OVERVIEW: When family members stop communicating over disagreements about a dog's behavior or training, the resulting conflict can make problems harder to resolve and affect the dog's welfare.
When family members disagree about a dog's behavior or training, refusing to speak to one another does not resolve the disagreement. Instead, it can make the original problem harder to manage, create additional resentment, and leave important decisions about the dog unresolved. Sometimes the most difficult part of solving a dog-training problem is not teaching the dog what to do. It is getting the people involved to communicate, cooperate, and agree on what they are trying to accomplish.
Dogs live in families where people have different personalities, priorities, schedules, expectations, and ideas about how animals should be treated. One person may believe the dog needs more discipline, while another thinks the dog is being treated too harshly. A spouse may allow the dog onto the furniture while the other objects. Parents may disagree with their adult children about training methods, or one family member may be concerned about a dog's threatening behavior while another insists there is nothing to worry about. These disagreements are not necessarily evidence that someone is unreasonable or wrong. Often, the people involved are looking at the same situation from different perspectives, with different concerns and incomplete information.
The situation becomes considerably more difficult when disagreement turns into silence. Rather than discussing what happened, evaluating the circumstances, and deciding what to do next, someone withdraws from the conversation or refuses to acknowledge the other person's concerns. The dog remains at the center of the controversy, but what began as a training problem may now involve resentment, control, hurt feelings, and an inability to make ordinary household decisions.
There is something paradoxical about people who strongly dislike conflict but repeatedly find themselves involved in unresolved disagreements. Sometimes the very things people do to avoid confrontation help perpetuate it. They refuse to discuss uncomfortable subjects, avoid decisions that might upset someone, or withdraw whenever a disagreement arises. These responses may provide temporary relief, but the underlying issues remain. Peace is not necessarily the absence of an argument. A household can be remarkably quiet while its members remain angry, resentful, or unwilling to cooperate. More lasting peace generally requires acknowledging the disagreement, understanding the competing concerns, and doing the sometimes uncomfortable work of finding a solution.
Let’s say someone is doing real harm to the dog, and possibly covering it up. There are circumstances in which distancing yourself from another person is entirely appropriate, particularly when that person has engaged in serious dishonesty, deception, abuse, or other clearly unethical or immoral conduct. Choosing to limit or end contact under those circumstances should not automatically be characterized as giving someone the silent treatment. There is a fundamental difference between refusing to communicate as a means of punishing or controlling another person and deciding that continued involvement with someone would expose you or the dog to further harm, dishonesty, or unacceptable conduct. You are not obligated to maintain a relationship with someone simply to demonstrate that you are willing to resolve conflicts. Sometimes the responsible decision is to establish firm boundaries or remove yourself from the situation altogether.
An especially serious breach of trust occurs when someone fails to fulfill an important responsibility and then conceals that failure by providing misleading reassurances. There is a difference between neglecting an obligation, failing to disclose important information, and actively deceiving someone into believing that necessary work is being accomplished. When that deception prevents the other person from discovering the problem in time to intervene, correct it, or pursue an alternative, the consequences can extend far beyond the original failure. In matters involving dogs, withholding information about dangerous behavior, misrepresenting whether safety precautions have been followed, or falsely assuring others that important responsibilities have been handled can put animals and people at risk. In such situations, the priority may need to shift from trying to restore harmony to protecting those affected, establishing the facts, limiting further harm, and determining whether trust can reasonably be restored.
The objective of healthy conflict resolution is not to preserve every relationship at any cost. It is to address disagreements fairly and responsibly while recognizing that some conduct is unacceptable. Genuine peace requires honesty, accountability, and a willingness to resolve problems, but it does not require tolerating deception, mistreatment, or repeated violations of trust. Sometimes working through a conflict leads to reconciliation. Other times, it leads to the recognition that separation is the more responsible solution. Neither outcome should be confused with using the silent treatment to punish someone.
Why Do People Give Family Members the Silent Treatment?
The silent treatment generally involves intentionally withholding communication or acknowledgment from another person. It can occur between spouses, parents and children, siblings, or other people who live together. Sometimes it is used to express displeasure, avoid an uncomfortable discussion, or punish another person for doing something the individual dislikes. At other times, withdrawal may reflect emotional exhaustion, fear, or difficulty managing a disagreement. The outward behavior can look similar even when the underlying reasons are quite different.
Mel Robbins, author of The Let Them Theory, has criticized the use of the silent treatment as a way for adults to punish someone who is not doing what they want. In her discussion of emotional maturity, she argues that withdrawing ordinary access and communication can become a means of exercising interpersonal control. Her broader point is that we cannot force another adult to behave differently, but we can decide how we respond to that person's conduct and what boundaries we establish for ourselves.
There is scholarly research relevant to this concern. Psychologist Kipling Williams has studied ostracism, including the experience of being ignored or excluded by others. His research identifies four psychological needs that ostracism can threaten: belonging, self-esteem, control, and a sense of meaningful existence. Williams and his colleagues also examined people's experiences of giving and receiving the silent treatment and found that it was associated with feelings and perceptions of punishment and exclusion. In related relationship research, a pattern known as demand-withdraw occurs when one person repeatedly presses for discussion or change while another avoids or withdraws from the interaction. A meta-analysis by Schrodt and colleagues found that these patterns were associated with poorer relationship and communication outcomes.
However, the research does not establish that every person who becomes quiet is attempting to manipulate someone. A person may withdraw because the discussion has become overwhelming, because they need time to think, or because they believe continuing the conversation will make matters worse. In some relationships, refusing contact may be necessary for personal safety. We should therefore distinguish what a person actually does from what we assume that behavior means.
There is also an important difference between refusing to communicate and taking a reasonable break from a heated argument. Someone who says, "I am too upset to discuss this right now, but let's talk tomorrow," is communicating a need and establishing a reasonable opportunity to return to the disagreement. That is quite different from ignoring a spouse for several days, refusing to answer necessary questions, or withholding cooperation until the other person surrenders. The Gottman Institute has discussed this distinction in its work on stonewalling, emotional overwhelm, and constructive breaks during disagreements.
The distinction matters because avoiding an argument is not necessarily the same thing as resolving a conflict. Two people may stop arguing because they have reached an understanding, but they may also stop because one has given up trying to be heard. The immediate confrontation ends in either case, yet the consequences can be very different. If the concerns that caused the disagreement remain unresolved, they may return the next time a similar situation occurs. Silence can postpone a confrontation, but it cannot, by itself, provide an agreement about what should happen next.
How Does Family Conflict Affect the Dog?
The dog will have no understanding of why family members are upset with one another, but the consequences of their disagreements can still affect its daily life. Dogs respond to what people do, including the situations they create, the opportunities they provide, the training methods they use, and the consequences that follow the dog's behavior. When the people responsible for those circumstances are unable or unwilling to communicate, the resulting arrangements may become inconsistent, impractical, or unsafe.
Consider a puppy that jumps on visitors. One person wants the puppy to learn to greet people without jumping, while another encourages the behavior because they find it affectionate or amusing. The first person becomes frustrated, and the second becomes defensive. Eventually, they stop discussing the issue altogether. The problem is no longer simply whether the puppy understands a particular training exercise. The people involved have different objectives, and neither has established a workable arrangement with the other.
That does not mean dogs are incapable of learning different rules from different people. Dogs can learn context-specific behavior, and a dog that is allowed on one person's furniture may learn not to climb onto another person's furniture. The important question is whether the differences in handling interfere with the desired outcome, create unnecessary conflict, or expose the dog or other people to risk.
Consider a more serious situation involving a dog that has threatened or attacked another household dog. One family member is concerned about the possibility of another incident and wants the dogs separated until the circumstances can be evaluated. Another thinks the incident was unimportant and believes the dogs should be allowed together. If the second person refuses to discuss safety precautions or deliberately disregards them, the disagreement may have consequences far beyond hurt feelings. A dog trainer cannot responsibly recommend a management and training plan that depends on cooperation while ignoring evidence that essential safety arrangements may not be followed.
We should also be careful about assuming that a dog's behavior is caused by tension among the people in the home. Human conflict can change the environment and the way people interact with a dog, but it does not establish a specific behavioral or physiological explanation. If a dog begins barking more frequently, avoids someone, becomes destructive, or behaves aggressively, we still need to investigate the circumstances, medical possibilities, relevant history, and sequence of events. The family's disagreement may be relevant, but it should not automatically become the diagnosis.
Sometimes the Disagreement Isn't Really About the Dog
An argument that appears to concern dog training may also involve responsibilities, personal values, household authority, or longstanding relationship problems. A disagreement about feeding might be related to who is expected to do the work. Complaints about housetraining may involve resentment that one person is repeatedly cleaning up after the dog. Disputes over obedience may reflect fundamentally different beliefs about discipline and how animals should be treated. The dog becomes the immediate subject of an argument that may have a much longer history.
This is one reason I believe it is important to distinguish the dog's behavior from the explanations and disagreements offered by the people involved. If two family members disagree about whether their dog is aggressive, I would first want to establish what the dog actually did. Barking, threatening gestures, an attempted attack, and a completed physical attack are not interchangeable descriptions. One person may be frightened by the dog's behavior while another interprets it as harmless, but neither interpretation substitutes for examining the actual events.
The same principle applies to disagreements about training. One person may say the dog is stubborn, while another believes it is frightened. Those are interpretations, not observations. We need to know what the dog does, under what conditions it occurs, and whether the behavior changes when the circumstances change. It is possible that both people have observed something important, even if neither has developed an adequate explanation.
Yet even a careful behavioral assessment cannot resolve every problem between the people. A dog cannot settle arguments about fairness, personal responsibility, respect, or a deteriorating marriage. Nor can a dog trainer assume the responsibilities of a marriage counselor or family therapist simply because a dog is involved in the dispute. The trainer can examine the dog's behavior and the relevant interactions among people and animals, but the human relationship may require attention beyond the trainer's professional role.
It is particularly unfortunate when people who want a peaceful household become so uncomfortable with disagreement that they avoid discussing anything likely to cause friction. They may believe that leaving an issue alone is the best way to keep the peace, even as the unresolved issues accumulate. Eventually, comparatively small events can provoke arguments that seem disproportionate to what happened. The latest disagreement about the dog may become another occasion for expressing frustration about matters that were never satisfactorily addressed. At that point, solving the dog's immediate problem may help, but it cannot substitute for addressing the human disagreements that continue to produce conflict.
What If Someone Refuses to Cooperate With Dog Training?
Not everyone in a family needs to become an accomplished dog trainer, and it is unreasonable to expect every household member to have the same level of interest, skill, or available time. One person may enjoy teaching obedience exercises, while another is satisfied with providing ordinary care and affection. A family can make many different arrangements and still provide a suitable home for its dog.
However, there is a difference between not wanting to conduct training exercises and refusing to cooperate with essential household rules or safety precautions. A family member who is uninterested in training the dog to sit may still agree not to encourage jumping on elderly visitors. Someone who cannot physically walk the dog may still understand the importance of keeping gates secured. A person who disagrees with a particular training technique may reasonably request another approach without abandoning the entire effort to solve the problem.
When cooperation breaks down, the practical question becomes what can realistically be accomplished. A trainer might develop an excellent behavioral plan, but if the plan requires several people to perform specific tasks and one of them refuses, the plan may not be workable. It would be misleading to blame the dog or declare the training unsuccessful without considering whether the necessary conditions for the program ever existed.
The problem is especially serious when the refusal concerns safety. If a dog has a history of biting, escaping, fighting with another dog, or behaving dangerously around children, reasonable precautions cannot be treated as optional simply because someone is angry with another family member. Immediate safety measures must be addressed separately from the relationship dispute, and unsafe confrontations should never be arranged to settle an argument or prove whose interpretation is correct.
How Can You Resolve a Dog-Related Disagreement When Someone Won't Talk?
A useful starting point is to stop trying to settle every disagreement at once. Families can accumulate years of complaints, disappointments, and resentments, and an argument about the dog may provide an opportunity to revisit all of them. Unfortunately, this often makes it harder to solve the immediate problem. If the dog is jumping on visitors, begin by discussing what everyone wants to happen when visitors arrive. If the dog is having housetraining accidents, establish who is responsible for supervising the dog, providing opportunities to eliminate outdoors, and cleaning up when accidents occur.
The discussion should concern observable behavior and practical responsibilities rather than accusations about someone's character. Saying, "You never care about what I think," may express genuine frustration, but it does not tell the other person what needs to change in the dog's daily care. Asking, "Can we agree that the dog will be put behind the gate before visitors enter?" identifies a specific arrangement that can be discussed and evaluated.
It can also be useful to write down important agreements, particularly when several people care for the same dog. A simple plan can identify feeding times, supervision responsibilities, training exercises, household rules, and safety precautions. The purpose is not to create a rigid contract controlling every family interaction. It is to reduce misunderstandings and make expectations clear enough that everyone knows what they have agreed to do.
An apology may also be appropriate when someone has behaved badly during a disagreement. If you shouted at your spouse, insulted a family member, or dismissed a legitimate concern, acknowledging that behavior may help restore communication. However, apologizing for something you did not do merely to end the silent treatment is not the same as resolving the original problem. A family member should be able to raise a reasonable concern about the dog's behavior without being required to surrender that concern before ordinary communication resumes.
There is a temptation to judge the success of a disagreement by how quickly everyone stops arguing. That can be misleading. If the conversation ends with no decision, no acknowledgment of the competing concerns, and no agreement about responsibilities, little has actually been accomplished. A productive disagreement may be uncomfortable, but it can result in better understanding and a plan that everyone can reasonably follow. That is a more meaningful kind of peace than simply avoiding subjects that might upset someone. The objective is not to argue more often or to prove that one person is right. It is to develop the willingness and ability to work through disagreements before they become recurring sources of resentment.
Sometimes the other person simply will not participate. You can invite a discussion, explain why a particular decision matters, propose reasonable alternatives, and establish boundaries concerning your own responsibilities. What you cannot do is force another adult to engage constructively. If repeated attempts at discussion are met with punitive silence, or if the underlying relationship includes intimidation, coercion, or abuse, qualified relationship support or other appropriate assistance may be necessary. In circumstances involving abuse, personal safety takes precedence over attempts to restore cooperation.
When Silence and Gaslighting Prevent Problems From Being Solved
The silent treatment and gaslighting are different behaviors, but they can have something important in common. Both can undermine a person's confidence and willingness to address a problem, although they may do so in different ways. With the silent treatment, someone may become reluctant to raise a legitimate concern because doing so repeatedly results in rejection, withdrawal, or further conflict. With gaslighting, the problem is more directly related to a person's confidence in their own perceptions and judgment. Through repeated denial, distortion, or manipulation of events, someone may begin questioning whether what they observed actually happened or whether their concerns are reasonable.
These problems can become especially serious when the disagreement involves a dog's behavior or safety. Suppose someone witnesses a threatening encounter between two household dogs and believes precautions are necessary. Another family member repeatedly dismisses those concerns, disputes what happened, or refuses to discuss the matter. Eventually, the concerned person may stop bringing up the issue, begin doubting their judgment, or hesitate to take preventive action. The resulting inaction does not necessarily mean that the danger has disappeared or that the person no longer cares. It may reflect the consequences of repeated interpersonal conflict and uncertainty, although the particular reasons must be established rather than assumed.
I believe this raises an important distinction between resolving a conflict and merely ending the discussion. When someone stops speaking because they have been excluded, intimidated, or repeatedly told that their observations cannot be trusted, the resulting silence may resemble an agreement even though no genuine resolution has occurred. The family may appear to have moved past the problem while the dog remains exposed to the same circumstances that prompted the original concern.
This does not mean that every disagreement, inaccurate recollection, or refusal to participate is gaslighting or psychological abuse. People can sincerely interpret the same events differently, and sometimes withdrawing from a conversation or relationship is necessary for personal safety. The important question is whether everyone involved has a reasonable opportunity to examine what happened, express legitimate concerns, and consider appropriate solutions without being punished or having their perceptions systematically undermined.
From a dog-training perspective, the consequences deserve particular attention. An animal's welfare should not depend on whether one family member can persuade another to acknowledge an obvious problem. When credible concerns involve biting, fighting, escape, or other potentially dangerous circumstances, appropriate precautions and professional evaluation should not be indefinitely postponed while the people involved argue over whose interpretation should prevail. Resolving the human disagreement may be important, but protecting the dog and others from reasonably foreseeable harm is a separate responsibility.
Can a Dog Trainer Help When the Family Doesn't Agree?
Over the years, I have been hired many times to help resolve dog-related problems that have also become sources of conflict within a family. While I cannot necessarily resolve the personal disagreements between family members, I can provide an independent professional assessment of the dog's behavior, consider the concerns and circumstances of everyone involved, and help develop a fair, practical solution. My responsibility is to advocate for the dog's welfare while recognizing the legitimate needs and limitations of the people who share its home. The goal is not to determine who wins an argument, but to find an approach that is reasonable, workable, and fair to both the dog and the family.
Sometimes the disagreement is not really about the dog at all. Instead, the dog has become a pawn in an ongoing conflict, something the people involved use to gain leverage, punish one another, or express resentments that have little to do with the animal's behavior. This is unfair to the dog, does nothing to resolve its behavioral problems, and certainly does not repair the underlying problems between the people involved. I have also encountered situations in which serious conflict within a household coincided with fighting between the family's dogs. Tension, heightened arousal, and changes in how people interact with their dogs may contribute to these incidents. In some cases, the disagreements surrounding the dog reveal much more serious problems in the relationships between family members, problems that may require counseling or other professional intervention. While I can evaluate the dog's behavior, advocate for its welfare, and recommend practical solutions, resolving those deeper human relationship problems is outside my professional role as a dog trainer.
A dog trainer can sometimes make disagreements easier to resolve by replacing speculation with observations and practical alternatives. When two people have conflicting explanations for a dog's behavior, an assessment may help determine what is actually occurring, what circumstances are relevant, and which interventions are reasonable. That does not mean the trainer should automatically endorse one person's position. A competent assessment may reveal that both people have identified legitimate concerns or that neither explanation adequately accounts for the dog's behavior.
Training also requires some consideration of the people who will be expected to carry out the recommendations. Their physical abilities, schedules, resources, understanding, and willingness to participate are relevant to whether a proposed plan is feasible. A technically sound exercise is of little practical value if the family cannot or will not implement it under the conditions in which the problem occurs.
There are limits to what a trainer can accomplish. Even the most carefully developed program cannot guarantee cooperation from people who refuse to participate, and teaching a dog a new behavior does not automatically repair a damaged human relationship. Sometimes the responsible recommendation is to modify the plan, establish safer management arrangements, or postpone an objective until the people involved can agree on the necessary conditions.
The Dog Shouldn't Have to Bear the Consequences of a Family Disagreement
Families are not required to agree on every aspect of dog ownership. Different opinions about training, discipline, care, and household rules are normal, and a disagreement can sometimes lead to better decisions when people are willing to examine the evidence and consider reasonable alternatives. What matters is whether the people involved can address those differences without turning ordinary communication into a means of punishment.
The silent treatment can leave the person receiving it feeling excluded and powerless, but it can also leave the original problem unresolved. When the disagreement involves a dog, that unresolved problem may affect responsibilities, training, supervision, and safety. These are practical matters that cannot always be postponed while family members remain angry with one another.
A peaceful household is not one in which nobody ever disagrees. It is one in which disagreements can be addressed without unnecessary hostility, intimidation, or punishment, and where people are willing to work toward reasonable solutions. Avoiding every uncomfortable conversation may create the appearance of harmony, but unresolved problems have a way of returning. Learning to deal constructively with conflict is often an essential part of reducing it.
The first step is to distinguish the dog's actual behavioral problem from the human disagreement surrounding it. Address immediate care and safety needs, identify what each person wants to accomplish, and look for specific arrangements that people are willing and able to follow. If communication has broken down more broadly, acknowledge that the human relationship may need attention of its own.
You cannot train a family to agree simply by training its dog. The dog needs appropriate care, sensible expectations, and a workable environment. The people need a way to communicate about those responsibilities, even when they disagree. Lasting peace is more likely to come from addressing problems and resolving them than from pretending that the problems do not exist.
Glossary
Silent treatment: The withholding of communication or acknowledgment from another person, sometimes as a form of punishment or interpersonal pressure, although withdrawal may have other explanations.
Ostracism: The experience of being ignored or excluded by others. Psychological research has associated ostracism with threats to belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence.
Stonewalling: Withdrawing from interaction during a disagreement. It may involve emotional overwhelm or avoidance and should not automatically be interpreted as deliberate punishment.
Demand-withdraw pattern: A recurring interaction in which one person presses for discussion, resolution, or change while another withdraws or avoids the conversation.
Conflict resolution: The process of addressing differences in perspectives, concerns, responsibilities, or goals in an effort to reach a workable agreement or outcome.
Behavioral assessment: The evaluation of an animal's observable behavior, history, environment, and relevant circumstances before selecting a training or behavior-modification approach.
Management: Practical arrangements designed to prevent unwanted outcomes, reduce risk, or control exposure to particular circumstances while an animal's behavior is being evaluated or addressed.
Scholarly Bibliography
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
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated feelings. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430298012002
Additional Resources
Robbins, M., & Robbins, S. (2024). The Let Them Theory: A Life-Changing Tool That Millions of People Can't Stop Talking About. Hay House.
The Gottman Institute. Help! Someone Told Me I'm Stonewalling. https://www.gottman.com/blog/help-someone-told-me-im-stonewalling/
No comments:
Post a Comment