Both mixed methods and positive reinforcement trainers shared the goal of strengthening the dog–owner relationship and fostering a more “harmonious and fulfilling life” for both. There was widespread agreement that owner engagement and tailoring training to the needs of each dog–owner pair were essential to success. As one mixed methods trainer explained:
In pursuit of this outcome, trainers emphasized that their role extended beyond working with dogs to educating owners as well. As a positive reinforcement trainer described:
While most participants encouraged owners’ hands-on involvement throughout the process, some mixed methods trainers also offered board-and-train programs, in which owner participation was more limited during the initial stages.
Although trainers across orientations shared a unified vision of fostering mutual understanding and a harmonious bond between dogs and owners, they emphasized that realizing these outcomes is often complicated by owners’ misconceptions about training and canine behavior. Many described their work as not only shaping dogs’ behavior but also recalibrating human expectations and correcting misinformation that undermines progress. The next section explores the most common public misconceptions and misunderstandings that trainers identified as barriers to effective practice and canine welfare.
A central challenge reported by both groups was owners’ unrealistic expectations about the speed of behavioral change. Trainers described clients seeking quick fixes rather than recognizing training as a gradual process requiring consistency, patience, and long-term commitment. As one mixed methods trainer observed:
Trainers emphasized that effective training begins early in a dog’s life and that missed socialization opportunities can have lasting effects. One positive reinforcement trainer explained that many owners misinterpret the concept of socialization, believing it simply means playtime with other dogs:
A mixed methods trainer highlighted the tendency for owners to focus prematurely on obedience skills rather than foundational confidence-building:
Trainers collectively emphasized that early exposure, realistic expectations, and patience are central to developing confident, well-adjusted dogs. They expressed frustration that many clients delay training until behavioral problems emerge, rather than seeking guidance proactively during critical developmental periods. Beyond issues of timing and expectation, trainers emphasized that much of their work involved teaching owners the fundamental language of their canine companions.
Trainers repeatedly noted that many owners struggled to interpret canine communication and behavior without guidance. Anthropomorphism often led clients to misread dogs’ signals, instincts, and needs. For example, one trainer explained that a dog’s “guilty look” is not evidence of wrongdoing but rather a stress response. Both groups described educating owners in canine body language, the importance of daily structure, and the value of consistent communication as central to building a healthy human–dog bond. Several likened this process to parenting—requiring patience, empathy, and understanding rather than expecting automatic obedience.
Interviewees emphasized the importance of prospective owners understanding breed-specific traits and needs before acquiring a dog. Mismatches—such as pairing a high-drive dog with a sedentary lifestyle—were seen as common sources of frustration and behavioral issues. This challenge directly relates to the broader issue of bridging the gap between owners’ desired outcomes and their dogs’ actual needs. As one mixed methods trainer articulated:
Another widespread misconception was the assumption that all dogs are inherently social and enjoy human interaction. Trainers stressed that, much like humans, dogs exhibit a wide range of social preferences, and forcing unwanted interactions can lead to stress or behavioral issues.
Together, these misconceptions reveal that trainers view their work as translating canine communication for owners—bridging the gap between human expectations and dogs’ actual behavioral and emotional needs.
Some positive reinforcement trainers noted the misconception that using rewards reinforces undesirable behavior. They emphasized that redirecting or distracting dogs with treats does not reinforce unwanted reactions but instead interrupts and prevents the rehearsal of problematic behaviors. As one interviewee explained:
More commonly, trainers from both groups described widespread public confusion stemming from the diversity of training philosophies within the industry. They agreed that the lack of standardized education and regulation makes it difficult for owners to discern which trainers employ ethical and effective methods.
In sum, these accounts underscore that trainers must contend not only with clients’ misunderstandings about dogs but also with public uncertainty about the profession itself—shaped by the absence of consistent regulation and standards. Trainers saw their role as both educators and translators, bridging the divide between scientific knowledge, canine communication, and human expectation to promote more humane and effective relationships between people and their dogs.
Both groups underscored that emotional well-being was central to ethical and effective training. Trainers consistently described confidence and trust as preconditions for progress, positioning welfare not as peripheral but integral to training goals. As one mixed methods trainer explained:
A positive reinforcement trainer echoed this view:
Trainers described two interrelated dimensions of emotional well-being: first, how they recognized and managed canine distress during training, and second, how they conceptualized the role of stress in promoting or hindering learning.
Trainers described the ability to read canine body language as a core professional skill. Frequently cited indicators of distress included avoidance behaviors, lip licking, yawning, tail tucking, stiffening, freezing, cowering, postural shifts, disengagement, and reluctance to participate. When such signs appeared, trainers reported adjusting their approach by incorporating breaks, offering enrichment, reducing stimulation, or ending the session.
Group differences emerged in emphasis. Positive reinforcement trainers viewed avoiding aversive methods as a precursor to safeguarding well-being, while mixed methods trainers were nearly unanimous in stating that aversives should never be used when a dog showed distress. As one noted:
Despite this shared commitment to dog welfare, trainers diverged in how they interpreted stress in training. Positive reinforcement trainers characterized stress as detrimental and to be minimized. By contrast, some mixed methods trainers argued that controlled exposure to stress—when paired with guidance and opportunities for success—could help dogs build resilience, acquire coping skills, and adapt more comfortably to life with humans. As one participant explained:
In sum, trainers across orientations agreed that safeguarding dogs’ emotional well-being was central to effective practice, but diverged in how they interpreted the role of stress: Positive reinforcement trainers emphasized minimizing distress as fundamental to welfare, whereas mixed methods trainers more commonly viewed stress as context-dependent and, at times, a constructive element of training.
Independent samples
Perceived effectiveness of training technique by trainer type.
From left to right, interquartile ranges for mixed methods were 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, respectively. Those for positive reinforcement methods were 1, 1, 1, 0.75, 2, respectively.
Independent samples mann–whitney test statistics on perceived training method effectiveness.
| Method | Mann–Whitney U Statistic | Effect Size: Rank-Biserial Correlation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive reinforcement | 105.0 | 0.078 | 0.31 |
| Classical conditioning | 76.5 | 0.008** | 0.50 |
| Negative punishment | 130.5 | 0.443 | 0.15 |
| Negative reinforcement | 120.5 | 0.264 | 0.21 |
| Positive punishment | 77.0 | 0.011* | 0.50 |
*
Safety was a critical consideration across perspectives. Mixed methods trainers frequently cited aggression, reactivity, and situations involving potential risk to handlers or dogs as contexts where positive reinforcement alone was insufficient. In such scenarios, aversives were viewed as a means of establishing immediate control and preventing escalation.
Positive reinforcement trainers acknowledged that emergencies might warrant temporary use of aversive methods. Approximately one-third stated that interventions such as breaking up a dog fight or preventing a life-threatening incident could justify aversive action. These trainers nevertheless emphasized that such use should remain exceptional and not be normalized as part of training practice.
Mixed method trainers held varied perspectives on the application of aversives. While some regarded these methods as a last resort, implementing them only when a dog’s behavior posed an immediate risk to itself or others, others integrated them more routinely. In this sense, aversives were considered efficient aids for clear communication and speed, particularly in contexts such as leash walking, bite prevention, and off-leash recall training. One trainer articulated this perspective regarding efficiency, noting:
Aversive methods were also frequently highlighted by mixed methods trainers for their role in supporting freedom and safety during off-leash activities. As one trainer explained:
This was linked to a broader philosophical argument about expanding dogs’ freedom to aid emotional stability:
By contrast, positive reinforcement trainers rejected the notion of efficiency and freedom as valid rationales for aversive method use. They argued that the perceived expedience of tools like e-collars was outweighed by the risk of harm and the availability of safer management strategies. They consistently cited risks of fear, anxiety, and negative health or behavioral outcomes, questioning both the moral acceptability and long-term effectiveness of aversive methods. Even when acknowledging that size or resilience might influence a dog’s immediate response to aversive methods, they rejected trainer preference or breed as justification for usage. Instead, they pointed to management strategies such as long-line leashes as humane alternatives. One trainer illustrated this perspective:
Together, these findings reveal a broader philosophical divide. For mixed methods trainers, aversives were pragmatic instruments that, when skillfully employed, could enhance communication, expedite training, and even expand dogs’ freedom. For positive reinforcement trainers, aversive use represented an ethical compromise tolerated only under extreme circumstances, with management strategies preferred to correction. While both groups recognized that safety risks could override training ideals, their broader orientations diverged: mixed methods trainers emphasized efficiency and balance, whereas positive reinforcement trainers prioritized minimizing exposure to aversive stimuli.
Among mixed methods trainers, a recurring theme was that the acceptability of training tools depended less on the equipment itself and more on the trainer’s knowledge, timing, and application. Participants emphasized that misuse by unskilled individuals, rather than the inherent properties of a tool, was the primary source of harm. From this perspective, responsible use was inseparable from professional expertise, underscoring the need for education and careful application in order to minimize risk. As one trainer stated:
Positive reinforcement trainers tended to disagree with this perspective, viewing the problem as intrinsic to the tools rather than rooted in trainer competence. They opposed the use of aversive equipment such as electronic collars, prong collars, and choke chains outright. One positive reinforcement trainer reflected on the types of equipment they most preferred not to see in practice:
Despite their emphasis on trainer skill, mixed methods trainers did not regard all equipment equally. Roughly one-third expressed explicitly negative views of choke chains, citing their potential for injury and limited training value. Slip leads and Martingale collars were consistently described as safer and more effective alternatives. Opinions on e-collars and prong collars were more divided. Some trainers rejected their use entirely due to injuries such as burns, while others conditionally accepted them under circumstances where they could be applied with precision and expertise. This variation reflected ongoing debate within the group about whether certain tools could ever be reliably separated from misuse.
Although perspectives varied on specific collars and electronic devices, there was uniform condemnation of certain practices. Across both groups, alpha rolls, dominance-based physical manipulation, and direct violence (such as hitting) were unequivocally rejected as harmful and unacceptable. These methods were considered beyond the bounds of contemporary professional practice. A mixed methods trainer powerfully encapsulated this rejection, highlighting both the philosophical dismissal of dominance and the moral outrage at abusive actions:
While perspectives differed among mixed methods trainers on whether certain equipment could be justified with appropriate skill, there was broad agreement that some practices were unacceptable in professional training.
Both mixed methods and positive reinforcement trainers underscored the risks posed by unqualified practitioners and expressed broad support for greater oversight of the dog training industry. They highlighted that the absence of barriers to entry allows anyone to adopt the title of “trainer,” exposing dogs and owners to harmful or outdated practices. Across groups, trainers emphasized that regulation should elevate education, certification, and public awareness—strengthening both professional credibility and animal welfare.
Several participants explicitly supported government-led or third-party oversight, arguing that external regulation could legitimize the field beyond voluntary membership associations. As one positive reinforcement trainer explained,
The most commonly articulated priority across both groups was the need for regulatory standards that emphasize competence and knowledge. Trainers frequently argued that a mandatory, consistent knowledge base—covering operant theory, classical conditioning, and applied behavior analysis—was the best way to ensure humane and effective practice. Many advocated for a testing and licensing system similar to other skilled trades to hold practitioners accountable for malpractice.
Several positive reinforcement trainers referenced existing certification bodies such as the CCPDT, Association for Professional Dog Training, and IAABC, recognizing their value in promoting science-based training while also noting significant limitations. They observed that these organizations lack enforcement mechanisms and that the growing number of credentialing programs can confuse the public and dilute credibility. As one participant stated,
A few noted concern that current certification pathways may reinforce privilege, as participation often depends on financial means and access to mentorship.
Across groups, participants suggested that public education on learning theory and canine behavior may, in the short-term, be the most practical way to raise standards. As one trainer articulated,
The most significant philosophical divide centered on whether regulation should restrict or ban specific training tools. Mixed methods trainers were more likely to caution against prohibition, emphasizing that restrictive policies could have unintended negative effects—such as driving harmful practices underground, encouraging misuse of “approved” tools, or contributing to higher euthanasia rates among dogs with severe behavioral issues. One trainer warned,
Another echoed this concern, advocating instead for education and responsible application:
Positive reinforcement trainers expressed more ambivalence. While some favored banning aversive tools, others questioned whether bans would meaningfully improve welfare without strong educational support or consistent enforcement. As one trainer reflected,
Beyond the debate over tools, many trainers—particularly those using mixed methods—described a divisive professional climate marked by hostility between training communities. Several recounted being labeled “abusive” or “unethical” online, likening the tone of debate to political polarization. They viewed this conflict as counterproductive to collective progress, arguing that open dialog and respect for contextualized practice were essential to advancing canine welfare. This frustration with the professional climate was clearly articulated by one mixed methods trainer:
Another described finding common ground despite methodological differences:
While some positive reinforcement trainers regarded polarization as a necessary distinction that clarified ethical boundaries within the profession, many also perceived it as divisive and counterproductive to collaboration and shared welfare goals, often attributing differing approaches to gaps in education rather than malice.
Trainers across methodologies expressed near-universal support for professional regulation to mitigate the risks posed by unqualified practitioners. However, consensus fractured around the form regulation should take. Positive reinforcement trainers generally favored competency-based licensing and, in some cases, bans on aversive tools. Mixed methods trainers, by contrast, emphasized education, professional responsibility, and flexibility to manage complex behavioral cases. Across perspectives, participants called for regulation that promotes collaboration, accountability, and public trust—and highlighted public education as a crucial pathway to improving welfare, reducing misinformation, and strengthening the legitimacy of the profession.
Both groups stressed the importance of continued professional development. Trainers reported having engaged in a blend of formal education, informal learning, mentorship, and hands-on experience. Many attended structured certification programs, workshops, and pursued independent study through books, articles, and webinars. Employer-supported continuing education was also noted, highlighting the role of workplace investment in professional growth.
A key difference emerged in the experts and theoretical lineages each group drew upon. Many positive reinforcement trainers referenced figures widely recognized within the academic field of animal learning and behavior, such as Ken Ramirez, Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson, and Patricia McConnell. In contrast, mixed methods trainers more often cited figures recognized primarily within the practitioner community, including Michael Ellis, Heather Beck, Jack Jay, Larry Crone, and, to a lesser extent, Cesar Millan—although his methods were sometimes contested. This divergence in foundational expertise also extended to how trainers interpreted scientific literature.
Mixed methods trainers who cited scientific studies often focused on research exploring the long-term impacts of specific aversive techniques, such as using e-collars to reduce predatory chasing, or studies comparing the efficacy of different aversive methods. One participant recounted a six-year study to reduce dogs from chasing Kiwi birds in New Zealand:
When discussing research directly comparing positive reinforcement with mixed methods, mixed methods trainers often provided methodological critiques such as inadequate variable quantification, artificial testing environments, reliance on surveys, and selective data presentation. As one trainer remarked:
Another questioned the way stress was operationalized in comparative studies:
These critiques illustrate how some trainers challenged research they viewed as misaligned with their own definitions of welfare and efficacy, reflecting a broader tension between scientific findings and practitioner-based knowledge.
A chi-square test of association was conducted to examine the relationship between trainers’ certification type (independent body, vocational school, or no formal certification) and their training approach (positive reinforcement vs. mixed methods). Certification data were compiled through online searches and interviews, with the highest credential recorded when multiple certifications were held. Results indicated a statistically significant association between certification type and training approach,
A second chi-square test examined the association between gender and training approach. Among the 35 participants, men (
Taken together, these findings suggest that professional development and certification intersect with trainers’ methodological orientations in nuanced ways. Positive reinforcement trainers drew more heavily from academic authorities and independent certification bodies, aligning their practices with scientific literature and formal standards. Mixed methods trainers, by contrast, were more likely to rely on practitioner-based authorities and vocational training, and often critiqued research they perceived as disconnected from real-world contexts. While certification type showed a strong association with training approach, gender did not.
The most common developmental trajectory involved the 14 positive reinforcement trainers who reported previously using positive punishment or negative reinforcement. Their shift was typically marked by growing empathy toward the dogs they trained, ethical reflection, and exposure to alternative learning models that reshaped their understanding of what constitutes effective and humane training.
Approximately two-thirds of trainers who transitioned away from aversive methods stated that observing canine distress, fear, or reactivity prompted a reevaluation of their ethical stance. Witnessing behaviors such as shutdown or aggression led many to question whether aversive methods were consistent with their professional values and their core goal of improving canine welfare.
Many trainers initially regarded aversives as standard practice but began to question their use after engaging with reward-based trainers, attending specialized workshops, or learning about modern behavioral science. For many, this exposure represented a pivotal “aha” moment that reshaped their understanding of humane and effective practice:
While a modest majority (58%) of trainers exposed to positive reinforcement approaches described an immediate transition, the remainder reported a more gradual shift as they deepened their understanding of canine psychology and observed more stable behavioral outcomes. Regardless of pace, trainers consistently emphasized that positive reinforcement yielded calmer, more confident, and more responsive dogs—though some noted that it sometimes required greater time and patience.
Mixed methods trainers described three distinct pathways through which their training philosophies and practices changed over time.
The most prevalent pathway (44%) involved trainers who began with correction- or compulsion-based methods and later shifted toward greater reliance on positive reinforcement as they recognized its effectiveness and the potential adverse effects of corrections. Much like the positive reinforcement trainers described earlier, this shift was driven by experience and continuing education, leading to greater emphasis on motivation and relationship-building while reserving aversive tools for specific, limited contexts.
A smaller subset (28%) described a movement in the opposite direction—starting from a primarily positive reinforcement framework and later integrating positive punishment or negative reinforcement. They cited perceived benefits for both training outcomes and canine welfare. One trainer reflected on her experience after learning more about various tools:
The third trajectory (28%) involved ongoing fine-tuning of mixed techniques based on experience. Trainers in this group emphasized improving timing, precision, and communication while maintaining both positive and corrective elements.
Across both groups, trainers described a common movement toward increased use of positive reinforcement, guided by empathy, ethical reflection, and expanding knowledge of learning theory. Among mixed methods trainers, however, this evolution was more heterogeneous, encompassing varied blends of reinforcement- and correction-based strategies. Across both groups, adaptation was described as an iterative, experience-driven process grounded in effectiveness, professional growth, and a sustained commitment to canine welfare.
Most trainers expressed a strong receptivity to modifying their methods and techniques. The primary catalysts for adjustment included concerns about dog distress, the perceived effectiveness of current training, the owner’s capacity to implement the recommended plan, client expectations, and exposure to new empirical research. Only slight differences in the nature of receptivity emerged between the two trainer groups.
The vast majority of trainers described a dedication to ongoing learning and technique refinement. Most mixed methods trainers (83%) explicitly reported this commitment. Their willingness was often framed as an imperative to stay informed and avoid dogmatic thinking, even when they disagreed with particular approaches:
They also challenged advocates of force-free or reward-based approaches to provide superior alternatives, indicating that their methodological commitment was conditional on emerging evidence:
Similarly, all positive reinforcement trainers described a willingness to reassess and refine their methods, particularly if current strategies failed to produce desired behavioral changes or caused distress to the dog. As previously mentioned, a small number acknowledged that positive punishment might be considered in rare cases—such as managing proactive aggression or immediate safety concerns—though they emphasized the lack of current empirical support and the need for careful ethical consideration before any deviation.
Despite this broad openness to refinement, a minority of mixed methods trainers (
The third, who aligned with a pack-leadership model, explained that exposure to alternative methods had only reinforced confidence in their original philosophy:
Across both groups, receptivity to methodological change was a defining feature of professional practice, though it varied in degree and framing. All positive reinforcement trainers described openness to adjustment, while most (83%) mixed methods trainers expressed similar commitment to refinement and evidence-based learning. The small subset who resisted change viewed their established philosophies as already optimized, marking the tension between openness to revision and enduring professional conviction. Collectively, these patterns underscore that the motivation to evolve—whether through adoption, calibration, or defense of existing methods—appeared rooted in the majority of trainers’ shared concern for effectiveness and canine welfare.