Service Dog Training Style
At Pawsitivity, we use the same basic training approach used by both the U.S. Army working dog program and Guide Dogs for the Blind: positive reinforcement.
As the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command put it, “All of the dog training is based on positive reward or feedback.”[1]
That matters because our goal is not just to train dogs to perform tasks. We need dogs who are reliable and loyal. In our case, we also need them to be gentle and easy to live with. For all of those goals, positive reinforcement is the most dependable method.
Positive reinforcement works by increasing the likelihood that a dog will offer behaviors. That gives the trainer more opportunities to mark and reward the right choices, which gradually builds the final behavior we want. Because of its effectiveness, “training procedures are similar for all types of service dogs. Trainers use positive reinforcement techniques.”[2]
Why We Use Positive Reinforcement
There are both practical and scientific reasons for training this way.
First, it works quickly. A 1996 study from the Canine Department of the Netherlands National Police Agency reported a dramatic difference in training speed: “With the first dog, [it] took me eight months to train him to follow a laser. With operant conditioning, it now takes me four weeks.”[4]
Guide Dogs for the Blind, the largest guide dog school in the United States, also found that positive reinforcement improved results. As Pawsitivity learned during a 2017 Positive Training workshop in Portland, Oregon, Guide Dogs for the Blind used to rely on older aversive methods.[5] After switching to positive reinforcement, they not only increased their pass rate, but reported that “the dogs can become full-fledged Guide Dogs in half the time.”[6]
In short, this method is not just kinder. It is more efficient.
Better Results, Fewer Side Effects
Another reason we use positive reinforcement is that aversive methods can create unwanted side effects.
A 2014 study in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior found that dogs trained with aversives often showed fear-related side effects. The researchers concluded: “There is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward based training.”[7]
A 2013 study in Applied Animal Behaviour Science found that owners who used methods based on positive punishment and negative reinforcement were more likely to report aggression toward family members or toward strangers outside the home.[8]
That matters a great deal for service dogs. We are not just trying to produce obedience. We are trying to produce safe, dependable dogs who can work closely with people in everyday life.
Less Stress, Better Relationships
Positive reinforcement is also less stressful for the dog.
One study in Applied Animal Behaviour Science looked at two groups of dogs learning to sit. One group was lured into position with a treat. The other group was physically pushed down into position. The dogs trained with positive reinforcement were 15 times less likely to cower or slink away from their owners, and they were more likely to make eye contact.[9]
That is especially important for service work. We want a service dog to look to the handler, to engage, and to initiate social connection when appropriate. A training style that strengthens the dog-handler relationship is not a side benefit. It is central to the work.
Positive reinforcement is also safer for handlers and families.[10]
Much Less Risk of Fear
One of the biggest advantages of positive reinforcement is that it avoids many of the side effects associated with aversive handling. As one source puts it, “animals become afraid, either of people in general or of specific individuals as a result of aversive handling.”[11]
That fear can damage the relationship between the dog and the handler, which is exactly what a service dog program should be trying to protect.
Fortunately, positive reinforcement gives us a lot to work with. Most dogs will work enthusiastically for a tiny bit of hot dog. High-drive working dogs may find a vigorous game of fetch even more rewarding. We can also use praise and real-life rewards.
For example, a dog can be rewarded for sitting and waiting politely at a door by being released to go outside. On a walk, the dog can be rewarded for sitting at a curb by getting permission to cross the street. Those everyday rewards help maintain training while also making life with the dog smoother and more enjoyable.
The dog does not experience the work as punishment. It feels more like a game. That makes training stronger and the relationship better.
Dogs Offer More Behaviors
Another major advantage of positive reinforcement is that dogs trained this way tend to offer behaviors more freely.
With aversive methods, there is a risk that the dog starts offering fewer and fewer behaviors because the dog becomes worried about being wrong. As Karen Overall notes, “not behaving is not the same from the dog’s perspective as exhibiting improved behavior.”[15]
In plain English, when a dog is not afraid of punishment, the dog is more willing to try different things in order to earn a reward. That creates a more engaged learner, and for a service dog, that matters.
Our Approach
The U.S. Army and Guide Dogs for the Blind are both much larger organizations than Pawsitivity, but we are proud to follow the same general training path. Positive reinforcement is reliable, efficient, safer for dogs and people, and better for the long-term relationship between handler and dog.
That is why it is the foundation of our training style.
[1] Military Working Dogs: Guardians of the Night, Linda Crippen TRADOC, May 23, 2011, U.S. Army.
[2] Hand, Carol. Cool Careers Without College for People Who Love Animals. New York: Rosen, 2014.
[4] From a three-year project for the Canine Department of the Netherlands National Police Agency, 1996, Simon Prins, coauthor of K9 Behavior Basics: A Manual for Proven Success in Operational Service Dog Training (2010).
[5] Adams, G.J., and K.G. Johnson. “Sleep, work, and the effects of shift work in drug detection dogs Canis familiaris.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41 (1994): 115-126.
[6] Guide Dog News, the Quarterly Publication of the Guide Dogs for the Blind 59, no. 2 (2009).
[7] Cooper, Jonathan J., Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman, Hannah Wright, and Daniel Mills. “The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training.” PLoS ONE 9, no. 9 (2014): e102722.
[8] Casey, Rachel A., Bethany Loftus, Christine Bolster, Gemma Richards, and Emily J. Blackwell. “Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 152 (2014): 52-63.
[9] Deldalle, Stéphanie, Florence Gaunet. “Effects of two training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog-owner relationship.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 9, no. 2 (2014): 58-65.
[10] Herron, Meghan E., Frances S. Shofer, and Ilana R. Reisner. “Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, no. 1-2 (2009): 47-54.
[11] Rushen, Jeffrey, Allison A. Taylor, and Anne Marie de Passillé. “Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, no. 3 (1999): 285-303.
[15] Overall, Karen L. Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2013.\