What your dog training method reveals about how you see your dog
Doges Editorial · 2026-05-11 · 4 min read
A University of Copenhagen study of 500 dog owners found that training choices aren't just about technique — they map with surprising directness onto whether you believe animals exist for human benefit or as beings with their own moral standing.
Imagine two owners at a training class. Both have a dog that lunges at other dogs on the walk. One reaches for a treat and waits for a moment of calm to reward. The other gives a sharp correction on the leash. Same problem. Same goal. Same context. But the instinct that determines which response they reach for isn't really about which method works better. According to a study published this week by the University of Copenhagen, it reflects something more fundamental: how they think about animals in the first place.
The study: 500 owners, one uncomfortable question
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen and the University of Edinburgh surveyed 500 dog owners across the United States, asking two things: how they train their dogs, and what they believe about animals. The study was published on May 5, 2026 and led by Professor Peter Sandøe of Copenhagen's Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, working alongside colleagues Kevin McPeake and Tracy Weber from the University of Edinburgh.
The team sorted respondents into three ethical orientations. Anthropocentric owners believe animals exist primarily for human use. Animal welfare-oriented owners believe animals may be used but must be treated well. Animal rights-oriented owners hold that animals have moral value comparable to humans and deserve comparable protections. The question: did these views predict how people train their dogs?
What the numbers show
Positive methods were, across the board, popular. Ninety-seven percent of respondents reported using verbal praise, and 86% used treats or toys as rewards. That's encouraging. But the picture shifted when the researchers looked at punishment. Forty-six percent of owners reported using some form of punishment as part of their training. Twenty-five percent reported using physically aversive methods — pulling the leash, physical correction of the dog's body. And only 18% relied exclusively on reward-based training.
Those numbers didn't distribute randomly. Owners who held anthropocentric views — who believed dogs exist primarily for human purposes — were significantly more likely to use punishment-based methods. Owners who prioritized animal welfare or animal rights leaned heavily toward positive reinforcement. The correlation between worldview and training method was direct and consistent.
If you use punishment as part of dog training, you are more likely to view dogs as existing primarily for human purposes. If you use less punishment and rely more on positive training methods, you are more likely to orient yourself towards the idea that animals should have rights, or at least good welfare.
— Peter Sandøe, Professor, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen
It's not about effectiveness
This is the part that complicates the standard training debate. Most discussions about dog training methods are framed around effectiveness: positive reinforcement produces better long-term behavior, generates less stress, results in a more reliable dog. The behavioral science backs this up. But this study suggests that many owners aren't choosing their methods on those grounds at all. They're acting from something deeper — a belief about what status the dog holds in the moral world.
You can hand someone a better training protocol. It's considerably harder to shift how they fundamentally think about the creature they're training. Sandøe believes this is why the debate about training methods has been so persistently difficult to resolve through technical arguments alone. Trainers and veterinary behaviorists have long observed that even well-documented evidence for positive reinforcement's effectiveness sometimes fails to shift experienced punishment-based trainers — not because they dispute the evidence, but because evidence was never really what determined the choice in the first place.
Training is not a neutral activity. It is an activity in which the owner's view of the animal becomes apparent. The methods people choose also reflect their beliefs about what our moral obligations towards animals are.
— Peter Sandøe, University of Copenhagen
The ethics most of us haven't made explicit
Most people have not sat down and consciously categorized themselves as anthropocentric, welfare-oriented, or animal-rights-oriented. The ethical orientations the researchers identified exist beneath the level of explicit opinion — they show up in gut responses, in what you reach for first, in how you interpret your dog's behavior when it doesn't do what you want. In the half-second before you act, when something in you decides whether the dog failed a command or just had a different idea.
The study also found that only 18% of respondents used exclusively reward-based training. Which means 82% were mixing methods — positive reinforcement when things went smoothly, some form of correction when they didn't. Whether that's pragmatic flexibility, genuine inconsistency, or a reflection of muddled underlying ethics is something the study wasn't designed to resolve. But it raises the question. Sandøe points out that mixed-method trainers are the majority, not the exception — and that any realistic effort to shift training culture has to start with understanding what's actually driving their choices, rather than assuming it's ignorance of better options.
People have very different views on animals, and dog training is an area that really divides opinions. The study creates room for reflection — ethics appears to play an important role in why people do what they do when training their dogs.
— Peter Sandøe, University of Copenhagen
A moment on the leash
Sandøe expects the patterns observed in the US sample would hold in other countries — the distribution of ethical orientations might vary, but the relationship between worldview and training choice is likely consistent wherever people and dogs share a daily life. He also notes that the findings carry practical implications for how training is taught and communicated. Presenting cleaner evidence for reward-based methods may not move someone whose training choices derive from an underlying belief about what animals are for. What might open that conversation is the question the study puts forward more directly: not which method is more effective, but what kind of animal you believe is standing in front of you.
The next time your dog pulls toward something, or ignores a recall, or does something they know they're not supposed to do — and you feel that small flash of frustration and reach for a response — notice what you reach for. Not as self-judgment. Just as information. The research suggests that what you do with the leash in the next two seconds isn't only a training decision. It's a small, unremarkable expression of something you believe about what your dog deserves.