Ethical Beliefs Shape How People Train Their Dogs

Dog training methods vary widely, ranging from positive reinforcement techniques to punishment-based approaches (see the table below). People choose different methods for teaching behaviors, and beyond practical factors, broader ethical beliefs about animals may shape their choices. Some individuals prioritize human interests over animals, while others emphasize animal welfare or rights. Examining how these ethical perspectives relate to training practices can provide insight on how guardian characteristics influence dog welfare.

The aim of this study was to examine whether there’s a relationship between dog training methods and the ethical orientations of dog guardians. The researchers predicted that punishment-based training methods would be associated with anthropocentric and utilitarian perspectives, while reinforcement-based training methods would be linked to ethical views that emphasize animal rights and animal welfare. Using Facebook, they recruited dog guardians to complete an online survey between January 25 and February 26, 2022.

To measure ethical orientations, the study used the Multidimensional Measure of Animal Ethics Orientation. This instrument classifies attitudes toward animals into four categories:

• Animal rights, which supports giving animals rights similar to humans;
• Anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests over those of animals;
• Animal protection, which allows the use of animals but emphasizes minimizing suffering and ensuring good welfare; and
• Lay utilitarianism, which evaluates animal use based on perceived costs to animals and benefits to humans, with an assumption that human gains always outweigh animal costs.

Participants were also asked to report how often they used different methods with their dogs when training four different behaviors, including coming when called, loose-leash walking, not stealing food, and not jumping on people. Using a five-point scale from “never” to “very often,” they rated four types of techniques: verbal praise, treats and toys, verbal reprimands, and physical corrections.

For the analysis, the researchers focused on two extremes, physical corrections and positive training. Positive training reflected a score above four for verbal praise and treats and toys and a score below two for verbal reprimands and physical corrections.

The final sample included 500 U.S. participants over the age of 18 who owned a dog and had participated in training them. Most participants had learned training methods from multiple sources, such as professional dog trainers (91%), personal experience (80%), books, magazines, and online resources (77%), and common sense (61%).

The results showed that positive reinforcement methods were very common. Almost all participants reported using verbal praise (97%), and a large proportion used treats or toys (86%) at least some of the time. Punishment-based methods were less common, with verbal reprimands used by 42% of participants and physical corrections by 25% at least some of the time. However, despite the widespread use of positive reinforcement, only 18% of participants met the study’s definition of positive training, which required a high use of positive reinforcement and a low use of positive punishment.

The study also found relationships between ethical orientations. Anthropocentrism, animal protection, and lay utilitarianism were positively correlated, meaning that people who scored high in one of these orientations tended to score high in the others. In contrast, animal rights showed negative correlations with the other three orientations, suggesting a different and perhaps opposing ethical perspective.

Surprisingly, animal rights and lay utilitarianism weren’t significantly associated with positive training. However, as predicted, anthropocentrism was negatively associated with positive training, while animal protection was positively associated.

Higher anthropocentrism scores were associated with higher use of physical corrections, whereas higher animal rights and animal protection scores were associated with lower use. Lay utilitarianism wasn’t significantly associated with physical corrections.

The study has several limitations. Around 82% of participants were women, which doesn’t fully reflect the population of dog guardians. In addition, the survey was mainly distributed through Facebook groups, which led to an overrepresentation of certain breeds, particularly German shepherds (19%), due to participation from Schutzhund (a type of dog sport) communities. People who worked with dogs professionally were also overrepresented (61%). Furthermore, the study was discussed in some online groups as having a political agenda against punishment-based training methods, which may have discouraged some individuals from participating and introduced response bias.

This study illustrates how our everyday choices are shaped by our underlying ethical beliefs. While discussions of animal welfare often focus on farms, fisheries, or zoos, the ways we perceive and interact with animals like dogs in daily life also reflect broader moral frameworks. These decisions aren’t neutral; they reflect deeper values that most people have never been asked to examine. True change therefore requires not only stronger laws and institutions, but also personal reflection and education that challenge ingrained assumptions and stereotypes about animals.