Professional dog trainers' perspectives on training methods: ethical and evidentiary insights.
Dog trainers agree positive reinforcement works best, but their ethics and evidence standards diverge sharply.
01Research in Context
What this study did
DeLeeuw et al. (2026) asked 50 dog trainers how they pick training tools. They used open-ended surveys and follow-up calls.
Half the group trained only with food and play. The other half used prong or shock collars when they felt it was needed.
What they found
Both camps said positive reinforcement works best. Yet their reasons for using or skipping aversives split along moral lines.
Reward-only trainers called aversives 'wrong.' Mixed-method trainers called them 'sometimes useful.' Science papers drove the first group. Personal stories drove the second.
How this fits with other research
Parsons et al. (1981) showed that making the reinforcer part of the task itself speeds learning in kids with autism. That data backs the reward-only trainers' science-first view.
Branch (1999) warned that p-values can mislead. Mixed-method trainers seem to agree, leaning on gut checks instead of journals.
Michael et al. (1981) asked us to spell out every contingency in plain steps. Most trainers in the survey used loose words like 'correction' without clear definitions, so the field still needs that clarity.
Why it matters
If you supervise RBTs, you have the same split. Some staff wait for peer-review; others trust what 'worked last time.' Share the 1981 functional-reinforcement study with science-shy staff. It gives them a concrete case for choosing reinforcement only. Clear procedural talk, as Michael urged, can also unite both camps under one vocabulary.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one skill you teach, film the response-reinforcer loop, and show staff how the learner gets the reinforcer only through the target response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The professional dog training field sits at the intersection of applied behavioral science, ethics, and lived experience. Despite its significant animal welfare implications, it remains largely unregulated. This primarily qualitative study, complemented by quantitative analyses, examined how professional trainers with differing methodological orientations conceptualize humane and effective practice. Using stratified sampling, 35 trainers affiliated with independent certification directories (17 reward-based; 18 mixed methods) completed a pre-screen survey and semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed to explore associations among training approach, certification, and demographics, as well as differences in ethical reasoning, evidentiary interpretation, and views on industry regulation. Across orientations, trainers consistently identified positive reinforcement as their most frequently used and effective method, expressed strong commitments to canine emotional well-being and owner education, and voiced concern over the industry’s lack of professional regulation. However, ethical and epistemic orientations diverged. While both groups evaluated methods in relation to canine welfare and behavioral outcomes, reward-based trainers more often grounded their practice in behavioral science and articulated deontological concerns regarding the intentional use of fear or pain. Mixed methods trainers more frequently employed consequentialist reasoning, supporting conditional use of aversive methods in specific contexts and placing comparatively greater emphasis on practitioner-based expertise when interpreting evidence. Although mixed methods trainers reported using positive reinforcement most often, they rated positive punishment and positive reinforcement as equally effective in independent assessments. Overall, the findings depict a profession characterized by ethical pluralism and epistemic tension, yet marked by sustained reflection and adaptive learning. To strengthen professional cohesion and enhance the practical relevance of future research and ethical frameworks, we recommend structured adversarial collaboration embedded within a community-based participatory research approach.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2026 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2026.1744448