By Sam Basso | Sam The Dog Trainer
OVERVIEW: What research reveals about parenting styles, affection, guidance, corrections, and how dogs learn.
How we raise and train our dogs matters, but are we permissive, authoritarian, or authoritative in our approach? A permissive owner establishes relatively few expectations or provides insufficient guidance, while an authoritarian owner emphasizes control and compliance, sometimes at the expense of the dog's welfare and opportunities to learn. An authoritative approach combines reasonable expectations with affection, responsiveness, appropriate supervision, and deliberate instruction. Scientific research has begun examining how these different approaches are associated with dogs' attachment, social responses, and problem-solving, as well as how our own childhood experiences may influence the way we raise our dogs. But no parenting style, by itself, guarantees that a dog will acquire the skills needed to succeed. We must also consider how dogs learn, whether they receive sufficient instruction, how we handle mistakes and corrections, and whether our methods develop confidence and useful capabilities rather than confusion, insecurity, or fear.
Imagine a young child learning how to cross a street. One parent provides almost no guidance and leaves the child to discover the dangers through trial and error. Another controls the child so tightly, perhaps reacting harshly or unpredictably to mistakes, that the child has little opportunity to learn to assess traffic or make safe decisions. Neither approach adequately prepares the child for independence. A responsible parent supervises, demonstrates what to do, prevents dangerous mistakes, and gradually allows the child to practice the developing skills.
We can make similar mistakes with dogs. We can leave them guessing, or control their actions so tightly that they have little opportunity to learn. If corrections are frightening, inconsistent, or difficult to predict, a dog may become more concerned with avoiding our reactions than understanding what we want. The alternative is neither permissiveness nor intimidation. It is affectionate supervision combined with deliberate teaching, manageable practice, and increasing opportunities to exercise acquired skills.
What does research mean by permissive pet parenting?
Permissive: High responsiveness and affection but comparatively few expectations or consistent limits. Without enough guidance, a dog may not learn which responses are appropriate.
Authoritarian: Strict demands and strong control with comparatively little responsiveness to the dog’s needs. Compliance may be emphasized over supportive teaching; a firm safety intervention alone is not authoritarian.
Authoritative: Clear expectations and consistent supervision combined with affection, responsiveness, and supportive guidance. The dog must still be taught and allowed to practice particular skills.
The classifications are descriptions of caregiving patterns, not diagnoses or complete dog-training methods. They should not be confused with an animal’s demonstrated learning, proficiency, or performance.
Brubaker and Udell, in a study published online in 2022 and in a 2023 journal issue, compared dogs whose owners differed in reported expectations and responsiveness. Dogs in the authoritative group generally showed stronger outcomes on several measures of secure attachment, sociability, and problem-solving than dogs in the other groups [1]. Those findings describe associations on particular tests, not proof that adopting a parenting label will cause a given dog to acquire better skills. The study did not measure every element of household supervision, teaching history, medical condition, or actual performance in daily life.
A terminology caution matters here: Brubaker and Udell called owners with low expectations and low responsiveness “permissive” [1]. In the conventional four-style framework summarized by Kuo and Kessler, permissive instead means low expectations but high responsiveness, while low levels of both are typically labeled uninvolved [2]. Consequently, results from these two studies should not be interpreted as though their permissive groups were defined identically. A 2024 systematic review likewise illustrates why pet parenting remains a developing research area rather than a ready-made diagnosis for an individual household [3].
The practical distinction is straightforward: authoritative should not mean domineering, and it cannot mean leaving the dog to discover expectations unaided. Responsiveness, affection, supervision, and teaching are essential responsibilities. A parenting style is not a curriculum.
Why are boundaries alone not enough?
An expectation is not the same thing as an acquired skill. A dog can live with loving people who have reasonable rules and still have no idea how to meet those expectations when something exciting, frightening, threatening, or distracting happens.
We need to separate several concepts. An action is something observable, such as a dog jumping toward a visitor. A response is a defined unit of activity occurring under particular conditions. A skill is an acquired capability developed through learning and practice. Performance is the dog's actual execution of a response or skill in the present situation. A dog may have acquired a greeting skill but fail to perform it at a noisy doorway because that capability is difficult to access in the dog's current state or circumstances. A failed performance does not, by itself, show that the skill was never learned.
Consider an owner who decides a dog must stop jumping on visitors. Has the dog been taught an alternative greeting response? Has that response been practiced enough to form a usable skill? Has the dog practiced with approaching people and an opening door? Is anyone supervising the greeting while the skill develops? Saying "No jumping" answers none of those questions.
The predictability of events and opportunities for control can affect animal welfare. In a review of research across captive animal species, Bassett and Buchanan-Smith (2007) examined how predictability shapes responses to pleasant and aversive events [4]. Their review does not establish that every unguided mistake makes a dog insecure. It does give us reason to investigate whether confusing, unpredictable training circumstances contribute to uncertainty or distress.
Why might a loving owner avoid setting limits?
Some people dislike conflict, some have seen harsh training and want to avoid repeating it, and some households have conflicting expectations. A tired caregiver may discover that giving in is easier in the moment than teaching and practicing an alternative. Other owners have difficulty distinguishing manageable frustration from significant fear or distress.
Kuo and Kessler (2024) surveyed 391 dog caregivers and interviewed 10. They reported an association between recalled childhood parenting experiences and approaches to dog caregiving. Some participants described repeating permissive patterns; others described compensating for a restrictive upbringing [2]. These findings invite questions about learning history and household relationships. They do not tell us why any particular person responds as they do.
Research involving human families suggests that the way children are raised can have consequences extending well into adulthood, including how they eventually raise their own children.
In a meta-analysis of 1,435 studies, Pinquart (2017) found that authoritative parenting, parental warmth, appropriate guidance, and opportunities for autonomy were associated with fewer externalizing problems in children and adolescents, while authoritarian, permissive, and harsh or psychologically controlling parenting were associated with more difficulties, including aggression, rule-breaking, and other problematic responses [14]. A separate meta-analysis involving 1,015 studies also linked warmth and authoritative parenting with fewer internalizing symptoms, while harsh and psychologically controlling approaches were associated with greater anxiety, depression, and related difficulties [15]. These associations were generally modest and do not establish that parenting style alone caused the outcomes. The possible consequences can also extend across generations. Geeraerts and colleagues (2025), reviewing longitudinal research involving 24 datasets, found that people tend to reproduce some aspects of the parenting they experienced, although the overall association was small [16]. Some adults repeat familiar parenting practices; others consciously reject or compensate for them. This raises an important question for dog owners: Could someone raised with few boundaries have difficulty providing consistent guidance to a dog? Could someone raised under excessive control become either unnecessarily controlling or reluctant to establish reasonable expectations? Kuo and Kessler's findings make these possibilities worth investigating, but the human research does not establish that these patterns necessarily transfer to dog caregiving or produce equivalent outcomes in dogs. The practical lesson is to examine not only what the dog is learning, but also what the owner has learned about affection, responsibility, supervision, authority, and teaching.
If you are experiencing problems with your dog, or other people are regularly complaining about your dog's responses and actions, perhaps it is worth examining more than what the dog is doing. How were you raised? Were your parents permissive, authoritarian, or authoritative? Have you adopted a similar approach toward your dog, or have you gone in the opposite direction because of experiences you disliked during childhood? Are you providing appropriate guidance, affection, supervision, and sufficient instruction, or are you unintentionally allowing unwanted responses to develop and persist? Conversely, are you exercising so much control that your dog has limited opportunities to acquire skills, practice them, and learn to make appropriate choices? Could your reactions to mistakes be creating uncertainty or fear rather than helping your dog understand what to do? And importantly, is your approach accomplishing what you intend, or might it be contributing to the problems you, your family, your neighbors, or other people are observing?
These questions do not establish that your upbringing or parenting style caused your dog's difficulties. A dog's health, inherited predispositions, emotional state, learning history, and environment must also be considered. But before deciding that the dog is the problem, it may be worthwhile to examine what both you and your dog have learned, what each of you is currently doing, and how your interactions may be influencing the outcomes.
Can an owner and a dog unintentionally train each other?
Of course. Owners and dogs both experience consequences, and an interaction can continue even when neither participant intends to maintain it.
Imagine a friendly dog who jumps on visitors. The owner says, "He just loves people." Visitors pet the dog, talk to him, or laugh. The jump is an observable action. If the attention that follows makes jumping more likely in similar circumstances, the consequence has positively reinforced a jumping response class. Feuerbacher and Wynne (2016) demonstrated that access to an owner can function as a reinforcer for dogs, but the consequence maintaining any particular response must be investigated rather than assumed [5].
Now consider a dog who barks persistently while the owner is working. Eventually the owner puts down the computer and begins to play. If the consequence increases later barking, the dog's attention-seeking response may be reinforced (strengthened). If giving in immediately stops an unpleasant interruption, that relief may also make the owner's response more likely. The owner and dog may be learning from the same exchange.
This is a possible two-way learning mechanism, not evidence that the dog is manipulative or the owner is weak. I would want to know what occurs immediately before and after each response, how frequently the sequence repeats, and what changes when one participant responds differently.
Should good training prevent mistakes, or let dogs learn by trial and error?
Good training should reduce unnecessary errors without treating every mistake as a failure or removing every opportunity to practice. There is an important difference between guided learning and leaving a dog to struggle.
For ordinary skill acquisition, I prefer to begin at a level where the dog can succeed. We can use understandable cues, prompts, valued reinforcers, and manageable distractions. Assistance should then be reduced as proficiency develops. Instruction is not merely preventing an incorrect response. It is giving the dog the experience needed to acquire a skill and then practice it under increasingly realistic conditions.
When should an owner intervene to stop a dangerous mistake?
Immediately, when a dog faces an imminent and serious danger. If my dog is about to run into a roadway, I am going to stop him. Preventing an accident is not cruelty, and I am not going to risk a potentially fatal outcome to preserve a training philosophy.
Physically stopping a dog in an emergency is not automatically punishment in the technical learning sense. It may be restraint, interruption, or management. Preventing the accident is one responsibility; teaching reliable safety responses is another. I still need to teach the dog the relevant cues and skills, supervise where hazards exist, and avoid assuming that one interruption created lasting understanding.
The same distinction applies to gates, leashes, safe confinement, and other management arrangements. Preventing access to danger is sensible. Preventing all opportunities to exercise a developing skill, even when the risk is manageable, may undermine the purpose of instruction.
Are all corrections the same?
No. Correction is an imprecise everyday word for very different events: giving additional information, prompting another response, interrupting danger, temporarily withdrawing a desired opportunity, or delivering an unpleasant consequence. These should not be treated as interchangeable.
When I use the term “correction,” I mean interrupting an incorrect or unwanted response and helping the dog perform the appropriate response instead. The purpose is to provide guidance, not to frighten or intimidate the dog. A correction should help the dog understand what to do, rather than merely communicate what not to do.
Negative punishment has a specific meaning in operant learning: a desirable stimulus or opportunity is removed contingent on a response, and that response subsequently becomes less likely. If a dog jumps to obtain attention, a person might briefly withdraw interaction and then provide attention when four feet remain on the floor. If withdrawing attention decreases future jumping, it has functioned as negative punishment; if the attention delivered for remaining on the floor increases that alternative response, positive reinforcement may also be operating. The effects must be observed rather than presumed.
What matters is the actual procedure, its effect on the identified response, what the dog learns from it, and any welfare consequences. A safety intervention is justified by the immediate need to prevent injury; a continuing training procedure requires a separate assessment of effectiveness and risk.
Can frightening or inconsistent punishments interfere with learning?
They can, particularly when an intervention frightens the dog, introduces confusion, or discourages responding without helping the dog learn what to do instead. However, the research on punishment and dog training needs to be interpreted carefully. We must distinguish between an immediate response to a training procedure, the acquisition and long-term retention of a skill, and the dog's welfare over time. These are different outcomes, and measuring one does not necessarily establish the others.
Hiby, Rooney, and Bradshaw (2004) surveyed 364 dog owners and found that greater reported use of reward-based methods was associated with higher owner-rated obedience, while greater reported use of punishment was associated with more reported problem responses [10].
That finding is worth considering, but the study was based on questionnaires collected at one point in time. It did not establish whether punishment caused the reported problems, whether owners began using more punishment because their dogs were already exhibiting unwanted responses, or whether other circumstances influenced both. Nor did the researchers follow the dogs over subsequent weeks, months, or years to determine how their skills, responsiveness, or welfare changed.
There is also an important distinction between correcting an incorrect response and relying primarily on punishment instead of teaching. It should not be surprising that dogs receiving sufficient instruction and reinforcement of appropriate responses might perform better than dogs whose owners mainly attempt to suppress unwanted responses. Punishment alone does not necessarily teach the dog what to do instead.
The more useful question is how we can provide clear instruction, guide the dog toward successful responses, prevent avoidable mistakes, and make appropriate corrections without interfering with learning.
Vieira de Castro and colleagues (2020) examined 92 companion dogs attending training schools that differed in their use of aversive methods [9]. Dogs attending schools using higher proportions of aversive procedures exhibited more stress-related responses during training and greater increases in salivary cortisol following training. Dogs in the most aversive group also demonstrated more pessimistic responses during a separate cognitive-bias assessment than dogs attending reward-based schools.
These findings raise legitimate welfare concerns. However, we need to understand exactly what the researchers measured and what their study design allows us to conclude.
The researchers recorded portions of three training sessions for each dog and collected saliva samples at home and after training. Subsequently, 79 of the original 92 dogs participated in a cognitive-bias assessment outside the training environment. This assessment occurred within one month of completing the initial observation phase, after the dogs had attended training school for at least one month. Importantly, the observation phase did not necessarily coincide with completion of the dogs' training programs.
Consequently, the research provided repeated observations during training and a separate assessment outside that environment. It did not follow the dogs after completing their training programs to determine their subsequent responses, skill retention, performance, or overall welfare at one month, six months, or a year.
That distinction is important. An animal displaying responses consistent with distress during a training session warrants attention. But those observations do not establish whether the effects persisted, diminished, or changed over time. Similarly, a cognitive-bias assessment conducted outside the training environment provides useful information about the dog's responses under those test conditions, but it does not establish a lasting emotional state or predict the dog's future welfare.
Another important limitation concerns the quality of the instruction itself.
Although the researchers classified training schools according to their use of reinforcement and punishment procedures, they did not independently establish whether the trainers were equally competent, whether instruction was appropriately individualized, or whether the timing, consistency, and implementation of teaching procedures were comparable across schools. The researchers accounted statistically for certain differences among dogs and owners, but those adjustments do not eliminate the possibility that differences in instructional quality or other school characteristics contributed to the observed outcomes.
This matters because identifying a training method does not tell us whether it was applied competently. Two trainers may describe themselves as using the same approach while differing substantially in how they establish cues, arrange learning opportunities, select consequences, prevent unnecessary mistakes, and adjust instruction to the individual dog. Those differences could affect both the dog's immediate responses and its subsequent acquisition and performance of skills.
The study provides evidence of differences in welfare-related measures among dogs attending schools using different proportions of aversive procedures. It does not establish how much of those differences was attributable specifically to the training procedures, as opposed to other characteristics of the participating schools or the quality of instruction. Nor does it establish which approach produced better long-term skill acquisition, reliable performance, or overall welfare across the dog's life.
The authors also acknowledged that their study was not designed to compare training effectiveness. Therefore, we cannot use these findings to determine which methods produced better long-term skill acquisition, more reliable performance, or greater retention and generalization of acquired skills.
There are additional limitations. Dogs and owners were not randomly assigned to training methods. The schools differed in their approaches, and the participating dogs and owners may have differed before entering those programs. Without adequate measurements before training and repeated follow-up assessments afterward, we cannot confidently separate the effects of training from other potentially important influences.
We should also be cautious when interpreting cortisol measurements. Cortisol is involved in physiological responses to many circumstances, including arousal, physical activity, and stress. Its concentration can vary with the individual, the circumstances, and the timing of measurement. An elevated cortisol concentration does not, by itself, establish poor welfare. There is no single physiological test that tells us whether an animal is experiencing good or poor welfare.
To their credit, Vieira de Castro and colleagues did not rely exclusively on cortisol. They also evaluated observable responses and used a cognitive-bias assessment. Considering several kinds of evidence together is preferable to drawing conclusions from a single physiological measurement. Nevertheless, these measures cannot tell us everything about an individual dog's welfare, particularly how that welfare changes across its lifetime.
The absence of long-term follow-up does not mean the observed welfare concerns were unimportant. Equally, evidence of distress during or shortly after training does not automatically establish lasting harm. Both possibilities require appropriate investigation.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, in its 2021 humane dog-training position statement, reaffirmed in 2025, recommends exclusively reward-based training and opposes aversive procedures, including physical corrections [11]. This is the organization's professional position, based on its interpretation of the broader research literature. It deserves consideration, but a professional recommendation is not a substitute for distinguishing what particular studies have demonstrated from questions that remain unanswered. Further, every organization has its biases, and those need to be factored in whenever looking at a position paper.
Unfortunately, discussions of punishment and reinforcement sometimes become polarized into arguments over which procedures should be permitted, rather than examining what a dog is learning, whether instruction is effective, and what consequences the training produces.
Preventing a dog from running into a roadway, interrupting an incorrect response, temporarily withholding an opportunity for reinforcement, and applying a painful or frightening consequence are not equivalent interventions. They may involve different learning processes, serve different purposes, and produce different outcomes.
When I use the term correction, I mean interrupting an incorrect or unwanted response and helping the dog perform the appropriate response instead. My purpose is to provide guidance, not simply suppress the dog's responding. An interruption may or may not function as punishment in the technical sense, depending on its consequences for subsequent responding.
Negative punishment, such as briefly withdrawing an opportunity for attention following an unwanted response, can also have a legitimate role in instruction. When properly arranged, the dog can learn that one response does not produce the desired opportunity while another appropriate response does. The usefulness of that arrangement depends on the individual dog, the circumstances, and what the dog actually learns.
In evaluating any training procedure, I would want to know more than what happened during the lesson. What happened the next day? Could the dog perform the acquired skill a week later, a month later, or a year later? Was the skill accessible with different people, in different places, and under changing circumstances? Did unwanted responses decrease and remain less frequent? Did the dog become more capable of responding appropriately without constant supervision or intervention?
Just as importantly, what happened to the dog's welfare over that period and into the future? Were there persistent signs of fear, avoidance, or distress? Did the dog continue to participate comfortably in instruction and everyday activities? Were safety and quality of life improved? These questions require repeated observations and consideration of the dog's circumstances, not merely a questionnaire or measurements collected during several training sessions.
Good training should be evaluated through both its immediate effects and its longer-term consequences. We should consider the quality of instruction, the skills acquired, the reliability and durability of performance, the prevention of avoidable harm, and the dog's welfare throughout the process.
The goal is not simply to stop an incorrect response today. It is to help the dog acquire useful skills, make appropriate choices, and function safely and successfully tomorrow, next month, and years into the future, without unnecessary fear, confusion, or distress.
Can dogs accidentally learn responses we never intended to teach?
Yes, but not every unwanted response is the result of accidental reinforcement. In 1948, B. F. Skinner described repetitive patterns in pigeons receiving food independently of their responses and suggested that accidental pairings of responses and food helped maintain what he called superstitious responding [12]. Staddon and Simmelhag (1971) later reexamined the phenomenon and emphasized the contribution of species-typical response patterns and the timing of events [13]. Their work cautions against treating superstition as a complete explanation for every unusual response.
Nevertheless, poorly arranged contingencies can strengthen responses that a trainer never meant to teach. Barking may occasionally bring attention. Avoidance may develop when an exercise consistently precedes unpleasant handling. An incidental action may be rewarded when the trainer intended to reinforce a different one. Before deciding why a response occurs, we need to examine the actual sequence and consider alternatives.
I do not want a dog afraid to try. I also do not want a dog guessing, repeatedly failing, or acquiring an unwanted response that reasonable supervision and clearer instruction could have prevented.
When is accommodation kind rather than permissive?
Accommodation is appropriate when a dog may be frightened, overwhelmed, injured, ill, or unable to participate safely. Those situations should not be turned into contests over authority.
A dog trembling during a thunderstorm does not become courageous because someone refuses reassurance. A dog experiencing severe separation-related distress should not be left to panic as a lesson in independence. A dog resisting touch may be frightened, painful, or both. Comforting a frightened dog does not automatically reinforce fear. An observed response, such as trembling or withdrawal, does not establish the animal's full emotional state or the cause of that response.
There is a meaningful distinction between manageable disappointment and substantial distress. A dog can acquire the skill of waiting briefly for a toy, but the exercise must fit the dog's current capacity. Persistent panic, sudden changes in responding, suspected pain, attempts to bite, or dangerous escape attempts are reasons to investigate and, where appropriate, obtain veterinary or qualified behavioral assessment rather than simply demand firmer boundaries.
What if people in the household have different rules?
The dog may encounter different cues and consequences with different people. This is not proof of deliberate defiance. If one person gives attention after jumping and another discourages it, the same observable action has different outcomes. A dog may learn context-specific responses, but successful performance with one person does not mean the skill has generalized to everyone.
I would ask household members to agree on a few observable expectations, teach and practice the same alternative responses, and decide who will supervise predictable trouble spots. The objective is not rigid uniformity for its own sake. It is to give the dog a comprehensible environment and fair opportunities to learn.
How can we tell whether the training plan is working?
Journal it. Measure what the dog actually does under specified conditions, not how frequently someone says no. Is the desired greeting response becoming more frequent? Can the dog perform the acquired skill with gradually more realistic distractions or different people? Does the dog remain comfortable enough to participate and recover after mistakes?
These are different measures. An increase in one response does not establish a durable skill. Skill acquisition does not guarantee accessibility in every setting, and one successful performance does not demonstrate reliable generalization. If a response changes abruptly, the dog appears distressed, or safety deteriorates, investigate the circumstances instead of escalating demands.
What does it really mean to love a dog and set boundaries?
It means accepting responsibility for both the relationship and the instruction. People should provide safety, affection, appropriate limits, supervision, and enough teaching for the dog to acquire useful skills. The dog should not be expected to invent the responses we require in situations for which it has never been prepared.
Good training channels learning in productive directions. We make appropriate responses understandable, achievable, and worthwhile; prevent dangerous mistakes; give clear guidance when errors occur; and progressively help the dog exercise acquired skills without becoming fearful of trying.
Before deciding that a dog needs firmer boundaries, I would ask:
· Why am I relating to my dog this way?
· What might my dog be learning from my responses?
· Have I taught and practiced the specific responses I want?
· Has the dog acquired the necessary skill, and can the dog access and perform it under the present conditions?
The objective is not simply to control a dog while someone is watching. It is to prepare the dog to function safely and successfully in everyday life.
Glossary
Action: A particular observable act, such as jumping toward a visitor.
Accessibility: Whether a learned capability or response can presently be recruited under the dog's current state and circumstances.
Authoritarian pet parenting: High expectations and control with relatively low responsiveness. May emphasize obedience and strict limits without adequate attention to the dog’s needs or instruction; a single safety intervention does not establish this style.
Authoritative pet parenting: High expectations and high responsiveness: clear, consistent guidance and supervision combined with affection and support. It is a caregiving style, not a substitute for teaching particular skills.
Behavior: A discipline-dependent term. In ethology it can describe organized animal activity; in learning analysis it may denote a defined response class. It is not interchangeable with action, response, skill, performance, or emotional state.
Contingency: The relationship between a defined response and the conditions or consequences that follow it.
Correction: An informal label applied to multiple kinds of trainer intervention. Its precise procedure and function must be described rather than assumed.
Cue: A signal or circumstance that helps indicate when a particular learned response is appropriate or likely to be reinforced.
Demandingness (expectations): The degree to which a caregiver sets standards, provides direction, and supervises; not synonymous with intimidation or a complete training plan.
Discrimination learning: Learning to respond differently when relevant stimuli or conditions differ.
Errorless learning: Instruction arranged to minimize incorrect responses during acquisition, often by making relevant distinctions easy initially and adjusting prompts or stimuli gradually.
Generalization: Extension of learned responding or skill performance across cues, people, settings, or other conditions.
Learning: A process of relatively enduring change associated with experience. It is not interchangeable with immediate performance.
Management: Supervision and arrangements of the environment that reduce risk or opportunities to practice unwanted responses while instruction takes place.
Negative punishment: Removal or withdrawal of a desired stimulus or opportunity contingent on a response, when that removal decreases the future probability of the response.
Negative reinforcement: Removal, reduction, or avoidance of an aversive condition contingent on a response, when that consequence increases the future probability of the response.
Performance: Actual execution of an action, response, or acquired skill under specified conditions.
Permissive pet parenting: Conventionally, high responsiveness but relatively low expectations, limits, or structure. Brubaker and Udell (2023) used the term for owners low in both expectations and responsiveness.
Positive punishment: Addition of a stimulus contingent on a response that decreases its future probability; not synonymous with providing information or interrupting danger.
Positive reinforcement: Addition of a consequence contingent on a response that increases its future probability in relevant circumstances.
Predictability: The degree to which events or their timing can be anticipated based on available signals or regularities.
Prompt: Additional assistance intended to make a target response more likely during instruction; prompts are often reduced as the skill develops.
Response: A defined unit of activity in relation to a cue, event, circumstance, or consequence; it does not, by itself, reveal its cause.
Response class: A group of responses defined by a shared functional relationship or other explicit criterion rather than mere superficial similarity.
Responsiveness: The degree to which a caregiver responds with warmth, sensitivity, and support to the dog’s needs and circumstances.
Skill: An acquired, functionally organized capability developed through learning and practice.
Superstitious or adventitious responding: A historically debated account of responses that appear associated with consequences that are not actually contingent on those responses; not a default explanation for unwanted responding.
Trial-and-error learning: A learning arrangement in which correct and incorrect responses may occur, with their subsequent consequences contributing to acquisition.
Uninvolved pet parenting: In the conventional four-style framework, relatively low expectations and low responsiveness. This category is distinct from conventionally defined permissiveness, even though one dog study used “permissive” for a low-low combination.
Research and Bibliography
[1] Brubaker, L., & Udell, M. A. R. (2023). Does pet parenting style predict the social and problem-solving behavior of pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)? Animal Cognition, 26, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01694-6(Published online in 2022.)
[2] Kuo, C. H., & Kessler, S. (2024). Intergenerational transmission of human parenting styles to human–dog relationships. Animals, 14(7), 1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14071038
[3] Barina-Silvestri, M., DÃaz-Videla, M., & Delgado-RodrÃguez, R. (2024). Pet parenting: A systematic review of its characteristics and effects on companion dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 76, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2024.09.003
[4] Bassett, L., & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. (2007). Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3–4), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.029
[5] Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2016). Application of functional analysis methods to assess human-dog interactions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.318
[6] Terrace, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without "errors." Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1963.6-1
[7] Handley, K., Hazel, S., Fountain, J., & Fernandez, E. J. (2023). Comparing trial-and-error to errorless learning procedures in training pet dogs a visual discrimination. Learning and Motivation, 84, 101944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101944
[8] Yin, S., Fernandez, E. J., Pagan, S., Richardson, S. L., & Snyder, G. (2008). Efficacy of a remote-controlled, positive-reinforcement, dog-training system for modifying problem behaviors exhibited when people arrive at the door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(1–3), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.001
[9] Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
[10] Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600026683
[11] American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2021). Humane dog training: Position statement(reaffirmed in a 2025 board statement). https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/
[12] Skinner, B. F. (1948). "Superstition" in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(2), 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055873
[13] Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. L. (1971). The "superstition" experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030305
[14] Pinquart, M. (2017a). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
[15] Pinquart, M. (2017b). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761
[16] Geeraerts, S. B., Spitzer, J., Schulz, S., Capaldi, D. M., Kerr, D. C. R., & Branje, S. (2025). Intergenerational stability in parenting across two generations: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(9), 1170–1195. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000494
[17] The author used AI to assist in editing this article.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
