fix for the dog owner however, understanding foraging is a natural and normal behavior for dogs may help the dog owner change their behavior. Providing dogs with alternative engagement such as a toy or food puzzle allows the dog owner to manage the environment while the dog is afforded an outlet to practice their species typical behavior. The dog owner manages the environment by providing enrichment and reducing frustration for both. Understanding differences between species through education and sensitivity training will help the dog owner learn productive strategies and improve tolerance for dog owners. In other cases where there may be underlying pathologies or conditioned fear responses reinforced over time, a more advanced methodical training approach is required to remedy the situation. Parsing out the function of the behavior(s) as it relates to the context of the environment is tied in to understanding what motivates the dog. Behavior modification dog training is a complex process requiring highly skilled observation and in depth evaluation of past history and environmental conditions including training methods and equipment favored by the dog owner. The notion of personhood and how a non human animal is viewed by a human as a subject or object influences their relationship (Sanders, 1999) and the dog owners decision on which dog training method will be employed. The relationship between structured training (formal training classes) and unstructured training (in home training or no training) and behavior problems was researched by Blackwell, Seawright, Casey,(2008) who found the highest number of undesirable behaviors were presented with dog trainers that used both positive and negative reinforcement methods (p.212). Located in the United Kingdom, researchers who were interested in examining the relationship between training methods and behavior problems conducted a qualitative and quantitative study. They solicited dog owners while outdoors walking their dogs or accompanying their dog to their veterinarian. Questions were provided on a questionnaire and structured in such a way as to allow the respondent to describe behaviors as objectively as possible (p.208). Researchers categorized three training methods including positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and positive punishment. Of the 192 respondents 67% attended a formal training class (27% puppy socialization classes, 40% general obedience training class), 67% of respondents were females, 43% had no children, , 71% acquired their dogs from breeders within the first three months of the dogs life and 72% of the population surveyed used some form of positive punishment (p. 209). In this survey researchers found an increase in dog aggression scores with dog owners that trained on their own in their home verses receiving formal training and lower reactivity to dogs outside the home for those dogs that attended a puppy socialization class (p.211). The population of dogs acquired from breeders at a young age was high indicating the population was primed for learning from the environment. It would have been good to know if dog owners observed any behavior challenges to distinguish normal species typical behaviors or early pathologies. While the questionnaire was self reporting, researchers did make a concerted effort to formulate questions so to increase objectivity. However, the population sample wasn’t evenly distributed between female to males and we didn’t know who was primarily responsible for the dog. An interesting point made was researchers found a high percentage of respondents were female with no children. While the findings show an association between punitive training methods and aggression, it would have been useful to include inquiries about parenting styles and attachment to illuminate further, the reasons for choosing one training method over another. In an effort to evaluate human and canine bonds as they related to reward based training and dominance training, Greenebaum (2010) employed an ethnographic study observing two training classes over an eight week period. There is no analysis of data but rather the study relies qualitative information in the form of note taking and coding behaviors of interactions between dog owners and their dogs. The researcher focused on body language and relations between dog owners (“guardian”). The operant training styles included dominance and punitive training where the collar, leash and verbal discipline was used to correct behaviors, and the other trainer used positive reinforcement methods giving the dog freedom to make choices. Unlike reward based training punitive method resulted in fearful body language in dogs. While it would be unethical to design a study where punitive methods were used to measure differences in training styles, today we can reference past studies that these techniques result in high rates of aggression in dogs. In looking at short and longer term effects of using punitive training methods researchers found employing pain using shock collars was not only stressful for the dog while training but longer term the dogs learned outside of the training event or environment the presence of the owner and or their commands were associated with a stressful event causing them to present stressful behaviors (Schilder and van der Borg, 2003). Use of aversive equipment including shock collars to train dogs, continues to be used on dogs by trainers and their owners. An underlying reason for continued use of punitive methods could be explained by the social psychology studies conducted by Milgram in 1960’s on obedience to authority figures and personal conscience. In the Milgram experiments people were shown to administer shocks to a stranger at the request of an authority figure regardless that the shock was lethal. Before the experiments it was thought only individuals with pathological or psychopathic conditions would comply however Milgram proved otherwise as seemingly stable people were able to inflict pain. (Blass, 1999). Parenting Styles As our society considers more and more dogs as family members, we see the same human child caretaking trends emerge from child parenting literature. Diana Baurind (1966) reported on three human parenting styles including permissive, authoritatrian and authoritative used to influence child nurturing and education. Permissive parenting is one that does not use punitive methods and “allows the child to do as they please without overt power” (p.889). Authoritarian parenting is more constraining “valuing obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points” where child and parent conflict (p.890). Authoritative parenting style directs a child’s activities in a rational, negotiating manner, “enforces her own perspective as an adult, but recognizes the child’s individual interests and special ways” (p.891). Since her first report, fifty years of research has consistently supported the view that authoritative parenting style is most beneficial to a child’s individual and societal needs, “promoting emotional support, an appropriate level of autonomy and improved bidirectional communication” in children and adolescents (Darling and Steinberg, 1993, p. 487). Now legally banned, it is hard to imagine that only a few short decades ago corporal punishment was the norm in schools and homes as a means of teaching children. That said, behind closed doors away from peering eyes corporal punishment still remains a means of discipline preferred by some parents regardless that “ it is associated with decreased child-parent relations, poor mental health, delinquent behaviors and an increase in the victim abusing their own children and or spouse” (Kazdin and Benjet, 2003, p.100-102). Parenting styles and their affect on children has been widely researched in human psychology, however, not as extensively in human dog relationships until recently. Researchers in the Netherlands designed the first interspecies study to investigate similarities between human child parenting styles and dog owner relationships (Van Herwijnen, Van Der Borg, Naguib, Beerda,2018). Using an adapted version of a well established parenting questionnaire, 518 Dutch dog owning parents with at least one child were surveyed. Following analysis, researchers determined dog parenting and child parenting styles correlated to a high degree with the authoritative parenting style at 72.4% dog and 83.3% child respectively (p. 6,9). The study demonstrates parenting styles across species is similar. The choice for authoritative style was preferred over others. This study does not confirm or rule out the permissive (disinterested) parenting styles which may suggest the population surveyed had a pre existing bias toward dogs (p.10). Also notable, the population surveyed was predominantly women and homogeneous from the same geography with possibly a similar cultural history. It would be interesting to evaluate if this same study including a higher population of males and different geographic locations would change findings. Another study investigated parenting styles of dog owners and collected an online survey from a population of 653 dog owners across the United States (Volsche and Gray 2016). Dog owners were solicited from a variety of locations including “veterinarian hospitals, pet businesses, grooming, retail shops, and rescue organizations” (p.3). The online survey included two questionnaires, training philosophy statements and open ended questions. A greater percentage of respondents were female 90% (male 9.2%), had no children 79% , and reported low to middle class income 88% (p.5). Findings showed a greater number of respondents described their relationships using words including “parent” 39% and “guardian” 26% (65%) rather than owner 24% (p.5,6). Again as in the previous study authoritative parenting style was preferred by this population. Also similar as the last, women respondents were greater in number than men in this study. Unlike the previous, respondents were represented from every state in the United States giving us a broader view of demographics (p.5). The authors provide a useful comparison between human parenting styles and dog training methods in this study. They list reward based training styles as compared to authoritative parenting styles (p.9). Attachment Styles and Personality Social relationships for humans and canines have evolutionary origins important to survival and sound psychological development. Strong emotional and physical parental bonds allow individuals to explore the world with more confidence, trust in others and as a result become individually and socially successful in life. Insecure human attachments, due to poor parental relations at an early age, can have lasting detrimental consequences including insecurity and distrust (Bretherton,1992). Researchers have found correlations between attachment styles including attachment anxiety associated with neurotic personality types, and attachment avoidance negatively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness (Shaver and Brennan 1992). As with human infants needing to form attachments with their parents, dogs attach to humans at an early age. Between the ages of six and ten weeks when dogs are generally acquired, the human becomes the primary attachment figure (Scott, Fuller 1965). Using a canine version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test, researchers showed as with human infants, dogs display a stress-response when separated by their human. They concluded like humans dogs seek close proximity, for exploring the environment and building confidence (Prato-Previde, Spiezio, Sabatini, Custance, 2003). How owner personality is linked between dog owner personality and affects on presenting behaviors displayed by dogs has also been extensively reviewed. In one study owners who scored high in neurotic and emotionally unstable personality categories had dogs presenting high rates of destructiveness, aggression and attention seeking behaviors (Podberscek and Serpell,1997). In a recent study Dodman, Brown, Serpell (2018) surveyed 1564 dog owners using an online qualitative survey that combined five questionnaires to evaluate the relationship between dog owner personalities and psychological status looking for a correlation to training preference (p.3 ). While there was no direct correlation to “owner personality and dog behavior problems mediated or effected predominantly via training methods”(p.8), the study did find aversive training techniques were employed among men with moderate depression”(p.7). The number and quality of the training questions may have limited findings and as discussed by authors the very nature of the questionnaire being self reporting makes it subjective to bias answers (p.9). Perhaps if this study had designed objective questions developed in conjunction with independent behavior specialists experienced in both dog training and behavior and had these same individuals conduct in person interviews to observe and document behaviors, subsequent findings may have evidenced more correlations between training preferences and personality. Another study conducted in by researchers in Hungary and Germany used qualitative and quantitative methods to study owner characteristics focusing on attachment style and personality. This was an exploratory study to evaluate if certain owner attachment styles increased separation related disorders in dogs. Owners who scored higher on attachment avoidance (less responsive to the dog’s needs and did not provide a secure base for the dog when needed) were more likely to have dogs with separation related disorder. The questionnaire was completed by a large population of individuals including 1185 Germans and 323 Hungarians, different country populations close in cultural heritage. The questionnaire was online and self reported. Dogs were not screened by a behavior specialists and so the “direction and causality of the relationship was uncertain” (p.9). This is another example where working with behavior consultant specialists could have provided support to the study. Separation Anxiety in dogs is still under investigation however there are potential pathological causes including negative imprinting early in life when sensitive brain development occurs typically between eleven and sixteen weeks. Traumatic changes in the environment or early separation from the mother before the age of seven weeks may negatively impact brain development (Konok, Kosztolanyi, Rainer, Mutschler, Halsband, Miklosi, 2015, Overall,2013) Cultural Differences Attitude Toward Dogs Dogs play many roles in the human animal relationship and depending on where one travels around the world they are loved by some, despised by others and even consumed for special events. Cultural values, social norms and religious views all play a part to influence how non human animals and dogs in particular are perceived and cared for by their owners. Unless a dog is feral and therefore considered autonomous, they provide a function for humans. Whether guiding the blind, protecting the vulnerable, entertaining training competition junkies, as a hunting assistance for gun sport fanatics, even as a companion for empty nesters they provide some kind of function. In some parts of this country and around the world dogs are perceived as pests, roaming free and scavenging for food posing a welfare problem because of potential infection from disease including rabies and distemper. And there are also some religions that consider dogs filthy while others consider dog a food delicacy eating them once a year, or more because they taste good (Podberscek, Paul, Serpell, 2005). How a dog owner’s cultural background influences the decision to train is a bit more complex and not widely researched however there have been attempts. Blouin (2015) conducted a series of in person interviews with 34 dog owners residing in the United States Midwest. His objective was to determine differences in how people relate to dogs and if culture played a part to influence the human dog relationship. Recorded interviews were conducted in dog owner homes and answers were coded. Three categories of dog owning people were designed from the coded answers. Dog owners fell into one of three “orientations including dominionistic, humanistic, or protectionistic” (p.282). The researcher found cultural associations with categories of orientation. The owner categorized as dominionistic orientation thinks “dogs as lesser in value and status than humans” (p.285) which is traced to “Judeo-Christian religious tradition which views animals as inferior creatures over which God gave humans domionon” (p.290). While these dog owners were fond of their dogs they referred to them as “fulfilling a certain role for the benefit of humans” ( p.290 ). They are detached from their dogs and likely to keep them outdoors regardless of the weather. Maintaining a physical distance “provides a symbolic social distance” for this dog owner (p.282) making it easier to relinquish the dog for behavior challenges. The second orientation Humanistic, “ likely has roots in parts of Europe and North America with middleclass values” with “ a rejection of traditional worldviews and expansion in authority of scientific views” (p.290). This dog owner has an intense emotional attachment to their dog and considers their role as “pet parent” in the relationship (p.290). Because dogs satisfy personal emotional needs for this type of dog owning orientation, they are more likely to anthropomorphize the dog, allow them to sleep in their beds and will have more difficulty euthanizing the dog if they were terminal ill opting instead to invest whatever money necessary to save their dog (p.282,283). Saving the dog from death because they fear the loss of being without the dog is stronger and more important to them then the dogs suffering. The protectionistic orientation is a dog owner “characterized as one with a strong attachment to their dog and general concern for other animals” (p.287). This dog owner’s orientation is one that “is likely rooted in modern animal welfare movement which began in England and the United States in the late 1800s” (p.290), these individuals are actively involved in animal welfare and animal activist organizations. They allow their dogs independence believing “their relations are governed by their perceptions of their animals’ needs and desires, rather than their own” (p.290). Interestingly the first and only reference to training is associated with this orientation. The author describes this dog owning orientation as one who is least likely to train their dogs since they believe doing so would “infringe on their autonomy” (p.288). While the author provides some detail information about demographics no detailed information is provided about how the sample population breaks down. And while we know questions were open ended and later coded we do not know what questions were asked, how they were framed, or what physical behavioral observations about the relationship between dog and dog owner were made. We also do not know how many individuals fall in the different categories or the differences in cultural heritage and how these compare to the topology of orientations designed. A study conducted in Norway surveyed 1896 dog owners to determine correlations between animal directed empathy and attitudes. An online survey was answered by dog owners using a questionnaire and including the review of photos of dogs at veterinary clinics in various conditions of distress. Researchers found females scored higher than males at identifying pain, empathy, and positive attitudes toward pet dogs. Those with childhood pet experience also scored significantly higher in empathy and attitudes about their pet dogs. While the study found positive correlations between dog owners and their dogs, the population was a homogenous group of predominantly Norwegian females and all members of the Norwegian Kennel Club. (Ellingsen et al 2010). Conclusion A dog owner’s perspective about their relationship with their dog is shaped over time by personal experiences, upbringing, education, socio economic factors and environment. The relationship they form with their dog is complex and is influenced by social, cultural and religious beliefs. While individuals acquire dogs for various reasons and differ in caretaking styles, their decision on whether or not to train and the method they use directly impacts the welfare of the dog and public at large. Clearly there is a cohabitation issue between humans and dogs and we see this largely in the numbers that are reported. A staggering 3.3 million dogs on average are surrendered to shelters and ultimately euthanized each year (ASPCA, 2018). There are a myriad of reasons reported for relinquishment with the top reason being behavior (AVSAB, 2008). In 2015 the Center for Disease Control reported 4.5 million dog bites occur each year with one in five becoming infected and in 2017, the claims paid out by homeowners liability insurance for dog bites paid out a staggering $700 million dollars. Evidence tells us reward based teaching methods can lead to psychologically balanced adult dogs and harmonious relationships between dog owners and their dogs. However, managing expectations between two species using different communication repertoires requires more than training body mechanics and operant conditioning based on positive reinforcement. Incorporating a cross discipline approach to dog training including sensitivity training, honing observational skills, understanding canine ethology, psychological, physiological and social development will further help dog owners build tolerance and understanding. Academic science is moving in the right direction. Over the past ten years canine related scientific research has influenced important societal changes. Most recently we see a trending shift in small animal veterinary care and within the training communities. The National Association of Veterinary Conference (NAVC) and other veterinary teaching institutions are adding applied clinical behavior courses, as well as behavior and mental health training to their curriculum. The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), a body that establishes standards of care in veterinary clinics is promoting the Fear Free Initiative ™ to ensure both emotional and physical wellbeing in their patients. More veterinarians are taking a team approach adding veterinary behavior technicians and dog training professionals to their practices. Within the training community three well regarded establishments, International Association of Behavior Consultants (IAABC), Council of Certified Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT) and Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT) have joined to publish a unified standard of practice. These changes and strategic alignments may be early signs of legislative changes to come in the dog training profession. Science is on the right track, however, more interdisciplinary research and connects are needed. More study questionnaires designed by professional canine behavior specialists versed in understanding canine ethology would help avoid bias or misconstrued information related to dog behavior. More studies evidencing relationships between training methods, behavioral outcome and the welfare affect to the public could be designed to further support reward based training methods. Findings could further support the need to regulate the profession. Also public awareness about benefits of training is important to the welfare of dogs and the community. More demographic studies investigating associations with geographic location, income, and training methods might help illuminate areas that require training and education. An abundance of literature exists to influence public opinion and adopt legislative changes that will help protect dogs, their people and the community. How these studies are being used could be reviewed. What’s the point of conducting studies if findings are not shared with the public or used for change? It seems as with the use of corporal punishment and children fifty years ago, nothing changed human child parenting behavior, not even scientific evidence until regulation was adopted to restrict its use. Perhaps the same restriction on use of aversive training methods with dogs would fair similar outcome. Citations American Animal Hospital Association, Retrieved December 2018 from doi:https://www.aaha.org/professional/membership/fearfreecertification.aspx American Animal Hospital Association, Retrieved December 2018 from doi:https://www.aaha.org/professional/about_aaha/default.aspx American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, Retrieved December 2018 from doi: https://avsab.org/wp -content/uploads/2018/03/Puppy_Socialization_Position_Statement_Download_-_10-3-14.pdf Association of Professional Dog Trainers, Retrieved from doi: https://apdt.com/ Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907. Blackwell, E.J., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey,R.A. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3(5). 207-217. Blass, T. (Ed.). (1999). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Psychology Press. Blouin, D. D. (2013). Are dogs children, companions, or just animals? Understanding variations in people's orientations toward animals. Anthrozoös, 26(2), 279-294. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775 Center for Disease Control Dog Bite Statistics, Retrieved December 2018 from, doi:https://www.cdc.gov/features/dog-bite-prevention/ Council of Certified Professional Dog Trainers, Retrieved December 2018 from doi: http://www.ccpdt.org/ Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological bulletin, 113(3), 487. Dodman, N. H., Brown, D. C., & Serpell, J. A. (2018). Associations between owner personality and psychological status and the prevalence of canine behavior problems. PloS one, 13(2), e0192846. Ellingsen, K., Zanella, A. J., Bjerkås, E., & Indrebø, A. (2010). The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös, 23(3), 231-243. Greenebaum, J. B. (2010). Training dogs and training humans: Symbolic interaction and dog training. Anthrozoös, 23(2), 129-141. Insurance Information Institute Statistics on costs of dog bites and associated claims, Retrieved December 2018 from, doi:https://www.iii.org/article/spotlight-on-dog-bite-liability International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, Retrieved 2018 from, doi: https://m.iaabc.org/ Kazdin, A. E., & Benjet, C. (2003). Spanking children: Evidence and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 99-103. Konok, V., Kosztolányi, A., Rainer, W., Mutschler, B., Halsband, U., & Miklósi, Á. (2015). Influence of owners’ attachment style and personality on their dogs’(Canis familiaris) separation-related disorder. PLoS One, 10(2), e0118375. Overall, K. (2013). Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. Overall, K.L., Hamilton, S.Pl, Chang, M.L., (2006). Understanding the genetic basis of canine anxiety: phenotyping dogs for behavioral, neuro-chemical and genetic assessment. Journal of Veterinary Beahvior: Clinical Applications and Research 1(3), 124-141. Podberscek, A.L. (2009). Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming of dogs and cats in south korea. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 615-632. Podberscek, A. L., Paul, E. S., & Serpell, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets. Cambridge University Press. Podberscek, A.L. & Serpell, J.A. (1997). Environmental influences on the expression of aggressive behavior in english cocker spaniels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 52(3). 215-227. Prato-Previde, E., Spiezio, C., Sabatini, F., & Custance, D.M. (2003). Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? an observational study using ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour, 140(2). 225-254. Doi:10.1163/156853903321671514 Pryor, K. (2009). Reaching the animal mind: clicker training and what it teaches us about all animals. Simon and Schuster. Utah State University (n.d.) “Living and learning with animals for professionals” Spring 2013, Retrieved from http://behaviorworks.org/ Sanders, C.R. (1990). “The animal ‘other’: Self definition, social identity, and companion animals”. Advances in consumer research, 17,662. Schilder, M. B., & Van der Borg, J. A. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied animal behaviour science, 85(3-4), 319-334. Scott, J.P., & Fuller, J.L. (2012). Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. University of Chicago Press. Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the" Big Five" personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., ... & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS one, 1(1), e39. Van Herwijnen, I. R., Van Der Borg, J. A., Naguib, M., & Beerda, B. (2018). The existence of parenting styles in the owner-dog relationship. PloS one, 13(2), e0193471 Volsche, S., & Gray, P. (2016). “Dog Moms” Use Authoritative Parenting Styles. Human–Animal Interaction Bulletin, 4, 1-16. Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 19, 50-60.
1 Comment
9/23/2022 07:22:50 am
It made sense when you wrote that antecedent management often results in enhanced pet dog conduct. That's probably why my brother wants to take pet parent training. He wants his dog to be obedient to him, that's why.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Author, Vivian ZottolaOwner Operator/Dog Behavior Specialist and Trainer Terms and conditions policy: All content provided on this webiste and this blog is for inforamtional purposes only. No modification, copy reproduction, sale or distribution of the content in any manner or medium without permission of author is allowed. Requests for content use should be made to the author directly [email protected]. The owner of the website and blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any lossess, injuries or damages from the display or use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at any time and without notice. All service and products sold are not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease. There is no guarantee of behavior change. If a sudden behavior or behavior persists, please first contact a qualified Veterinarian, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, DVM Behaviorist . The information provided by this website or this company is not a substitute for a face-to-face consultation with a veterinary health care provider, and should not be construed as individual medical or veterinary advice. The testimonials on this website are from individuals and do not guarantee or imply the same results.
Archives
January 2025
CategoriesAll Behavior Boston Dogs Euthanasia Fear-free Fearful Force-free Grief Immunology Massage Neurology Pet Loss Pet Tutor Positive Pshycology Psychological Neurological Immunology Reactive Dog Reinforcement Separation Anxiety Tellington Touch Training Vivian Walking Dogs Zottola |
Serving: Acton, Arlington, Bedford, Belmont, Boston, Brookline, Burlington, Cambridge, Concord, Framingham, Lexington, Lincoln, Malden, Medford, Newton, Somerville, Sudbury, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, Woburn.
Hours: by appointment only
Insured & Bonded Services: Business Insurers of the Carolina's
Business Mailing Address: 202 K Street, Boston, MA 02451
Hours: by appointment only
Insured & Bonded Services: Business Insurers of the Carolina's
Business Mailing Address: 202 K Street, Boston, MA 02451
Educational Content & Training Philosophy
Vivian Zottola’s Human -Dog behavior and communication training is rooted in kindness and current evidence based animal science. Behavior Training Interventions Vivian has designed are ideal for humans and their pets of all -life stages (juvenile, adolescent, adult, geriatric) and breeds regardless if acquired from a commercial, private breeder or through a rescue/shelter. Vivian provides people and their pet companions the opportunity to learn based on the individuals’ (human and animal) unique perception and personal needs. Teaching strategies incorporated may include a mix of structured reward based operant conditioning, desensitization, counter conditioning, response substitution, relaxation and replacement training for both human and pet animal. No aversive (punishment tactics including fear, pain or intimidation) tools, equipment or discipline is used in any of Vivian’s training practice.
Vivian Zottola’s Human -Dog behavior and communication training is rooted in kindness and current evidence based animal science. Behavior Training Interventions Vivian has designed are ideal for humans and their pets of all -life stages (juvenile, adolescent, adult, geriatric) and breeds regardless if acquired from a commercial, private breeder or through a rescue/shelter. Vivian provides people and their pet companions the opportunity to learn based on the individuals’ (human and animal) unique perception and personal needs. Teaching strategies incorporated may include a mix of structured reward based operant conditioning, desensitization, counter conditioning, response substitution, relaxation and replacement training for both human and pet animal. No aversive (punishment tactics including fear, pain or intimidation) tools, equipment or discipline is used in any of Vivian’s training practice.
Terms & Policy | © 2010-2024 Boston K9 Concierge LLC