Positive reinforcement has it routes in science, primarily classic and operant conditioning. Have you ever heard of Pavlov’s dog? That’s classic conditioning. Put simply, if you pair a stimulus with a positive outcome, eventually your dog (or any sentient creature) will expect the outcome when they experience the stimulus. With Pavlov it was a bell, once rung the dog started to salivate. Why? Because it had been paired with food.

This is why we use food for training, it helps us condition the behaviours we want.

Operant conditioning takes things a step further, once we’ve paired a sound (could be the word ‘yes’, or maybe a click form a clicker) then we can ‘mark’ the behaviours we want, the dog then expects to be rewarded when we make that sound.

If he or she sits, lies down or does a pirouette, the ‘marker' simply lets the dog know we love it. It’s been conditioned. This is, essentially, positive reinforcement.

It’s how we talk to our dogs, how we let them know they’re doing what we want. Of course training is more elaborate than waiting for the dog to perform. Some behaviours take weeks, or months to perfect but, without the reinforcement, they would never learn it.

So, why the beef…?

The nub of the culture clash is some trainers believe in ‘positive punishment’: verbal or physical corrections, these are used when the dog doesn’t behave as expected. But, it’s not backed by science and it runs the risk of developing fear or anxiety in the dog.

By not addressing the underline cause of the behaviour, ‘corrections’ can become a lazy way of getting the desired behaviour but only by suppressing the dog. Sure, they’re not misbehaving….but it can come at a cost.

There’s plenty of people who insist corrections are ‘natural’: ‘dogs correct each other’ they might argue. Sure, but I’m not a dog. I have other skills I can bring to training and they avoid the risk of scaring the crap out of a dog.

Or, they say: ‘corrections aren’t painful to the dog, they’re merely disruptive’. Firstly, how on earth can anyone say what is, or isn’t, painful or traumatising to a dog? And, if it’s not really painful, why use it at all when there’s a multitude of non-intrusive methods that are scientifically proven to work…?

Why is it so popular then?

Most of this type of training has it roots in some very shady science. David Mech was studying wolves in captivity and then, somehow, dominance theory was all over the shop. We all had to be ‘alpha’, let the dog know who’s boss. Ever heard of anyone pretending to eat the dogs food before they do…yeah, that’s all his fault.

Sadly, this outdated nonsense is still here and still prevalent in dog training. There’s plenty of people snapping collars around a dogs neck to show it who’s boss. It’s all a bit depressing.

Truth is, positive reinforcement take a long time but, it’s not about immediate results rather: it’s about building a life long relationship with your dog. One that’s based on trust, not fear.

In short, your dog is not trying to dominate you, they’re not built that way. They want to work with you and positive reinforcement is how you make that happen.

Final thoughts

There’s no limits to what you can achieve with positive reinforcement, it takes time to learn the basics and improvement is continual but that’s where a good trainer can help with. We’re not here to ‘fix’ your dog, we’re here to help you ‘talk’. Watching an experienced trainer is like watching a magician, they can make your dog do the impossible. In reality, it’s just years of practice and faith in the methodology.

With a bit of patience and practice you can get there, I’m here to help! Get in touch if you want to know more.