Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33326450›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare.

Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, Danielle Fuchs, Gabriela Munhoz Morello, Stefania Pastur, Liliana de Sousa, I Anna S Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Testing the Level of Cortisol in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  11. Owner-Perceived Undesirable Behaviours in Young Dogs and Changes with Age.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Behavioral, Physiological, and Pathological Approaches of Cortisol in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. New Advances in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-like Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ana Catarina Vieira de CastroInstituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3357-7282
Danielle FuchsInstituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Gabriela Munhoz MorelloInstituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5439-969X
Stefania PasturInstituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Liliana de SousaInstituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
I Anna S OlssonInstituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4369-8723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dog training methods range broadly from those using mostly positive punishment and negative reinforcement (aversive-based) to those using primarily positive reinforcement (reward-based). Although aversive-based training has been strongly criticized for negatively affecting dog welfare, there is no comprehensive research focusing on companion dogs and mainstream techniques, and most studies rely on owner-reported assessment of training methods and dog behavior. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of aversive- and reward-based training methods on companion dog welfare within and outside the training context. Ninety-two companion dogs were recruited from three reward-based schools (Group Reward, n = 42), and from four aversive-based schools, two using low proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Mixed, n = 22) and two using high proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Aversive, n = 28). For evaluating welfare during training, dogs were video recorded for three sessions and six saliva samples were collected, three at home (baseline levels) and three after training (post-training levels). Video recordings were used to examine the frequency of stress-related behaviors (e.g., lip lick, yawn) and the overall behavioral state of the dog (e.g., tense, relaxed), and saliva samples were analyzed for cortisol concentration. For evaluating welfare outside the training context, dogs participated in a cognitive bias task. Results showed that dogs from Group Aversive displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense and low behavioral states and panted more during training, and exhibited higher post-training increases in cortisol levels than dogs from Group Reward. Additionally, dogs from Group Aversive were more 'pessimistic' in the cognitive bias task than dogs from Group Reward. Dogs from Group Mixed displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense states and panted more during training than dogs from Group Reward. Finally, although Groups Mixed and Aversive did not differ in their performance in the cognitive bias task nor in cortisol levels, the former displayed more stress-related behaviors and was more frequently in tense and low behavioral states. These findings indicate that aversive-based training methods, especially if used in high proportions, compromise the welfare of companion dogs both within and outside the training context.

Indexed as

Reinforcement, PsychologyAffectAnimalsBehavior, AnimalConditioning, PsychologicalDogsHumansHydrocortisoneMalePetsPunishmentRewardSalivaStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesVideo RecordingHydrocortisone

Identifiers

PMID33326450
PMCPMC7743949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.