I’ve often wondered if the way in which individuals view and treat their own and other dogs is related to how they view animal-human relationships in general. Based on discussions with many people, I came to believe that dogs could serve as a “gateway” species to bridge what I called the empathy gap to include other nonhumans in the arena of compassion and to bring humans together, and now there is empirical evidence that this is so. In a recent study published in Anthrozoös by Tracy Weber and her colleagues titled “Dog Owners’ Use of Training Methods and Their Ethical Stance on the Treatment of Animals,” we learn: “This is the first study to demonstrate that an owner’s choice of dog training method is linked with their ethical orientation toward animals. It provides new insight into ‘ethical’ factors that may influence training method choice.” Here’s what two of the researchers had to say about this landmark study.
Marc Bekoff: Why did you and your colleagues publish this study?
Tracy Weber: As an animal behavior professional, I’m always curious about the methods people use to train their dogs. There’s a lot of disagreement in the dog training world about which methods are most effective and humane. As I’ve followed these discussions, particularly among dog trainers, I’ve been perplexed by how much vitriol is exchanged between training camps without any real communication. It’s almost as if we were speaking different languages. While reading one particularly fractious exchange, I realized the disagreements weren’t grounded in science or even effectiveness. They seemed to reflect how people view the human-dog relationship. I had just completed Peter’s course on animal ethics at the University of Edinburgh and wanted to examine how ethical orientations might influence the training methods owners use with their canine companions.
Peter Sandøe: For me, this was a great opportunity to expand our study of people’s different animal ethics orientations to a new part of the world, the U.S., and to a different form of animal use, dog training. Before this, we have only measured people’s animal ethics orientations in three Western European countries, and we have only studied correlations between animal ethics orientations and the willingness to pay the extra price for meat with an animal welfare label.
MB: Who do you hope to reach in your interesting and important work?
TW: I would love for this research to build a bridge between dog trainers and dog owners who hold differing views on the ethical use of animals. If we can understand each other’s frame of reference, perhaps we can learn together how best to help dogs.
PS: This, for me, fits into a broader effort to try to make ethical assumptions underlying seemingly factual debates more transparent and open for discussion. And by doing so in this context, we may reach different groups involved in dog training and allow them to have a more open and honest ethical debate about the best way to treat canines in our care.
MB: What are some of the topics you consider and some of your main conclusions?
TW: The primary aim of the research was to examine the correlation between owners’ use of dog training methods and their ethical orientations toward the use of animals. We also learned, however, that even though our study was specifically designed not to advocate for one method or ethical view, it was very easy for people (especially those who use physical corrections in training) to feel as if they were being vilified.
PS: We looked at whether there are correlations between holding the ethical views described above and the propensity to use methods of training dogs ranging from high use of physical correction to almost exclusive use of positive training. And we found some clear correlations. For example, those scoring high on anthropocentrism were more likely to use physical correction and less likely to exclusively use positive training. Conversely, those scoring high on animal rights were less likely to use physical correction.
MB: How does your work differ from that of others concerned with some of the same general topics?
TW: Although research has examined the impact of ethical ideology on other human behaviors toward nonhuman animals (including the allocation of charitable donations and vegetarian versus non-vegetarian food choices), this is the first study to specifically examine how an owner’s ethical views influence their choice of dog training methods.
PS: Despite clear limitations regarding the selection of respondents, which is likely far from representative, the study serves to highlight that, underlying seeming factual discussions about the effectiveness of different dog training methods, there are deep ethical disagreements. Discussions about dog training are not just about facts; they are also about values.
MB: Are you hopeful that as people learn more about how their ethical beliefs relate to dog-training choices, they will be more open to change?
TW: Although I would personally like to see people move toward force-free training methods, my main hope is that this work can open channels of communication. Our world (especially the United States) is so fractured now. The vitriol between trainers in various dog training camps is a microcosm of a larger phenomenon. If people can begin to understand the many ethical viewpoints that inform decisions, perhaps they can also learn to communicate with those who do not share their personal beliefs. Understanding and communication come first. Change blossoms afterward.
PS: This is all about opening a dialogue between adherents of entrenched schools of dog training.
link