As recently as the 1960s, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1939 – 2002) espoused the idea that a persons aspirations and final status in life are determined by their relative social position and, of course, that of their parents. Have you noticed that some people work hard all their lives but appear to achieve very little, either materialistically or intellectually? This is so true in today’s Britain where the wealth gap is widening alarmingly due to the inept policies of consecutive governments since the early 1970s, and we appear to be returning to the Victorian era, with free food queues and rough sleeping. Even those in work very often have to ask for handouts. Britain enjoyed a boom in the 20 years since 1945 with real earnings increasing and as prime minister McMillan said “You’ve never had it so good”. So what went wrong? (But I digress – that’s a topic for another day).

Unlike his posthumous mentor Karl Marx, Bourdieu described three forms of ‘capital’. He was looking for reasons why different people, of similar intelligence, may or may not succeed in the educational system and subsequently, may or may not, enjoy jobs of power and influence (or indeed any job at all). In other words he was looking for sociological reasons rather than intellectual or genetic reasons.

1. Economic capital – that which we may inherit from our parents and is invariably passed down the generations giving a child at least a ‘fighting’ chance!
2. Social capital – with economic capital we may be able to afford, for example, a private education for our children, holidays abroad, join an exclusive tennis club, learn a musical instrument, learn a foreign language via ‘exchanges’, a university place (inclination allowing) and generally mixing with children of a similar background, and their parents’. Our children will then use their ‘network’ of contacts and acquaintances to further their job and career prospects and subsequent financial status.
3. Once economic and social capital are acquired these may now be progressed by some children into cultural capital. This, amongst other examples, consists of gaining post graduate qualifications, experience working within an international organisation, travelling and gaining an understanding of other cultures and religions, the appreciation of music, poetry and the arts and much more.

Of course this is only a brief and general introduction to a far more nuanced and complicated subject, but will be continued.

Pierre Bourdieu  c1960

‘The Rule of Three’ states that facts, events and definitions tend to occur in groups of three. For example; childhood, adolescence, adulthood; red, yellow, blue; primary, secondary, tertiary; Friends, Romans, Countrymen; space is three dimensional, and so on! Text containing three pieces of information is inherently likely to be all consuming and of greater interest to the reader than otherwise.

Animals (including humans) learn in three ways. By association – classical conditioning, by consequence – operant conditioning, by mimicking – allelomimetic learning. Social learning is via play, experimentation (trial and error) and reinforcement (see below).

We train our dogs using three steps; the ‘ABC of Behaviour’ – antecedent (cue) (assuming the dog understands), behaviour, consequence. The psychologist B F Skinner designed a closed box in which rats were trained. This became known as the Skinner Box. The rats learned by consequence that if a bar was pressed food would be forthcoming – Skinner coined the phrase ‘operant conditioning’. He further refined this by adding a signal, for example a light. Food would only be presented when the light was on and the bar was pressed. In other words the rat learned to discriminate. The relationship between the signal (the light), behaviour (bar press) and consequence (food) is called a three term contingency; one is contingent upon the others.

The opposite of discrimination is generalisation. Classical conditioning relies on two stimuli being paired. For example if we shake the dog’s kibble box a rattling sound is made and the dog will eventually learn by association that food will (hopefully) be presented. The dog may generalise this this to ALL rattling sounds. The reflex has become conditioned and hence automatic. If, however, food is NOT forthcoming the behaviour will extinguish. ‘The Rule of Three’ at work again!

Incentive vs. motivation. A subtle difference. For example we can offer our dog an incentive to carry out a certain cue (external) but the motivation comes from within (internal). Dogs are predator animals and are often motivated to chase – the incentive is the prey animal running away. Returning to our example of allelomimetic learning, whether or not our dog continues to do what has been observed depends on his/her motivation of which there are three aspects. External reinforcement which is analogous to learning by consequence, vicarious reinforcement when our dog is simply happy to observe, and self reinforcement when our dog enjoys a certain amount of satisfaction, edification or pride in completing a task. Of course we can only surmise the latter!

The renowned dog trainer and behaviourist, Sue Garrett, discusses how we, the dog parent, are motivated. For example, if our dog is displaying an unwanted behaviour we can do one of three things. Ignore and hope for the best, manage by simply dealing with it, or train for an alternative behaviour. It’s YOUR call!

Learning is committed to memory via three parts of the brain, the amygdala, hippocampus and cerebellum. Like many humans, it is thought that the short term memory of dogs is limited to perhaps a few minutes until stored in long term memory (LTM) via the cerebral cortex. LTM memory is either episodic, semantic or procedural. Respectively, this is memory formed from life’s experiences – episodes, learning the differences between objects and remembering their names – semantics (for example we know a bird is a bird and not an elephant!), and learning different practical skills – procedures.

As dog trainers we may have unconsciously and unwittingly become psychologists. The word ‘psychology’ comes from the Greek ‘psyche’ = mind, and ‘logos’ = study; the study of the mind. Comparative psychologists will study the mind of animals to help understand that of humans but it works both ways. How often do we ask, “I wonder what my dog is thinking?” To answer this we may put ourselves in the same situation hypothetically and ask what WE would be thinking; we empathise with our dog. Psychology is a branch of science and in order to study the mind a psychologist will apply scientific methods, as with the natural sciences. In order for a theory to become a fact, first a hypothesis is formed and put to the test. This involves three steps. 1. Finding and measuring all the factors contributing to the hypothesis. 2. Correlating the factors. 3. Varying the factors one at a time to measure the overall effect of the hypothesis. In short, it is scientific if it can be falsified, disproved or altered.

Happy training!

The following related blog may be of interest:
https://richardthedogtrainer.com/2020/11/22/reasons-to-be-cheerful-1-2-3/

Thank you Eileen Anderson for prompting this blog. Two questions in one and a ‘hot’ topic in the dog training world. This, and poor recall are the two problems I am most often asked to help with.

Here are some reasons WHY a dog is pulling:

1. They often naturally walk faster than their human
2. In their enthusiasm they are eager to get to their destination for the ‘good stuff’
3. They are frightened and are trying to escape a perceived threat
4. We are trying to pull them away from something

The term ‘resistance reflex’ is often banded about. The theory being that a dog (horse etc) will automatically pull against a pull or push against a push. However, a reflex is something that happens involuntarily, for example, a knee jerk when the doctor taps our patella. Lead pulling on the other hand is entirely voluntary. The dog CHOOSES to pull or WE choose to pull him/her.

A more probable explanation is that the dog is resisting coercion. Sure, if someone put a rope around my neck I would pull away!

For many owners this is a ‘big’ issue. Prong collars and choke chains were designed to stop pulling. These rely on negative reinforcement (R-), the theory being if the dog stops pulling the pain goes away. This invariably implies, however, that positive punishment (P+) has been applied in the first place. In reality, the dog often learns to cope and the adrenaline rush to reach the park, or wherever, may outweigh the pain. Nowadays, body and face harnesses have been designed as a ‘kinder’ alternative. What do these teach the dog? Nothing, except to comply with the coercion. It’s a sticking plaster remedy to treat the symptom rather than the cause.

So, how can we stop lead pulling? For many the natural solution is to apply pressure by pulling back or, worse, applying a lead ‘correction’ or jerk. But why are we punishing our dog for resisting coercion? It becomes a double whammy. They are being punished for being punished. Furthermore, long term repetition may result in damage to the neck and throat area including nerve endings, tissue including muscles, veins and arteries and the thyroid glands (of which dogs have two). It is testament to our dogs’ temperament that they will tolerate the punishment to achieve their goal; getting to the park.

Encouraging our dog to walk alongside us requires exactly that; encouragement. Correct training will teach the dog what IS required rather than what is NOT required. After all it’s easier to teach a positive than it is to teach a negative. Steve Mann of the IMDT explains this eloquently in his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Th5z-mnnUE&t=44s.

My recent blog also helps to explain loose lead walking: https://richardthedogtrainer.com/2021/02/01/has-dog-training-become-overly-complicated/

• 

• 

A conundrum faced by the lay-psychologist is the difference between temperament, personality and behaviour. In the dog training world behaviour is much discussed, temperament sometimes, and personality rarely. Temperament is inherited – it is something we HAVE and can do little to change. For example a person – or dog – may be described as a socialite or a loner. Personality we acquire with age and is a combination of one’s experiences, education, socialisation, culture, and to an extent, temperament. Behaviour, on the other hand, is something we DO – we CAN change this in most cases, though animals (including humans) may find this challenging due to, for example, heritable traits, poor role modelling, poor training, lack of mental stimulation, bad experiences including abuse or received aggression, poor health, stress and anxiety, poor diet, mindset/lack of motivation and/or encouragement/incentive, surroundings and the environment, change of routine, lack of exercise, poor housing/kenneling, the weather; the list is almost endless!

Possibly the most important trait in the family dog, but potentially the most difficult to breed for, is temperament. The adjectives ‘character’ or ‘personality’ (as discussed) also come to mind but these are perhaps more subjective. They may imply a level of consciousness more appropriate to humans, primates, elephants, dolphins and others! Dogs are, however, sentient beings with a range of emotions and sensitivity. Breeding for temperament is paramount when later training for assistance dogs, be these dogs for the blind, hearing assistance dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, explosive and drug detection dogs, herding dogs and so forth. Companionship however – if that’s what we are looking for – is not as clearly defined! Due to the intermingling and coupling of genes of different content from both parents, not all dogs, even from the same litter, will attain the required standard. They are all individuals. Breeding for temperament or behaviour is far more complex genetically than breeding for looks as there are many more genes involved and do not code readily for temperament. Because of this, there is no chance that the same combination will occur twice. Selecting the top pedigree, therefore, is essential in this scenario. Notwithstanding, the way we train and treat our dogs will also have a profound and lasting effect on their temperament and behaviour.

The American cynologist Clarence Pfaffenberger, a respected figure in the mid 1940s in the training of assistance dogs for the blind, confirmed that temperament traits, including the willingness to work with humans, are carried genetically (The Intelligence of Dogs – Coren, 1994). He further concluded that temperament was not enough and that this, combined with ‘intelligence’, was paramount. Measuring intelligence in dogs and the ability to problem solve is another subjective and moot point. To measure this, we need to compare against something else. Do we compare with humans, a primate or another dog? IQ tests have been designed for dogs but what exactly does this prove? According to Pfaffenberger a more appropriate term would be ‘ability’, but let’s not forget also ‘aptitude’ or ‘inclination’!

Dogs live in the moment, with no concept of the future (McGrath, 1998). Their short term memory is thought to be a matter of minutes – though they do appear to remember a bad experience from long ago. They do not possess the cognitive ability to acknowledge the threat of a bad outcome for unwanted behaviour although MAY learn – or more importantly may NOT learn – from the repeated experience of bad (and good) outcomes. This could be, for example, single or multiple punishers including verbal/physical threats or actual abuse, frustration due to the withholding of a treat or other reward, negative reinforcement, for example, the removal of pain (as with a chock chain), release from confinement etc. However, all the dog learns potentially is how to cope with and manage the threat and avoid the perpetrator rather than learn the desired behaviour, resulting possibly in an unhappy and unbalanced dog able to ‘snap’ at any time. ‘Leash pulling’ is an example. Some handlers, and alas trainers, advocate ‘correction’ by jerking the leash. If this punishment method worked, why do we see the behaviour being repeated over and over? Teach the dog what IS required rather than what is NOT required!

This related blog may be of interest: https://richardthedogtrainer.com/2020/04/29/dog-breeders-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-behaviour-and-health-traits-not-simply-looks/

Young black bears in California have now been showing uncharacteristic signs of friendliness towards humans, and wildlife experts fear that a brain disorder may be the cause of this ‘dog-like’ behaviour. The phenomenon has been noticed since around 2014; videos have appeared on social media showing strange encounters in the state and neighbouring Nevada. In one clip, a black bear cub approaches a snowboarder at the Northstar ski resort and steps onto the board; in another, a dazed-looking bear wanders into a residential back yard and sits in the porch munching apples fed to it by curios onlookers. In still another, a bear walks into a classroom and sits down at the back.

Other symptoms include tremors and a tilted head (an endearing behaviour any dog lover appreciates!). Unlike grizzlies, which have a fierce reputation, black bears tend to be timid and avoid people. Scientists who conducted a post-mortem on one euthanised cub say it was suffering from encephalitis, a brain inflammation usually caused by a viral infection. Vets have identified five new viruses while examining the affected bears, but have yet to identify a direct link to the erratic behaviour.

This type of synurbic behaviour is now common amongst polar bears which are increasingly forced, due to loss of habitat, to live alongside humans in urban environments in order to get food by scavenging. In the UK this behaviour is evidenced amongst foxes and the common pigeon as examples. Indeed, it is thought that this is how dogs became domesticated originally, with estimates varying from between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago or more.

Training, whether it be a dog, cat, child or sports person must be consistent, ongoing and continual. An obvious statement perhaps, but how many people (I’m thinking specifically about dog trainers here) practise the ‘continual’ element. Positive reinforcement is an EXTREMELY powerful MOTIVATOR. For example we can reward our dog for lying quietly in bed; appearing to the outsider, for no apparent reason! We can reinforce the wanted behaviour of lying quietly with a few kind words of ENCOURAGEMENT and a chin rub. Here we reinforced the behaviour passively – we are not actually encouraging a behaviour, rather, waiting for it to happen and capturing the moment. This is continual training; we offer rewards at random for a wanted behaviour – not only in ‘formal’ training sessions.

Conversely, we can employ ‘active’ training, in a more formal setting, whereby we set the dog up to succeed, cue the wanted behaviour, followed by the behaviour itself, then the reward (known as the ABC of training ‘Antecedent, Behaviour, Consequence’). However, in the early stages of training it will be necessary to reverse the ABC to BAC – the behaviour BEFORE the antecedent as the dog has not learnt the word/s yet. The idea of setting the dog up to SUCCEED cannot be overstated. Failure will not do and we must always end any formal training session on a high note. I also believe that many trainers overly rely on food and mechanical aids, ‘clickers’ for example (I’m not suggesting that clickers do not serve a purpose – they have their place in the correct situation). Better to rely on communication with our dog using EMOTIONS and body language. Dogs are able to pick up on the slightest nuances, ones which humans would not notice in a thousand years!

The UK’s pet industry is worth £6.5billion including food, accessories, grooming and veterinary. Accessories alone amounted to £1billion of this total in 2020!

Pet stores, so it appears, will happily sell you a negative (aversive) interrupter (NI). These are in the form of water pistols, compressed air horns, choke chains, ultrasonic zappers, citronella sprays, shock collars etc. What they won’t sell you is a positive interrupter (PI) – there must be an opportunity there!

NIs are based on the principle of positive punishment (P+). It interrupts an unwanted behaviour, for example barking, jumping up or ‘humping’. The problem with punishment is it does not teach the dog (cat, horse, chicken etc) what to do instead. There is also the potential for fallout in the form of learned helplessness and/or a relationship breakdown – not to mention the ethical question.

Positive interrupters (PIs) work on the principle of classical (reflexive) conditioning. The interrupter here could be a click, whistle, shaking of a kibble box, the theme from ‘Colonel Bogey’, or “Yippee”! The PI is previously paired with something the dog finds pleasurable. This could, for example, be a piece of kibble, piece of liver cake or a game of tug. He/she will learn this within about thirty seconds but will need proofing in different environments and with varying distractions. Once the unwanted behaviour is interrupted, the pleasure ensues followed by “look at me – sit – stay – good dog”, followed by – another piece of liver cake! In the words of John Rogerson, “Communicate”.

I should point out that interrupters are used as an exception rather than the rule. Correct training in the first place will negate their use.

NB – Addendum 30.05.21 – Since the time of writing, the sale of electronic shock collars is now illegal in the UK. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act (2021) tightens up the law on animal abuse. Judges now have the power, upon indictment, to impose a custodial sentence of up to 5 years, as opposed to the the previous 6 months.

“Over the years, dog training has become overly complicated, time consuming, technical, mechanical and impersonal – lacking in communication, interaction and relationship. I feel that dog training has lost its way, its voice and its soul. We simply have to get things back on track before dog training……(dare I say it?)……..goes to the dogs” (Dunbar, 2015). So wrote the renowned dog trainer and clinical behaviourist Dr Ian Dunbar some six years ago. Does he have a point?

“Throw away any preconceived ideas you may have about how to train a dog using words of command, mechanical clickers, whistles and hand signals, and understand the universal language of emotions. It is your emotions, when coupled with the giving or withholding of rewards, that will enable you to communicate with your dog better than most academically trained behaviourists ever could. Welcome to the real world of dogs” (Rogerson, 2010). Emotive words indeed from the renowned dog trainer, behaviourist and author John Rogerson.

A mere twenty years ago the idea that dogs are capable of feelings and emotions would have been laughed at by the academics. In 2012, Dr Gregory Berns trained dogs to enter an MRI scanner. The scans confirmed what owners already knew, that dogs are able to recognise faces and emotions thereof. Activity in the caudate nucleus region of the brain causes the release of hormones, as with humans, responsible for certain emotions. These include vasopressin linked to aggression, oxytocin, often referred to as the ‘love hormone’ and dopamine known to enhance the experience of pleasure. It appears then, that your dog IS capable of falling in love with you, and not simply because you are the provider of basic needs!

Until about the early 1970s, dog training was the preserve of police forces and the military. Pet dogs were left to get on with it; any apparent ‘misbehaviour’ or aggression being dealt with, by ill-informed owners, in the form of beating into submission, chaining up or euthanasia. As I recall, the first ‘celebrity’ dog trainer, with her own TV series, was Barbara Woodhouse in the early ’80s. Training was in the form of dominance with ‘yanks’, reprimanding, bullying………..the lot! Some of her Youtube videos are difficult to watch! To this day, Cesar Millan espouses similar techniques with pinning down, kicking and all. This is also evidenced on his Youtube channel. It would appear that things have not moved on greatly, with Channel 5’s ‘Dogs Behaving (Very) Badly’ promoting the use of dominance and punishment, thus setting reward based training back by many decades.

The point is that, even now, some dog guardians may treat their pets as objects of desire rather than sentient beings. For example, one of the most common ‘problem’ behaviours guardians encounter, and one which I am often asked to help resolve, is pulling on lead. Ironically this is also one of the easiest problems to deal with. Every day I witness handlers yanking and pulling back in resistance. Punishment does NOT work, period. If it did, why do we see this behaviour over and over? The temptation is to escalate the punishment, potentially with dire consequences; an unhappy, withdrawn dog and a relationship breakdown, not to mention long term damage to the neck and throat area – thyroid glands (dogs have two), muscle and blood vessels. This abuse has to end somewhere!

The other side of the same coin is to COMMUNICATE with our dog, explaining exactly what we want him/her to do using plain English. Yes, plain English; dogs are capable of understanding up to 1,000 words. Of course this is over simplistic as three or four words strung together may be their limit, even then failing to comprehend the literal meaning – but you get my drift! As far back as the ’40s, William Campbell devised the ‘jolly routine’ of singing and dancing to ENGAGE the dog. He was way ahead of his time! The dog should WANT to walk alongside rather than in front. How about a game of tug on the go until the dog gets the message. Why simply ‘manage’ the behaviour when we can actively train for an alternative behaviour? – that of walking WITHOUT pulling. This is known as ‘differential reinforcement of an alternative behaviour’. It is far easier to teach a positive (R+) than it is to teach a negative (R-)! My mentor, Steve Mann, shows this eloquently on his Youtube channel.

So, to answer my own question – training a dog may APPEAR complicated but science has truly shown us the way forward. This all started in the late 1800s when J B Watson, the father of modern behaviourism, was of the opinion that we (mankind) needed to take an objective view of behaviour by observing rather than relying on emotions. The ‘science’ of behaviour was thus founded. But don’t be disheartened, the best form of training is COMMUNICATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, and LOADS of REINFORCEMENT for the wanted behaviour!

As a kid in the ‘50s I lived in the Camden Town area of London. Now it has been regenerated and gentrified. Children and dogs would take themselves off for the day and play on the bomb sites. They would return in the evening for their tea. The dogs were invariably mongrels and today we would call them ‘street dogs’ (except they don’t exist in the so called ‘developed’ world). Behavioural problems were non existent so something has happened in the intervening years to change this. I suspect it is to do with the population explosion, overcrowding, poverty (or peoples’ expectations) and, in general, peoples’ lack of respect for each other. Of course this has impacted on dogs’ behaviour – you can only put so many rats in a cage before they start to fight!

Today’s boom in ‘breeds’ has led to a reduced gene pool and consequent health issues and, dare I say, behavioural issues. Yes, people today lead busy lives and may underestimate the time and work needed to bring up a dog successfully. Choosing the right breed plays a big part. A client of mine acquired a Welsh sheepdog from a working line and was surprised when the dog was anxious and restless during the day unable to settle in his crate. The dog was eventually returned to the farm. (NB the Welsh Sheepdog Society does not allow the sale of its registered dogs to non-working homes – this one slipped through the net).

For a lesson in dog training, observe the behaviour of a dog with a homeless owner. They are as close to the wild as ever, will follow their guardian everywhere quite happily, off lead and with no ‘misbehaviour’. They rely on their guardian for everything and he/she has assumed the role of family leader, all without any formal training. Lesson learned!

As responsible dog parents it behoves us to ensure that our pet behaves according to acceptable standards both indoors and when out meeting other dogs, people, cats, etc. How we deal with a ‘situation’, for example lunging on lead and barking, will depend on our understanding of the dog’s emotions and of the steps necessary to resolve the situation and ensure it does not happen again – or at least take baby steps in the right direction. A dog acting in an aggressive way does not mean the dog is aggressive per se – something else may have caused the display. Very often this is fear-aggression. Why, and what is the dog fearful of will need to be addressed to placate this. The lead itself may exacerbate the dog’s anxiety in the sense that there is no escape!

Behaviours have consequences, a pleasant one will likely mean repeat of the behaviour, whilst an unpleasant one will likely mean the behaviour will NOT be repeated. Of course this is the fundamental theory of training and of the subject’s learning.

This then raises the question: to punish or not to punish. “Of course not, I would never punish my dog”, I hear you say. According to behavioural psychology something as apparently insignificant as the word ‘no’ constitutes punishment – perhaps not so in every-day usage. Degrees of punishment will fall on a continuum with extremes at both ends. The withholding of a treat/reward is technically punishment, albeit negative punishment (P- something is withheld or withdrawn to help decrease a behaviour, for example, jumping up at a visitor [time to get back to basics]).

There is a school of thought that we simply ignore an unwanted behaviour. Well fine, as a rule of thumb. This may work if the dog, for example, ‘lays’ instead of ‘sits’ – it’s fairly benign! It’s a question of context and if there is any imminent danger. If your dog is jumping up in excitement at a visitor whilst mouthing (but why is your dog/puppy doing this in the first place?!) or is about to run into a busy road, would you ignore this? Of course not. The dog must be aware that this is not acceptable and, ideally, offered an alternative behaviour. In other words we teach a positive rather than a negative.

Your dog WILL appreciate feedback rather than being ignored or left in limbo. But, how and what feedback do we give. Punishment would be punitive and, in any event, depends on consistency and precision timing – which of course most people don’t have. Punishment may appear to show instant results but does not teach the dog what to do instead. It is reinforcing for the trainer who is tempted to repeat this. However, if the punishment does not work there is a further temptation to increase it and where would it all end? With an unhappy dog, a battle of wills and, potentially, a relationship breakdown. The goal of training is to produce an internally-reinforced and self-motivated dog that is under reliable verbal control when off-lead, at a distance and with distractions. Understanding the science and theory is one thing but let’s not forget feeling and communication – feedback.

Analogue feedback is a term borrowed from electronics. Feedback can be either analogue or digital. As with dog training there is also both negative and positive feedback. Imagine digital as an on/off light switch – there are two poles, there is no in-between except a nanosecond’s time delay between the two. Now imagine a dimmer light switch as analogue – it is continuously variable and instantaneous. With dog training the aim is to give the dog appropriate and instantaneous feedback. Hence we have ‘analogue feedback’. As with voltage (input) and current (output), input from the trainer = output from the dog!

Furthermore, feedback needs to be unambiguous, binary, precise and instructive. The dog needs to know if he got it ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – binary feedback. But what about the grey area in-between, the intervening variables of thinking it through, attention, perception, and decision making (known as cognitive psychology)? What happened between the initial stimulus and the response (more broadly known as S-R psychology or cause and effect)? Did he get it ‘almost’ right or ‘completely’ right? He needs to know how well he did. The DEGREE of feedback and praise – differential reinforcement – reflects this. Verbal feedback, therefore, becomes effortlessly analogue. Differential reinforcement allows us to concentrate on the positives rather than the negatives insofar as the dog succeeds whatever the scenario! A previous blog further discusses this concept:
https://richardthedogtrainer.com/2020/12/14/what-exactly-do-we-mean-by-the-science-of-dog-training-part-2/