Training perspectives: Dominance vs. Positive Reinforcement

[deadlywarbler]

My 15 week old BC pup has been a real dream come true and in some regards a real challenge. I anticipated the difficulty of puppyhood well in advance, but she manages to find ways to challenge me unexpectedly. Where she excels is in early training, crate training and potty training (thank god for that!) She went through a brief period where she was very sweet and manageable but now has returned to being rather difficult. I will admit I can be a little obsessive about training worry, but for all my efforts (and there are many!) I don't feel like I am getting the results appropriate for her age.

 

I met with a friend who owns her little mate recently and was quite discouraged to find that he was far better trained that mine was. He would wait in doorways, recognized invisible lines and generally was far better behaved. His owner takes a more dominance based approach with him. This conflicted with my goal of using the positive reinforcement approach since she appeared to be getting such better results.

 

I have made some significant headway on things like biting/chewing with the reward method. Lately she has become quite pushy and some evenings is a non-stop terror from about 5pm to 11pm when I have to crate her. Some evenings she's wonderful. A friend told me she thought my pup has started to get a sense that she's in charge (or that she should begin to assume that role because she's not getting that from me). I'm not sure how much I buy that, but I can see where she's coming from.

 

So my question is, what are your opinions on these approaches? I am so interested in establishing a positive relationship with the pup so she enjoys the work and play we do. I would like to have a bit more control over her, but I am not really willing to "dominate" her through harshness. Any help would be most appreciated!

[Root Beer]

The difference that you are describing is not so much a difference in methodology as a difference in training criteria. If you want to use +R to teach your puppy to wait in doorways, or carry out any task, it is absolutely possible to do that.

 

I adopted a 10 month old Border Collie who was completely untrained (he was housetrained, that was it). He used to counter surf, tear up everything he could find, throw himself at doorways (if the door was closed, he would throw himself up against it, flat as a pancake!), try to chase cars (or anything moving) . . . this dog had nothing resembling self-control. I trained him, as completely as is humanly possible, using +R and he does everything that I taught him. He can wait at a door, has an awesome recall, ignores cars and other moving entities, hikes off leash in the woods, respects the stuff in our home (at Thanksgiving, he is loose and the turkey is in his reach and we don't even have to tell him to leave it alone), etc. etc. etc.

 

He's my best trained dog. In addition to having manners that impress my mother (who is NOT a dog person and he is the only one of my dogs she welcomes into her home), he is titled in four dog sports. No dominance, no harshness required.

 

So, it can be done. If it is an approach that you are committed to, you can make it work. There are excellent resources out there (I highly recommend Control Unleashed puppy, even if you aren't going in for performance) that didn't exist not that long ago.

 

You will get all kinds of opinions on what is best. Some people will probably even tell you that +R can't work, but the results that I have gotten (and I am hardly the world's greatest dog training) attest to the fact that it can work, and often in ways that many don't expect.

 

My advice: do your homework. Seek out good +R training resources. Ask questions of accomplished +R trainers who get results.

 

It can be done if you are committed to it and are willing to do some legwork.

 

I wish you the best . . .

[Sekah]

Try not to compare your pup to its littermates. Dogs have different temperaments within a litter and some seem to fall in line more naturally than others.

 

This article was making its rounds a few weeks ago, and I think it's apt to link it here:

Why Positive Reinforcement Training Didn't Work For My Dog: http://awesomedogs.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/treat-training-trinity-why-positive-reinforcement-did-not-work-for-my-dog/

 

Whatever you do, stay consistent. I would suggest you ask yourself if you're working with your dog to enhance your relationship and whether you are able to do so without threat of pain or intimidation. Try not to get tripped up in quadrants and do your best for your dog.

 

I personally have had great success with training predominantly with controlling access to reinforcement and without relying much at all on punishment. It's definitely possible to achieve the desired results with a bit of work and after becoming proficient at maintaining criteria, improving your timing and controlling the rate of reinforcement.

[gcv-border]

I agree with the above replies and wanted to add:

I like + training because, for me (and I don't consider myself an experienced trainer), I will get a dog that is pretty happy to do whatever I ask it to do because it wants to please me (most of the time). I try to shy away from too much correction because I may overdo it and end up with a dog which will do want I want, but will have a less happy demeanor. I prefer that spark. Some people can use corrections appropriately without hindering the dog's spirit, but I prefer to err on the side of a happy dog.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Camden's Mom]

Try not to compare your pup to its littermates. Dogs have different temperaments within a litter and some seem to fall in line more naturally than others.

 

This ^^ A thousand times, this!

 

It's very easy to compare your puppy to littermates or other puppies that are the same age. Dogs are going to have their own personalities, their own strengths and weaknesses. That's not to say you can't have goals and expectations!! In fact, the things she's struggling with (sounds like impulse control... but she is a 15 week old puppy, so that's pretty forgivable ) should be the things you work on the hardest. Just don't be disappointed if she's not "as good" at something as another puppy her age.

 

I might get flogged for saying this, but when I got Camden as a puppy I very much admired Cesar Millan (from the "Dog Whisperer"). I know a lot more now then I did then, and my opinion of his handling style has changed a great deal. I no longer believe in the "dominance" training technique (leash pops, alpha rolls, etc.). When I abandoned harsher techniques and turned to +R my relationship with my puppy blossomed. Sure, some things took a bit longer to get through when he was being stubborn. I do think the things he "learned" stuck much better then the things he "got in trouble for doing".

 

Having said that... There is something about Millan's presence when around dogs. I'd call it a calm sense of leadership and it is the one thing I still appreciate about his style. Yes, the TV show is highly edited. No, I do not wish to turn this thread into another "Dog Whisperer" debate but I do think there's some value in having a strong presence and coming across as a "leader" to your dog.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that +R training does not necessarily mean you need to constantly speak in a goofy voice or be bubbly with your puppy. I think there is value to having a strong and sometimes serious presence with your puppy (which might be what your friend was suggesting with regards to "being in charge") but to me that doesn't mean "dominance".

 

I much prefer the idea of being a fair, consistent and (when necessary) firm leader to my dog then being an owner who controls him through domination and requires submission. I would absolutely cast my vote for +R training over the harsher techniques based on my limited personal experience.

[Root Beer]

I guess what I'm getting at is that +R training does not necessarily mean you need to constantly speak in a goofy voice or be bubbly with your puppy.

 

Truer words never spoken.

 

Nor do you have to carry packets of food around on you forever and ever.

 

Nor do you have to treat something like your dog running toward a busy street like a free shaping session. (Nor, I might add, should you!)

 

Nor do you have to refrain from uttering the word "no" in any context to any living creature as long as you live.

 

Nor will you have to manage everything that your dog ever does instead of having trained behaviors.

 

Nor will you have to stand by, vainly imploring "cookie, cookie, cooooookie" as your dog takes off after a squirrel.

 

The list of fun and crazy misconceptions goes on and on . . . I'll stop there.

[JohnLloydJones]

So my question is, what are your opinions on these approaches?

Dominance, in the context of dog training, generally means (or is interpreted to mean) bullying. It can work -- up to a point -- but frequently results in a dog who is inhibited from offering new behaviours. In the worst case, the dog may end up scared and neurotic.

 

Positive training (which doesn't, in itself, imply clickers and mountains of treats) is more likely to results in a happy dog who is eager to do new things with you. It does require you to earn the trust and respect of your dog.

[GentleLake]

You've already gotten a lot of great comments.

 

The one thing I'd like to add is that there's a common misperception that positive training equates to permissiveness. While I'm sure there are certainly some instances of it, that's certainly not a fair understanding of what R+ training is.

 

As others have said, and what I think you already understand, is that it's largely about the kind of relationship you want to build with your dog. If you want your dog to work with you rather than for you, if you want to have a dog who wants to work for you willingly rather than because it fears you, then stick with the R+.

 

I got my first border collie back in the day of old school punishment based training. The trainer I worked with did use treats as rewards and wasn't as bad as many, but there were still corrections. Fortunately, my dog was a joy to train and required very few of them. . . . or perhaps it was that I quickly realized I didn't like the way it made him react to me and just stopped doing it.

 

We actually stopped before that happened because he got his own sheep and became a working stockdog instead. But before we did, there were a couple of judges who made a point of looking us up after we'd left the ring to compliment me on how well we worked together. I'll never forget what one of them told me, that he really wished he could have given us the blue ribbon, because he was so awed at how Mirk loved working with me. That was worth more than all the blue ribbons in the world to me.

 

So my recommendation is for you to think very carefully about what kind of relationship you want to have with your dog and choose the methods that will foster a bond based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than one based on fear, intimidation and mistrust.

 

Best wishes for your continued success with your pup.

[Smalahundur]

You might not be implying it, in that case my apologies, but you make it sound like there are just two options JonLIoyldJones; Positive training or dominance, last which you declared to "generally mean bullying".

That would be quite a false dichotomy in my book.

[Eileen Stein]

I like to train with a combination of positive reinforcement plus correction. Not harsh correction -- who wants to be harsh to a puppy? -- but an indication to the pup that what he's doing is wrong. It's actually interesting and fun to see how minimal a correction you can use and still have an effect on the pup, and what it is about your timing, bearing, etc., that makes the minimal correction effective.

[deadlywarbler]

I agree with the above replies and wanted to add:

I like + training because, for me (and I don't consider myself an experienced trainer), I will get a dog that is pretty happy to do whatever I ask it to do because it wants to please me (most of the time). I try to shy away from too much correction because I may overdo it and end up with a dog which will do want I want, but will have a less happy demeanor. I prefer that spark. Some people can use corrections appropriately without hindering the dog's spirit, but I prefer to err on the side of a happy dog.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Yes!! A few of you had mentioned this, but that "spark" is what I am after. I have not interest in my pup working for me or laboring through exercises. How terrible! I would love for her to crave working with me and respecting me for the time we spend together as a result of how rewarding it is for her.

 

I have no interest in achieving dominance. I see dominating dogs with force as a clear sign of weakness in people. I know I, like any human am prone to this, but I will avoid it at all costs. I think dogs lose respect for humans that act this way. That being said, it is important that she know that I am actually in charge of things. She is starting to show signs of pushing me and being defiant. I see this as normal but an apt time to work on it. I guess in my inexperience I am unsure of exactly how to achieve that role while avoiding dominance behavior.

 

I keep going back to the saying I heard while watching the documentary Buck, "Solvitur en modo, firmitur en rey: Gentle in what you do, firm in how you do it" I've been trying to apply this to my relationship with my pup and she offers constant opportunity!

 

I am current looking up the Control Unleashed Puppy and just bought a new treat that I suspect will be of very high value for her. Onward and sideways!

[Zorro13]

I think you might find that your pup is not as far behind as you think. There have been quite a few things that I thought my pup wasn't getting or wouldn't stop doing that one day just clicked and he was great. In fact, I don't think I saw a gradual change in most of his annoying behaviors and rather just noticed that all of a sudden one day he wasn't doing them.

 

You were also probably just focusing on the things that pup could do and not what he couldn't do. Everyone teaches things in a different order so maybe your friend had been focusing on waiting at doors but hadn't even started on some of the behaviors you've been working hard on.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I agree with my friend Eileen. Rewards are important as are gentle corrections and IT DEPENDS ON THE DOG!! Some dogs MUST NEVER be corrected. For a rare few - corrections are the first step.

 

But that's adult dogs and this is a puppy so young his age is measured in weeks. What matters most is not his accomplishments (which will be intermittent) but your providing a world he loves and in puppy fashion understands. Consistent, reasonable gradually escalating expectations with lots of fun.

 

If you can, avoid the "dominance vs reward" theologies. The "I hate Cesar Milan and "cookie pusher" talk Is straw men meeting in Mortal Kombat: time spent on the keyboard which could be spent with your pup. Better to take a walk -trust the pup on this one!

 

Donald McCaig

[JohnLloydJones]

You might not be implying it, in that case my apologies, but you make it sound like there are just two options JonLIoyldJones; Positive training or dominance, last which you declared to "generally mean bullying".

That would be quite a false dichotomy in my book.

I was attempting to answer the OP, which explicitly set up the two extremes. I am with you that in real life, there are a wide range of intermediate choices.

[Tommy Coyote]

I almost never use dominance unless the dogs are doing something that is really irritating. Then I just end to holler at them to just knock it off. That usually does it. My dogs are all pretty soft. We do lots of positive stuff. They get cookies when they do stuff right. And they get petted and talked to a lot.

 

I am capable of really coming down hard if I have to and I think the dogs know that. I had a dog that jumped my old dog and just scared him to death. Unfortunately for Bandit I was about 2 steps away. I grabbed him and lifted him clear off the ground and just got in his face and shook him. I was so mad at him I could have killed him. When I put him back on the ground he just shook his head and acted like nothing had happened but he never did that again.

 

I can't imagine having to do that with the dogs I have now. They are all really good little guys.

[Camden's Mom]

Eileen, Donald and others make great points about using a bit of both. I think we're likely talking more about "corrections" then "dominance" but the waters can get muddy when talking about non- positive reward based training.

 

I do know that the few times my boy has done something completely out of line I have been willing to come down hard on him. Rarely have I ever had to use physical corrections (he's a sensitive fellow). However, my tone of voice, stature and body language all say "Hell hath no fury like an owner deliberately ignored!"

 

The one example I can think of is when we were walking down a private road which has no traffic, huge visibility, houses on one side of the street and a beautiful grassy area off to the other. I will sometimes let Camden romp around in the grassy section off leash, but one day he decided he wanted to cross the street and play in people's yards instead. I signaled him to get back onto the grassy side and he blew me off, big time. This dog doesn't ever blow me off, so once I got over my initial shock (while he's bunny hopping across people's lawns with a huge smile on his face... lovely), I started to walk him down. At first he though "Oh, a fun game of keep away" and bounded away from me, further onto someones lawn. Well, that only got me more angry...

 

I swear I could pinpoint the moment he realized how livid I was. He stopped, looked at me and began to look very, very worried. His expression pretty much read "Oh, sh*t... mom is really p*ssed". He then proceeded to slowly walk (slink) back over to me, head hung low and sat in front of me the way he would when he knows I'm putting the leash back on.

 

My point... the positive reinforcement training has helped build a sense of trust on our relationship. He knew I was very upset with him and that he was in trouble, but he also knew that I would not hurt him. If I was using force, dominance or harsh physical corrections on a regular basis I don't think my dog would have even considered walking back to me of his own free will, given how angry I was at him.

 

I'm not opposed to using corrections when they are warranted but always keep in mind that you are building the foundation for a life long relationship with your dog.

[MIRK]

Hiya,

I first came across this site having decided to investigate alternative training methods.

No longer being on a farm, our current dog was going to be the first I'd had living in the house as a pet.

Being only schooled in how sheepdog men tend to treat their dogs,

I though it would be interesting to find out how other folks went about things.

And what a hornets nest did I find!

Don't really need to go into detail about all that stuff, there's piles of it on here and the rest of the internet.

What I would say is that at a basic level ALL training methods are attempting to reach the same goal,

that your dog has it's attention on you when you require it gives it.

As you can imagine, for some things a little coaxing with a treat can work just fine.

But with other things, specially when you're out and about competing with other excitements and stimuli,

a nudge in the right direction could help.

If you've got a tyre-biter for instance,

there's not much food wise that's going to seem as appealing to him/her as the thrill of the chase.

You could stand there clicking merrilly whilst your dog sets off up the road after it's quarry,

or you could attempt to nip things in the bud with a little surprise just as Rover thinks about giving chase.

There's a line around here about why farmers wear (soft...) flat caps.

Reason one is to keep their heads warm.

Reason two is to help the dog understand how certain things may be dangerous...

[GentleLake]

 

You could stand there clicking merrilly whilst your dog sets off up the road after it's quarry,

No insult intended, but this shows that you don't understand the concept of clicker training.

It might help if you acquired a better understanding of positive reinforcement methods, including desensitization, counter conditioning and the concept of working below threshold before throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

[MIRK]

Sorry Gentle Lake, I was being facetious about the clicking, I do understand the rational.

I don't have a proverbial baby in the bath, so am unlikely to chuck it out.

The string of words you've come out with in your post give an indication of how modern day dog training is considered by some to be a science.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen people challenged on internet forums as to what "qualifications" they have in regard to dogs.

No matter that a man/woman may have been around dogs and successfully trained them for many years,

their judgement is considered suspect because they haven't "studied" dogs and don't know (ie haven't been sold...) any fancy terms.

I would say that if someone has a generally happy and biddable animal they're probably doing ok by their dog.

If it's not working out for what ever reason, then they may want to look at trying different things until they find something that works.

There is no right way or wrong way, only what works for a particular dog (and person) or doesn't.

It's a good job the men who gave us the breed didn't subscribe to fancy words and fashion.

Had they done so it's highly likely that we'd have no sheepdogs to discuss.

[deadlywarbler]

I used to subscribe to the perspective that a dog will respect an owner if it fears that owner a little. This was before I actually made an effort to understand dogs. My inexperienced take on it is that dogs can really only be controlled with fear but can be controlled while growing and developing with positivity. Humans are no different. A child that knows that if they mess up they might get hit by mom or dad will always carry that with them in their interactions with family.

 

My goal in presenting this topic was to seek out the best way to allow my pup the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them (in controlled conditions of course). My weakness and insecurities do drive me to seek out dominance over my dog but I can see through that and am working to not let that drive our development.

 

These replies are very helpful! Thanks!

[GentleLake]

Sorry Gentle Lake, I was being facetious about the clicking, I do understand the rational.

 

 

Well, facetiousness often doesn't come across in e-mails.

 

As for the technical language, excuse me for being precise. (Yes, that was meant to be facetious.)

 

But there's nothing wrong with precise and informative language, imo. And current training trend are based on advances in behavioral science, so again, I don't see a problem with that.

 

There are many people who have an innate gift for interacting with others, whether they be human or of another species. Sadly, though, many do not. And those people benefit from learning effective ways of teaching and communication.

[mum24dog]

Sorry Gentle Lake, I was being facetious about the clicking, I do understand the rational.

 

I don't have a proverbial baby in the bath, so am unlikely to chuck it out.

 

The string of words you've come out with in your post give an indication of how modern day dog training is considered by some to be a science.

 

I've lost count of how many times I've seen people challenged on internet forums as to what "qualifications" they have in regard to dogs.

 

No matter that a man/woman may have been around dogs and successfully trained them for many years,

their judgement is considered suspect because they haven't "studied" dogs and don't know (ie haven't been sold...) any fancy terms.

 

I would say that if someone has a generally happy and biddable animal they're probably doing ok by their dog.

If it's not working out for what ever reason, then they may want to look at trying different things until they find something that works.

 

There is no right way or wrong way, only what works for a particular dog (and person) or doesn't.

 

It's a good job the men who gave us the breed didn't subscribe to fancy words and fashion.

 

Had they done so it's highly likely that we'd have no sheepdogs to discuss.

I'm not convinced you do understand the principles of clicker training or you wouldn't have referred to someone using it to mark an unwanted behaviour, facetiously or not.

 

Of course there is science involved in understanding dog behaviour and training. Science is knowledge of how the universe and its inhabitants work. Specific terms that carry a clear meaning are more than a mere "string of words".

 

If a person is not armed with that knowledge it doesn't mean that they are operating any differently from someone who can explain what is happening. Some people like to understand the why's and wherefores, some are not interested.

 

I have friends with no academic interest in the subject whereas I have, but you couldn't get a cigarette paper between us as to how we treat and train our dogs. Details may vary but the underlying principles are the same.

 

Those friends and I have the same aim - effective and reliable training results without causing harm to our dogs. We have the same approach formed by experience; the only difference is that I know that what we do is backed up by scientific research but I don't claim any intellectual superiority.

 

There is nothing magical about not knowing though and it carries its risks. I find it rather an idealised notion that horny handed sons of the soil have all the answers. If that were true there wouldn't be so many cowed and broken dogs in rescue.

 

Whether or not the shepherds of old subscribed to "fancy words and fashion" is completely irrelevant. An instinctive understanding of how to get the best out of a dog isn't restricted to farming folk.

 

Let's face it, if everyone adhered to the philosophy of "If it ain't broke don't fix it", we wouldn't be having this on line exchange. Pen and paper was good enough not so long ago but we move on, aided by science.

[patriciag]

This is a very interesting forum. I have read so much on the internet about the two training methods and have been quite confused. Since Logan is 3 yrs old and we just got him a few weeks ago, it has been a trial trying to figure out which way to go. We both grew up with the dominance theory and I don't feel it is a good way to completely make a dog that minds. I don't like physical punishment with a dog. The problem I have is trying to figure out if I am trying to dominate or just make the dog mind when he doesn't want to.

 

Example: this evening my husband was in the dining room eating with his dad and I was in the family room with the dogs. We had eaten and were winding down. As soon as Logan realized his "master" was eating, he wanted in on the meal. I tried putting him in a down/stay by me and he wasn't taking me seriously. I never touched him as I am still unsure of him, but I reinforced by telling him DOWN very forcefully. Down he went. I told him to STAY very firmly. Guess what! He stayed down, and finally fell asleep. He never moved until I told him he could get up. I told him "good boy" as soon as he did what I told him. So, was that dominance or was that being firm and making him mind me?

 

This is where I am confused. Good info here, by the way.

[Shetlander]

Sounds like you gave a very firm command and maybe there was an element of verbal correction. You don't need to be physical or harsh to give a correction. If that works for you and you are happy with the results, then great. Sounds like Logan understands the commands already so it isn't a matter of training. I wouldn't get hung up on the whole dominating your dog thing. Be clear and consistent in your expectations. So with your example, don't allow him to horn in or beg some times, but not others. That can be a recipe for a dog who keeps pushing to see if his behavior will be tolerated, even when told firmly no. Then the person is frustrated and the dog is confused about what you want.

 

Do keep in mind that these are early days. As Logan becomes more comfortable with you, he may test limits at times. However, I would be working to build a strong bond, consistent expectations and clear communication with my new dog and forget about domination. My first goal would be creating the relationship and trust I want my dog to have with me.

[Root Beer]

Dominance is not actually a training method. It is an underlying mindset, a point of view on which trainers/handlers who ascribe to the theory base their training choices.

 

Those who accept dominance theory as valid view the dog as a being whose main drive in life is to be "alpha" over any and every living thing in his or her life. This "alpha" is somehow in control of everything, therefore the dog should never even be able to entertain the thought of being "alpha" or else one day you are going to find yourself locked in a crate while your dog takes over your life completely. (Exaggeration, yes).

 

Those who accept dominance theory attribute any and all behaviors that the handler does not like for any reason whatsoever to be caused by the dog's drive to rule the world. This is why dominance theory based techniques are often (although not always) harsh. The dog must be quashed into submission any and every time he or she doesn't behave impeccably. Perfect manners = submission; Disliked behavior = dominance.

 

To be fair, dominance based techniques are not always harsh. I know someone who ascribes to dominance theory who always eats something in front of her dog before the dog is allowed to eat anything. According to this manifestation of dominance theory, if the dog were allowed to eat without seeing the owner eat something, he or she would become "alpha". While I personally could not be bothered to eat something every single time my dog is going to and I have yet to find myself "dominated" for handing my dog a bowl of raw meat without having eaten in front of the dog first, I don't view this person's dominance based technique as "harsh". On the other hand, I've seen some pretty rotten things done to dogs in the name of dominance, too.

 

Whether or not a particular technique is "dominance" depends more on the reason why the handler chose that particular technique than on the technique itself. Dominance theorists often choose not to allow their dogs to go out a door ahead of them. Again, going through a door first is understood to be a loud and clear pronouncement to the world, "I AM ALPHA!!!" Now, I do teach my dogs to sit at a door before going through it. And, if we are in a situation where I am concerned about my dog's safety on the other side of the door, I will put the dog in a stay and go through the door first. That isn't dominance. I have no concerns whatsoever that my dog is trying to be "alpha". I am simply doing what I understand to be safest. Same thing is happening - handler going through the door first. Whether or not it is dominance depends on the reason why the handler is going through the door first.

 

If you are establishing structures in your household to communicate the message, "you must SUBMIT!!" to your dog, its dominance. If you are establishing structures for safety, peace, and to foster general good manners, it's not.

 

We can certainly debate the best way to establish structures for safety, peace, and general good manners, and that is where discussion of actual methodologies, such as +R based training or All Quadrant based training, etc. come into play, but the question "dominance" has more to do with underlying mindset than methodology per se.