Language is powerful. The words we choose shape perceptions, influence attitudes, and reinforce values. While it might be convenient to stick with familiar terms, even when their meaning has shifted or become outdated, this limits our ability to evolve and embrace new mindsets. In dog training, language can also be hijacked, diluting the true meaning of important terms.
Take "positive reinforcement," for example. Many local trainers use it as a buzzword to promote their services, leading to a misunderstanding of its true purpose. Some believe that simply giving treats or praise qualifies as positive reinforcement, even when aversive methods like leash pops are used to force a behavior. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained that positive reinforcement is not just about handing out treats or saying “good dog.” There’s no such thing as “balanced positive reinforcement.” A trainer cannot claim to be using positive reinforcement methods when they employ an aversive technique that cause discomfort to the dog to get the behavior they want just because they feed the dog a treat for it.
We need to be more deliberate with our words, especially when discussing dog behavior. The language we use can shape how others understand key principles and ultimately affect how dogs are treated. To drive this point home, let’s take a closer look at commonly used terms in dog training and behavior that we should be more mindful of if we want to shift how people teach and interact with dogs.
Our goal is to foster a more compassionate, understanding, and cooperative approach, where trust and mutual respect form the foundation of the relationship, rather than fear, control, and dominance.
"Commands" vs. "Cues"
Command implies a demand or directive that the dog must obey, suggesting a power dynamic where the human is in control, and the dog is a subordinate without choice or agency. When I command a dog to “sit,” the dog has no choice but to “sit.”
Cue, on the other hand, suggests a signal or invitation to perform a behavior, promoting a cooperative relationship between human and dog. It's like being a performer on stage, waiting for cues to act or speak in sync with others. You’re not being commanded to act; you’re following cues to ensure a successful performance. “That’s my cue!” is what we say when it’s time to act. It means we’re in control, making the decision, and ready to participate willingly.
"Obedience" vs. "Life Skills" or "Manners"
Obedience often implies strict control, where the dog is expected to follow commands without question. While the skills taught—like sit, down, leave it, and recall—are undoubtedly important for safety and proper behavior in various situations, the question becomes: how do we want our dogs to learn and perform these behaviors? If “obedience” means stripping dogs of their choices and agency, or forcing them to sit or stay while feeling scared and uncomfortable as people touch them without their consent to make them “friendly” and “sociable,” then I'd rather have a “snob” or “stubborn” dog who knows how to say no.
In contrast, terms like life skills or manners emphasize teaching dogs behaviors that allow them to navigate their environment safely and comfortably. These skills equip them to handle stressful situations while trusting their humans to advocate for them. This way, they don’t feel the need to take matters into their own paws, which we all know can lead to less-than-ideal outcomes.
"Behavior Problem" vs. "Behavior Challenge" or "Need"
Many so-called behavior problems are natural behaviors for dogs. For instance, if a herding dog likes chasing and nipping at kids' ankles, it’s not a problem but a natural instinct that needs a proper outlet. They were specifically bred for their herding skills, excelling at the job they were designed for. Unfortunately, many environments today don’t provide the opportunities for those behaviors to be purposefully expressed.
When we refer to these behaviors as challenges or needs, it's important to recognize that they don’t need to be “fixed”—they need to be understood and managed. After all, we can't fix what isn't broken. Dogs are designed with skills, traits, and behaviors that make them perfectly suited for tasks that once helped humans, and we should respect those innate qualities.
"Corrections" vs. "Redirections" or "Guidance"
Saying we need to "correct" a dog’s behavior implies it is wrong and deserves punishment. However, many behaviors like barking or growling are natural forms of communication. Correcting these behaviors is like punishing the dog for speaking their own language.
When we redirect or guide, we gently steer the dog toward desired behaviors by teaching new skills, managing the environment, and setting them up for success.
"Bad Behavior" vs. "Undesirable Behavior"
Labeling behavior as "bad" implies intentional wrongdoing and focuses on blame and punishment instead of understanding the underlying causes. Calling a dog who barks at strangers “bad” is overly simplistic and lazy, as the behavior could stem from various causes, such as fear, perceived threat, or insecurity.
In contrast, undesirable behavior is more neutral, acknowledging that while a behavior may be natural for the dog, it is inappropriate for the situation. This shift in language encourages understanding and teaching alternative behaviors rather than simply reprimanding the dog.
"Pack Leader" vs. "Guardian/Parent"
With the widespread promotion of "alpha leadership," the term pack leader now suggests a dominance-based relationship, where the human is the 'alpha' exerting supreme control over the dog. A single 'psst' commands attention, and a sharp 'no' sends the dog cowering in fear. Many self-proclaimed 'alphas,' especially on social media, believe behavior challenges stem from a lack of respect and that dogs need a heavy hand to comply—without truly understanding the science of canine behavior and learning.
In contrast, terms like guardian or parent emphasize a nurturing role of care, protection, and advocacy, promoting an approach focused on understanding and meeting the dog's needs—which is, in fact, essential to preventing and addressing behavior challenges.
"Compliance" vs "Participation"
Compliance demands adherence to strict rules, even if the dog is uncomfortable or has reservations. It might involve a dog obeying commands without necessarily being fully engaged or enthusiastic out of fear of consequences.
Meanwhile, participation fosters engagement, cooperation, and mutual benefits. It involves the dog choosing to engage in the learning process, motivated by trust, enjoyment, and rewards.
Words do matter and what we choose reflect how we perceive the animals in our care. Changing long-established language habits isn't easy, but I find it helpful to pause and consider:
If you were your dog, what kind of human would you want to be? Would you prefer someone who demands obedience, or someone who guides? Someone who issues orders, or someone who respects your choices and autonomy? Someone who punishes, or someone who encourages and sets you up for success?
From these questions, we might shape a language that truly connects with dogs—one that is understanding and compassionate—and make a real difference in their lives, one word at a time.
Comments