A new study explores how the training methods dog owners use reflect their ethical views on animals.
The findings may give dog owners new insight into why they choose certain training approaches over others.
Whether a dog owner rewards their dog with a treat or corrects it by pulling on the leash is not simply a matter of what they believe to be the most effective training method.
According to the study, owners’ choice of training methods is linked to their ethical stance on how animals should be treated and used.
The results come from a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Copenhagen in collaboration with colleagues from the University of Edinburgh.
Dog owners with an animal welfare-oriented ethical stance are less likely to use punishment-based training methods than those who believe that animals are there for humans to use.
“If you use punishment as part of dog training, you are more likely to view dogs as existing primarily for human purposes. If you use less punishment and rely more on positive training methods, you are more likely to orient yourself towards the idea that animals should have rights, or at least good welfare,” says Peter Sandøe, a professor at the veterinary and animal sciences department at the University of Copenhagen and senior author of the study.
The study is based on responses from 500 dog owners in the United States, who were surveyed about their training practices.
Positive training methods—such as treats, toys, and verbal praise—were widely used among respondents, while punishment-based methods, including verbal reprimands or physical correction, were used less frequently.
The participants were also asked about their views on animals and were categorized based on their responses. Overall, respondents reflected three main types of ethical orientation towards animals: an anthropocentric orientation, an animal welfare-oriented ethics stance, and an animal rights orientation.
The results show that dog owners with an anthropocentric animal‑ethical stance are more likely to use punishment‑based methods than owners who believe that animals are entitled to good welfare or rights. In addition, owners who believe that animals are entitled to good welfare were more likely to use positive methods than owners with an anthropocentric stance.
According to Sandøe, the study indicates that choice of dog training methods does not solely reflect technical knowledge or understanding of learning theory.
“Training is not a neutral activity. It is an activity in which the owner’s view of the animal becomes apparent. The methods people choose also reflect their beliefs about what our moral obligations towards animals are.”
From this perspective, influencing choice of training methods is not merely a technical or professional issue.
“It is not only about learning theory—it is also an ethical discussion. You cannot isolate it as something purely technical or sciency, as some tend to do,” says Sandøe.
Although the study was conducted in the United States, similar patterns may be expected in other countries, explains Sandøe. While the distribution of ethical views may vary across countries, the relationship between ethical orientation and the choice of training methods is likely to be comparable.
At the same time, the findings may encourage reflection among dog owners.
“The study creates room for reflection. Ethics appears to play an important role in why people do what they do when training their dogs,” says Peter Sandøe.
Overall, the study highlights considerable variation in how people relate to animals.
“People have very different views on animals, and dog training is an area that really divides opinions,” concludes Peter Sandøe.
The study is not representative, and the results cannot therefore be used to estimate how widespread different training methods or ethical orientations are in the general population. The study focuses solely on the relationship between training choices and ethical orientation.
The study used a measure of animal ethical orientation developed by researchers at the University of Copenhagen. This measure has also been applied in previous studies examining the relationship between animal ethics views and consumer choices, such as the purchase of pork with or without animal welfare labels.
Additional contributors to the study are from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Copenhagen.
The study appears in the journal Anthrozoös.
Source: University of Copenhagen
