“Learning Theory Is No Theory, Force-Free an Empty Phrase”? A Fact Check

In brief

For the Dogs-Professional dog trainer congress in Vienna on February 20 and 21, 2027, Prof. Udo Gansloßer has announced a two-part talk titled “Warum die Lerntheorie keine Theorie und der Begriff gewaltfrei eine Worthülse ist?”, roughly: “Why learning theory is not a theory and the term force-free is an empty phrase?” The German word gewaltfrei literally means “free of violence”; in English-speaking dog training, the closest established term is “force-free.” We do not know exactly what he will present. But the title itself puts forward two claims that come up often in the field, and they can be tested today.

Four points up front. First: both claims contain some truth. What dog training calls “learning theory” is usually a classification scheme rather than a theory in the strict sense, and “force-free” is often used as a marketing word without any definition. Second: it does not follow that learning research has no theories. It has them, and they make testable predictions. Third: a term that is used loosely is not an empty term. “Force-free” can be made more precise from the dog’s point of view, and there are studies that measure the consequences of different training methods. Fourth: whether a method works and whether it is justifiable are two different questions. Science answers the first; the second requires weighing up.

1. What this is about

1.1 One title, two claims

The announced title ends with a question mark but is phrased as an assertion. It combines two statements that at first glance have little to do with each other: one from the philosophy of science (learning theory is not a theory) and one about terminology (the word “force-free” is empty). What they have in common is that they shake two pillars much of modern dog training rests on: learning research as its scientific foundation, and the renunciation of force as an ethical commitment.

That is exactly why both claims deserve to be taken seriously. Anyone who appeals to science should know what a theory is and what it is not. And anyone who calls themselves “force-free” should be able to say what they mean by it.

1.2 What this article is not

This article is not a preemptive critique of a talk that has not yet been given. Udo Gansloßer is an experienced behavioral biologist, and it is quite possible that his talk draws exactly the distinctions we propose here. Provocative titles are part of the craft at congresses. We take the title as an occasion, not as a target, and test the two claims as they stand.

2. What a scientific theory is

2.1 Observation, regularity, theory

In everyday language, “theory” often means something like “guess.” In science, a theory is instead a reasoned, testable explanatory model. Roughly, one can distinguish observations, regular relationships and theoretical explanations. It is observable, for example, that a dog shows a behavior more often after certain consequences. Describing this relationship alone does not yet answer every question about the conditions under which it occurs and which learning processes underlie it. Theories try to explain such relationships and make testable predictions.

A theory is therefore more than a collection of rules. It is an explanatory model that can be tested and that changes when the data require it.

2.2 What dog training calls “learning theory”

In dog schools, trainer courses and advice books, “learning theory” usually stands for a particular package: classical and operant conditioning, the four quadrants of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment, plus terms such as extinction, generalization or reinforcement schedules. This package is useful. It gives trainers a shared language and helps describe training situations clearly.

Strictly speaking, though, it is not a single explanatory model but a collection of concepts and regularities from different research traditions. There is no one learning theory that explains all learning. Habituation, classical conditioning, operant learning and social learning are different phenomena, each with its own theoretical approaches.

👉 Further reading: Learning Theory in Dog Training: How Dogs Really Learn

3. Where the criticism of “learning theory” is right

3.1 The four-quadrant scheme describes functions of consequences

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment is a functional classification of consequences. A measure cannot be reliably assigned to a quadrant based on the person’s intention alone. Whether it actually reinforces or punishes only shows in the change of the behavior concerned under comparable conditions. On its own, the scheme explains neither how the dog experiences the stimulus nor how motivation, emotion, context and learning history shape the effect.

3.2 A definition by effect is not yet a complete explanation

In operant learning, reinforcement and punishment are defined by an observed effect on the future probability of a behavior. Saying only that a behavior became more frequent “because it was reinforced” at first just renames the same relationship. As a description that is not wrong, but as the sole explanation it is insufficient. Experimental learning research goes further: it studies, for example, contingencies, motivational conditions, the course of learning and context. The justified criticism of the shortened scheme is therefore not a refutation of operant learning.

3.3 Emotions and motivation are missing from the scheme

Here lies a legitimate objection to overly simple accounts of training. Whether food can work as a reinforcer in a given moment depends on motivation, satiation, emotional state, previous experience and competing stimuli, among other things. Under strong fear, food may work less well or be refused entirely, even though the same dog gladly takes it in a safe environment. The four-quadrant scheme does not describe these preconditions in detail. For that, we need complementary models of motivation, emotion and arousal.

👉 Further reading: Behavior Does Not Equal Emotion: Limits of Inferring Internal States from Observable Actions and Motivation in Dog Training: How Dogs Learn Through Rewards

So if the claim “learning theory is not a theory” means that the scheme taught in dog training is not an explanatory model and leaves out emotions and motivation, then it has a true core.

4. Why learning research has theories all the same

The mistake begins where “the scheme is not a theory” turns into “learning research has no theory.” For decades, learning research has developed explanatory models that go far beyond the four quadrants, and many of them are well tested. Three examples.

4.1 What counts is predictive value, not coincidence

The simplified textbook picture of classical conditioning says: two stimuli occur together, and the animal links them. In a 1988 review, Robert Rescorla summarized research that yields a more complex picture. What matters is not only that two events occur close together in time, but also what information one stimulus provides about another event. If a signal predicts food no better than the rest of the environment does, the corresponding learning effect turns out smaller under suitable conditions. Classical conditioning thus involves learning about relationships and predictions, not just temporal coincidence (Rescorla, 1988).

Such models make testable predictions. For training practice, one consequence is: a marker should announce a subsequent opportunity for reward as reliably as possible. If it is often used without a corresponding consequence, its predictive value can decline. How much that happens depends on the overall learning context.

👉 Further reading: Prediction Error in Dogs: The Core Mechanism of Learning and Behavior Change

4.2 Extinction does not necessarily mean erasure

Extinction refers to a learning process in which a previously learned response weakens under changed conditions. Research shows that the original learning does not necessarily disappear in the process. Instead, new, context-dependent learning can inhibit the response. This makes it possible to predict that the response will return under certain conditions: for example after a change of context (renewal), after a period of time (spontaneous recovery) or after renewed experience with the previously significant event (reinstatement). Bouton (2004) describes these mechanisms mainly for classical conditioning. That context also plays a central role in operant learning and its extinction, which is what dog training usually means, is summarized by Bouton and Todd (2014).

It is important to distinguish this from generalization: if a dog shows newly trained loose-leash walking only on the training field and not yet in an unfamiliar place, that may simply reflect insufficient generalization. On its own, it does not show the return of a behavior weakened by extinction.

👉 Further reading: Extinction in Dog Behavior: Why Learned Behavior Disappears – and Returns

4.3 Learning is testable, and it is being tested

The third example is more general: learning research is an experimental field. Its models are tested in controlled experiments, discarded and refined. That is exactly what distinguishes a scientific theory from a creed. The fact that no single model explains all learning does not make the research unscientific. It is the normal state of any living field of research. Evolutionary biology, too, consists of many partial theories, and nobody would conclude that it is not a science.

How far this goes: Rescorla and Bouton developed their foundations mainly with laboratory animals such as rats, not with dogs. The principles are considered well supported across species, but how strongly they show up in an individual dog’s training depends on many conditions that are controlled in the lab and not in everyday life.

4.4 Interim conclusion on the first claim

The claim hits what many courses teach as “learning theory”: a classification scheme that is often treated as if it explained behavior. It does not hit learning research itself. The cleaner wording would be: “The four-quadrant scheme is not a theory, and anyone who wants to understand dogs needs more than the scheme.” That sentence is correct. The sentence “Learning theory is not a theory” is not, at least not in that generality.

5. Is “force-free” an empty phrase?

5.1 What the criticism gets right

The second claim also has a true core, and it would be dishonest to play it down. “Force-free” is not a protected term. Any dog school can call itself that, regardless of how it actually works. There is no uniform, verifiable definition the field has agreed on. On its own, the word therefore says little about what happens in training.

There is also a substantive problem: “force” or “violence” first of all describes the human’s actions. For the dog’s welfare, however, what matters is how the dog experiences a situation. A loud call can be trivial for one dog and frightening for another. Conversely, training that involves no pain or threat at all can still cause stress: sessions that are too long, tasks that are too hard, frustration when a reward does not come, an environment that overwhelms the dog.

👉 Further reading: The Neurobiology of Frustration in Dogs: Violated Expectations, Measurement and Evidence

5.2 Force-free does not mean punishment-free

Part of the confusion arises because “force-free” is often equated with “punishment-free.” These are different terms. If a pleasant stimulus is withdrawn after a behavior and that behavior consequently occurs less often under comparable conditions, learning psychology speaks of negative punishment. When a person turns away as the dog jumps up, the withdrawal of attention can serve this function. Whether it actually does has to be checked against the dog’s behavior. Such a procedure is not the same as inflicting pain, but depending on the dog and the situation it can cause frustration.

We say this openly: at unterHUNDs, too, we use negative punishment to a limited extent when it makes sense for building the training. The focus is on building desired behavior through reward. What we do without are deliberately applied unpleasant stimuli, positive punishment and anything that works with pain, fear or startle. Anyone who promises that a dog will never experience frustration or other unpleasant feelings in training is promising something no one can guarantee. But it does not follow that the commitment to force-free training is empty.

5.3 A term does not become empty because it is used badly

The fact that a term is used loosely is an argument for sharpening it, not for giving it up. In science, this applies to many terms: “stress,” “anxiety” and “welfare” were used imprecisely for a long time and are now captured through measurable criteria. For “force-free,” three routes suggest themselves.

First, from the dog’s point of view. Since its 2020 version, the Five Domains Model for assessing animal welfare explicitly includes interactions with humans. According to the model, human actions can worsen an animal’s welfare, for example when they are threatening, unpleasant or painful or are remembered as such, and they can improve it, for example through safety, pleasant physical contact or preferred food (Mellor et al., 2020). On this basis, “force-free” can be understood as training that does not deliberately use negative experiences to suppress behavior and that keeps the dog’s stress load in view.

Second, through the legal framework. Laws set a lower limit, and they differ from country to country. In Germany, where we work, animal welfare law prohibits training that involves considerable pain, suffering or harm, as well as the use of painful means in dog training. Such rules establish legal obligations, not a complete definition of force-free training, but they make clear that the term is not left entirely open.

Third, through the consequences. It is possible to measure how dogs trained with different methods are doing. That turns a matter of belief into an empirical question. This is the subject of the next chapter.

👉 Further reading: Welfare Science and Quality of Life in Dogs and Force-Free Dog Training: How It Works and Why It Makes Sense

5.4 Earlier work Gansloßer was involved in

The discussion about defining force-free training is older than the announced congress talk. In 2018, Bettina Hinte-Breindl, Gotje Andresen, Udo Gansloßer and Nicole Warlich-Zach presented an interdisciplinary, explicitly preliminary working definition at the German “Applied Ethology” conference: a human’s violence toward a dog exists when their action or omission impairs one of the dog’s basic needs. As a first approximation, the authors derive which basic needs are meant from the Five Freedoms of animal welfare, including freedom from hunger and thirst and freedom from fear and distress (Hinte-Breindl et al., 2018).

They applied this definition to a training method in which food is withheld when the dog does not cooperate. An online survey of 174 people using the method showed how differently it is interpreted: 27.9% had withheld food from their dog for a day or longer, 38.9% applied the method to dogs younger than five months, and about three quarters had learned about it through a dog trainer or dog school. The authors’ conclusion: at least long-term, complete withholding of food is to be classified as an act of violence.

For our question, this is revealing in two ways. First, it shows that “violence” can be defined more precisely from the dog’s point of view rather than only through the trainer’s actions. Second, withholding food as a consequence for not cooperating can work as negative punishment in learning-theory terms, but only if the behavior concerned actually becomes less frequent as a result; a meal that is not given can also simply mean deprivation or a missing reinforcer. Regardless of how it is classified, withholding adequate food is an animal-welfare issue in its own right. Whether something is force-free is therefore not decided by its quadrant, but by what is withheld, for how long and with what consequences for basic needs. Briefly withdrawn attention and a withheld meal differ in exactly the way this definition makes visible.

How far this goes: This is a four-page conference contribution, and the authors themselves call the definition preliminary. Only people who use or had used the method were surveyed, via a link passed on in a targeted way. The survey says nothing about how widespread the method is among dog owners as a whole.

This does not create a universally valid, field-wide accepted definition. But the work shows that a factual sharpening is possible. There is a decisive difference between criticizing an unclear self-description and claiming that force-free training has no justifiable content at all. Whether and how the talk builds on this work will become clear in February.

6. What the studies on training methods show

Research usually does not work with the word “force-free” but distinguishes between reward-based and aversive methods, that is, methods that use unpleasant stimuli. This is more precise, and it allows comparisons.

6.1 Stress during and after training

Vieira de Castro and colleagues studied 92 companion dogs from dog schools that worked in a reward-based, mainly aversive or mixed way. The dogs from schools using aversive methods showed more stress behavior during training and larger increases in salivary cortisol after training. In a subsequent test of expectations, they responded more pessimistically to ambiguous stimuli, including outside the training situation (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020).

How far this goes: The dogs were not randomly assigned to the groups but came from existing dog schools. Differences between owners who choose a particular school may have influenced the results. Individual cortisol values are also hard to interpret. The study shows a clear association, not proof of a cause.

6.2 Underlying mood

Casey and colleagues compared dogs whose owners reported using at least two aversive techniques with matched dogs whose owners did not. In a test of expectations, the dogs in the first group responded more negatively to ambiguous stimuli, which is interpreted as a more pessimistic underlying mood (Casey et al., 2021).

How far this goes: The training methods are based on owner reports, and the study is cross-sectional. Whether the methods change mood or whether more anxious dogs are more likely to be trained aversively cannot be reliably separated.

👉 Further reading: Cognitive Bias in Dogs: Measuring Optimism, Pessimism and Mood

6.3 Efficacy in direct comparison

A British research project trained dogs with recall problems, including chasing livestock, in three groups: with an electronic collar, without the collar by the same trainers, and reward-based. The efficacy analysis of 63 dogs found no indication that the electronic collar was necessary for a reliable recall (China et al., 2020). In the accompanying welfare study, dogs in the collar group showed more behaviors considered signs of stress (Cooper et al., 2014).

How far this goes: The efficacy and welfare analyses come from the same project and should not be counted as two independent studies. The efficacy analysis was criticized for only partly random group assignment and different training conditions for the reward group (Sargisson & McLean, 2021). The groups were small, and training lasted only a few days. The project says little about long-term effects. In Germany, the use of such devices is generally prohibited anyway.

6.4 Development over time

The British longitudinal study “Generation Pup” follows dogs from puppyhood. In an analysis of 1,130 dogs, switching to more aversive methods between nine and twelve months of age was associated with more behaviors that owners perceived as a problem (Owczarczak-Garstecka et al., 2025). A side finding is also interesting: most owners combined reward with aversive methods; purely aversive training was rare.

How far this goes: The authors themselves stress that the direction of the association is open. Aversive methods may intensify problems, but owners may also be more likely to turn to aversive methods when problems already exist. The data are based on owner reports.

6.5 The opposing evidence

There are also findings showing that aversive methods can work. In a Norwegian field study, 114 hunting dogs were confronted with sheep and punished with an electric stimulus when they approached. The effect on hunting behavior toward sheep was still detectable a year later, and the authors reported no side effects of the test protocol (Christiansen et al., 2001).

In addition, there is a small controlled study on stopping dogs from chasing a lure. The electronic-collar protocol suppressed chasing faster than two reward-based protocols, but transfer to a new environment remained limited, and at the moment of the stimulus the dogs showed pain-typical vocalizations (Johnson & Wynne, 2024). The study is methodologically contested. Only six dogs were analyzed in the collar group; two more were excluded after receiving more than 20 shocks. The abstract says that 67% chased the lure again in the novel arena, whereas the results report four of six dogs succeeding there, which would mean that two of six, or 33%, chased; those statements conflict. Bastos et al. (2025) questioned the comparability of the protocols: the food-rewarded dogs did not learn a behavior that could replace chasing, so punishment was compared with a condition offering no workable replacement behavior. In their reply, Johnson and Wynne (2025) make clear that they do not advocate e-collars and that the study was not intended as guidance for dog owners. They point to the dangers of uncontrolled chasing, the demand for rapid solutions and their criticism of earlier studies as correlational or quasi-experimental, and acknowledge that their reward protocols could be improved. In our assessment, this does not resolve concerns about the comparability of the protocols.

That belongs in an honest fact check. Punishment can stop behavior, sometimes permanently. The decisive question, however, is what the dog learns in the process and at what cost, and whether there is a way to reach the same goal with less stress. A stopped behavior is not automatically a solved problem.

👉 Further reading: Aversive Training Methods in Dogs: Neurological Effects, Stress Responses and Long-Term Welfare Risks and The Fallout of Aversives: Neurobiological Consequences of Punishment in Dogs

6.6 What can be summarized

None of these studies answers every question. The observational studies on different training approaches find associations with signs of stress, negative expectations and in some cases more reported behavior problems, but allow only limited causal conclusions. In recall training, the electronic collar brought no efficacy advantage in direct comparison, while signs of stress were found. The small experimental study discussed here that found faster short-term suppression with an e-collar is methodologically contested. It cannot be concluded that every conceivable aversive measure is ineffective in every situation. Taken together, however, the findings point in the same direction. Reward-based methods make learning possible without the risks of aversive consequences. That is the basis of our position: the risks and side effects of aversive methods are greater than their benefits justify. Reward-based procedures, too, must be adapted to the individual dog so that stress and frustration stay low.

7. Efficacy and justifiability are two different questions

7.1 What learning research can answer

Learning research can explain why an unpleasant stimulus makes a behavior less frequent, and it can predict under which conditions this works. In that sense, it is correct that aversive methods, too, can be described with learning principles. But nothing follows from this about whether their use is necessary, proportionate or justifiable.

7.2 What weighing up requires

Whether a method is justifiable is an ethical and legal question. It requires empirical knowledge about effects and side effects, but it cannot be derived from that knowledge alone. This is precisely why the term “force-free,” for all its vagueness, is not superfluous: it marks an ethical commitment that goes beyond the question “does it work?”

Nor is reward-based training automatically free of stress. Here, too, a dog can be overwhelmed, frustrated or learning under too much arousal. An honest commitment is therefore not “with us, a dog never experiences anything unpleasant,” but rather: we do not deliberately work with fear, pain or startle, and we pay attention to how the dog is doing in training.

👉 Further reading: Controllability and Predictability in Dogs: Two Variables, Often Confused

8. Conclusion

Both claims in the talk’s title have a true core, and both overshoot the mark in their pointed form.

The four-quadrant scheme, which dog training often calls “learning theory,” is a classification scheme and not a theory. Anyone who wants to understand dogs additionally needs knowledge about motivation, emotion and arousal. Learning research itself, however, does have theories, and they are well tested, as the work on contingency and extinction shows.

“Force-free” is a term without a uniform definition that can also be used as a marketing word. That does not make it automatically empty. Approaches to sharpening it exist, including in the 2018 work Gansloßer co-authored. They can be complemented by findings on animal welfare, individual experience and the consequences of training methods. The studies that measure the consequences of training methods speak in favor of doing without aversive methods, even though observational comparisons cannot establish the direction of causality on their own and the controlled comparisons cover narrower training situations.

We look forward to the arguments Udo Gansloßer will present in February. If the talk leads the field to speak more precisely about terms, much will have been gained. What we should not conclude from a critique of terminology is that the ethical commitment behind it is settled.

Key takeaways at a glance

• The four-quadrant scheme describes the function of consequences by their actual effect on behavior; as the sole explanation of learning, it is not enough.
• Learning research has tested theories, for example on the predictive value of stimuli and on extinction as new, context-bound learning.
• “Force-free” has no uniform definition and is often used as a marketing word. That argues for sharpening the term, not for abolishing it.
• “Force-free” does not automatically mean “punishment-free.” Withdrawing a pleasant stimulus is only negative punishment if the behavior becomes less frequent as a result.
• Studies show associations between aversive procedures and signs of stress. In recall training, the electronic collar brought no efficacy advantage; the small experimental chasing study discussed here is methodologically contested; the observational findings alone do not establish causality.
• Whether a method works and whether it is justifiable are two different questions.

Frequently asked questions

Is learning theory really not a theory?

That depends on what is meant. The four-quadrant scheme taught in dog training describes the function of consequences and is not an explanatory theory on its own. Learning research as a whole, however, has well-tested theories, for example on the predictive value of stimuli and on extinction.

What distinguishes a scientific theory from a guess?

A scientific theory explains why an observed relationship exists and under which conditions it holds, and it makes predictions that can fail against reality. It is tested and adjusted when the data require it.

Why does behavior that has been reduced sometimes come back?

Because extinction often does not erase what was learned before; instead, new, context-bound learning inhibits the response. After a change of context, after a period of time or after renewed experience with the previously significant event, the response can return. Not every reappearance can be explained this way: if a dog does not yet show a newly learned behavior in an unfamiliar place, it is often simply not yet generalized.

Is force-free training the same as punishment-free training?

No. Withdrawal of a pleasant stimulus can occur in force-free training too. It only counts as negative punishment if the behavior concerned occurs less often in the future as a result. Doing without pain and intimidation does not mean that learning happens entirely without frustration.

Is there a binding definition of force-free dog training?

There is no uniform, field-wide recognized definition. There are approaches, however, such as a working definition presented in 2018, according to which violence exists when human action or omission impairs one of the dog’s basic needs. In addition, the term can be sharpened through the legal framework of animal welfare law and through measurable consequences for welfare.

Do aversive methods work at all?

Aversive consequences can reduce behavior, in some cases over the longer term. The question is what stress this involves and whether less stressful procedures reach the goal just as well. In recall training, the electronic collar showed no advantage in direct comparison. A small, methodologically contested study found faster suppression when stopping dogs from chasing a lure.

Do the studies prove that aversive methods cause harm?

A single study does not prove a universally valid causal relationship. Observational studies in particular cannot fully rule out differences between dogs and owners. The repeatedly found associations with signs of stress and the results of controlled method comparisons are nonetheless important reasons to prefer low-stress procedures.

Can reward-based training be stressful too?

Yes. Sessions that are too long, tasks that are too hard, rewards that do not come or an overwhelming environment can cause frustration and stress. Working reward-based therefore also means paying attention to the dog’s state during training.

Working on a behavior problem with your dog? Our step-by-step dog behavior workbooks cover leash reactivity, being left alone, resource guarding, two-dog households, barking at passersby and noise fear.

References

• Bastos, A. P. M., Warren, E. & Krupenye, C. (2025). What evidence can validate a dog training method? Learning & Behavior, 53(3), 227–228. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-024-00658-9
• Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11(5), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804
• Bouton, M. E. & Todd, T. P. (2014). A fundamental role for context in instrumental learning and extinction. Behavioural Processes, 104, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.02.012
• Casey, R. A., Naj-Oleari, M., Campbell, S., Mendl, M. & Blackwell, E. J. (2021). Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods. Scientific Reports, 11, 19023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97743-0
• China, L., Mills, D. S. & Cooper, J. J. (2020). Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00508
• Christiansen, F. O., Bakken, M. & Braastad, B. O. (2001). Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second-year confrontation with domestic sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00203-3
• Cooper, J. J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H. & Mills, D. (2014). The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e102722. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102722
• Hinte-Breindl, B., Andresen, G., Ganslosser, U. & Warlich-Zach, N. (2018). Gewalt(-freiheit) in der Hundeerziehung – der Futterentzug als Beispiel einer Verletzung der Grundbedürfnisse des canis lupus familiaris. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 2018 (KTBL-Schrift 514, pp. 223–226). Darmstadt: KTBL. No DOI. Proceedings (PDF)
• Johnson, A. C. & Wynne, C. D. L. (2024). Comparison of the efficacy and welfare of different training methods in stopping chasing behavior in dogs. Animals, 14(18), 2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632
• Johnson, A. C. & Wynne, C. D. L. (2025). Chasing solutions: A response to Bastos et al. (2024). Learning & Behavior, 53(3), 229–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-025-00672-5
• Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B. & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
• Owczarczak-Garstecka, S. C., Casey, R. A., Cooper, B., Da Costa, R. E. P., Kinsman, R. H., Lord, M. S., Tasker, S., Williams, A. & Murray, J. K. (2025). Association between training methods and owner-reported problem behaviours in dogs enrolled in the „Generation Pup“ longitudinal study in the UK. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 77, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2024.10.001
• Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.3.151
• Sargisson, R. J. & McLean, I. G. (2021). Commentary: Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 629746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.629746
• 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
• German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz, TierSchG), Section 3; German Animal Welfare Dog Ordinance (Tierschutz-Hundeverordnung, TierSchHuV), Section 2(5).
• Dogs-Professional – Der Österreichische Hundetrainerkongress 2027, program announcement, dogs-professional.at (accessed October 30, 2026).