Abstract
Domestic dogs are trained using a range of different methods, broadly categorised as reward based (positive reinforcement/negative punishment) and aversive based (positive punishment/negative reinforcement). Previous research has suggested associations between use of positive punishment-based techniques and undesired behaviours, but there is little research investigating the relative welfare consequences of these different approaches. This study used a judgement bias task to compare the underlying mood state of dogs whose owners reported using two or more positive punishment/negative reinforcement based techniques, with those trained using only positive reinforcement/negative punishment in a matched pair study design. Dogs were trained to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded locations equidistant from a start box, and mean latencies recorded. Their subsequent latency to intermediate ‘ambiguous’ locations was recorded as an indication of whether these were perceived as likely to contain food or not. Dogs trained using aversive methods were slower to all ambiguous locations. This difference was significant for latency to the middle (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.380, P = 0.017), and near positive (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.447, P = 0.014) locations, suggesting that dogs trained using coercive methods may have a more negative mood state, and hence that there are welfare implications of training dogs using such methods.
Highlights
Introduction3. That the use of aversive methods may inhibit behaviours in that context in which the punishment is applied, but not alter underlying emotional state, potentially leading to the subsequent return of the problem behaviour or alternative responses on exposure to the precipitating cue in other contexts
Of these 13 were removed from the dataset because suitable matches were not identified for testing, leaving 100 subjects for analysis: 50 trained with two or more aversive methods (AT group), and 50 who had not experienced these training methods according to owner report (RT group)
Because mood states are thought to be influenced by cumulative experience[16,17], we hypothesized that dogs who experienced aversive techniques during training would have a more negative mood state than those whose training was focused on rewarding desired behaviours
Summary
3. That the use of aversive methods may inhibit behaviours in that context in which the punishment is applied, but not alter underlying emotional state, potentially leading to the subsequent return of the problem behaviour or alternative responses on exposure to the precipitating cue in other contexts. 4. That the use of aversive methods can create confusion and frustration in dogs because punishment of an undesired behaviour alone does not enable the dog to understand what is required as the appropriate response to a cue. The causality of these relationships is unclear: whilst it may be that use of approaches involving aversive stimuli increase the risk of fear and aggression responses, it is possible that owners whose dogs show such behaviours are more likely to resort to these types of techniques
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
