From coercive to R+

Revised Sept 27th 2025.

The dog training world is currently extremely polarized.

On the one hand, some trainers don’t hesitate to use aversive techniques to train their dogs (in other words, they will sometimes inflict pain or discomfort). On the other, we have trainers who will jump through hoops to avoid aversives – or won’t use it at all.

For simplicity, I will call the trainers-who-don’t-think-twice-about-sometimes-using-aversives coercive, and trainers-who-avoid-aversives-at-all-costs positive reinforcement trainers, or R+ . These are just shorthand labels, not rigid boxes.

Yes, I know, I know – that’s an oversimplification. There are many different training approaches out there and some people may feel these labels don’t capture the nuance of their work.

If that’s you, please know no offense is intended. I’m painting with big strokes here only for the sake of the discussion.

I recently ran a poll in the Do No Harm Dog Training group on Facebook, curious to know the backgrounds of the members – had they transitioned from coercive to R+ trainers? And their comments were revealing.

The ongoing evolution in the dog training world.

Here’s how I see it:

In the Do No Harm group, around 42 % of respondents in my poll said they’d crossed over from coercive to R+ training (so called cross-over trainers). 53% had never practiced coercive training but rather adopted R+ training straight away.

These data, of course, will likely shift over time – those numbers are simply a glimpse into the current composition of the group; or rather, the fraction of the group that chose to answer my poll in the last few days – and that may or may not be representative of the group as a whole, or the R+ community at large. The fraction of cross-over trainers in any given group is bound to depend for instance on which country the trainers come from, the social media groups they hang out in, the types of objectives they have for training their dogs, and when the poll was carried out, as well as how widely R+ approaches are currently shared within that niche.

Do I think that R+ trainers will replace coercive trainers altogether, sometime in the future? No. I think there’ll always be people who will use aversives in their training, even when shown alternatives, new research or dispelled myths (more on this below). However, I don’t think we’ve yet reached the equilibrium point – several of the people answering the poll had crossed over only within the last few months.

What about the coercive trainers, I hear you ask? Don’t people convert from R+ to coercive? Yes, I’m sure that they do. But since the particular group I polled was created to discuss R+ training techniques, I couldn’t get that data there – there weren’t enough coercive trainers in the sample.

In a way these data are rather uninteresting since they only give us this momentary glimpse of a corner of the R+ world, frozen in time. It’s not the number per se that I find interesting, it’s the fact that many people move from one approach to the other.

Switching from coercive to R+.

I became particularly interested in the stories people shared about how they came about switching from coercive to R+ dog training. Here’s some of what they shared about their coercive days and the decisions that led them to change:

• “Balanced was all there was back then” – Several people mentioned that when they started learning about animal training, the R+ alternative didn’t yet exist, or they hadn’t heard about it. In other words, becoming coercive was not an active choice.
• “I used the methods my dad taught me. They seemed to work and who was I to question him.” –  It’s common to follow authority figures or family patterns. Without exposure to other role models, it can be hard to imagine doing things differently.
• “My mother insisted I hit my dog or he would be killed running off and doing stupid things. He nearly was killed many times, but hitting him didn’t help.” – This framing – that aversives are the only way to keep an animal safe – is common. Yet the side effects of using corrections are unpredictable, numerous and potentially extremely serious – and there are often multiple alternative ways of dealing with behavioural issues that do not require the use of aversives.
• “Grew up training my dogs the balanced way, because it was familiar and seemed logical.” – Culturally, many of us are taught to use carrots and sticks to change behaviour, although evidence suggests that the “stick” potentially does more harm than good. We can also change the animals’ behaviour by addressing their underlying mood state, their emotional reactions to stimuli, the antecedents or reinforcers of behaviour, adjusting the animal’s learning environment, and introducing changes gradually.
• “I spouted uneducated misinformation about positive reinforcement training since that’s what I’d been taught.” – There are many myths about R+ training in the coercive community (some of which are addressed below). Clinging to arguments against the “other side” can help resolve one’s own cognitive dissonance.
• “I used a choke chain, even though I disliked it” – Many people in the group expressed feeling uneasy about some coercive training methods, which often involve discomfort for the animal.
• “My dog was 2 and did not want to work with me… I realized that he became quite frightened when I approached him quickly.” – Several people told their heartbreaking stories of how their use of corrections negatively impacted their relationships with their dogs.
• “For the first time in my life, I had a dog that reacted really poorly to the training.” – Encountering a dog who didn’t respond well to aversives – to the point of snapping at their trainer – was, for many, the moment they started looking for alternatives.
• “Never knew there was anything else.” – If we’re never exposed to alternatives, we can’t choose them. This, to me, highlights the importance of sharing success stories, videos and research findings so people can see R+ methods in action.
• “When I came across force-free methods I quickly abandoned other training methods” – Many people will take the leap the moment they realize that there is an alternative. Which, again, leads us back to the importance of showcasing success stories, dispelling myths and getting the word out.
• “I came across a TV show showing force-free methods. It felt like the veil had been lifted & there was no going back.” – Many people attested to stumbling on R+ training and never looking back – through books, videos, courses, and friends. This, to me, illustrates the importance of spreading the word on multiple fronts – some people prefer books, some videos, and others conversations with friends.
• “I left to the accusation that I was too soft to train a dog, and he would end up terrible. But he didn’t.” – Leaving a well-known community can lead to snarky comments. A welcoming R+ community can ease that transition for newcomers. That transition is not just about dogs’ wellbeing – it’s very much also about peoples’.
• “I didn’t know enough to notice the subtle appeasement and stress signals in my previous dogs” – Several people noted that only after crossing over did they recognize subtle signs of stress in their dogs. Not all body language is obvious.
• “I wish I knew what I know now when she was a puppy, because she would have been a different dog, but all I can do is move forward with her and thank the universe for her resilience.” – Some respondents mentioned feeling guilt about past training choices. Learning from those experiences can be painful but also formative.

Wiser people than I have offered words of consolation to anyone feeling regret. Sharing a powerful poem that helped me come to peace with my own previous choices:

I have been a thousand different women

                                             – Emory Hall

make peace

with all the women

you once were.

lay flowers at their feet.

offer them incense

and honey

and forgiveness.

honor them

and give them your silence.

listen.

bless them

and let them be.

for they are the bones

of the temple

you sit in now.

for they are

the rivers

of wisdom

leading you toward

the sea.

Before we leave this section, back to the scenario of R+ trainers also very likely sometimes converting to coercive approaches. I would guess that the main reason for doing so would be the perception that the R+ approach isn’t effective, or that there’s too much work involved. And to the latter yes, I would agree – resolving unwanted behaviour without using aversives may in some cases take more time and commitment. Not to mention that it requires skill: R+ training concepts may be simple to understand in theory, but difficult to carry out in practice. What I’m saying is that you need education to become a skilled R+-trainer. Finding good teachers can be difficult, and so people might give up. Especially if they were going at it on their own.

As many of my students attest, it’s lonely being the only R+ trainer in your village/stable/organization. Luckily like-minded people can be found in many online groups!

Another reason why people may abandon the R+ approach is because they cave in response to the onslaught of misinformation and myths related to positive reinforcement training.

The myths of positive reinforcement training.

Finally, I’d like to address some common myths about R+ training that I’ve heard.

One misconception is that in the R+ equivalent to coercive training, you would simply replace a well-timed correction with chucking a meatball at the dog, who would then immediately stop doing whatever it is they were doing.

And on that I completely agree: this approach is doomed to fail.

But it’s also based on a fundamental misunderstanding. As a general rule, and unlike when using aversives, R+ trainers don’t teach in the context where the unwanted behaviour occurs.

They teach outside of the context, and then generalize.

For instance, let’s say the dog excitedly jumps at grandma when she visits, and nearly knocks her over. Contrary to what many coercive trainers seem to suggest, R+ trainers wouldn’t solve this by waving a meatball in the dog’s face as the front paws connect with her shoulders.

They would start training a week before her visit, by for instance teaching an incompatible behaviour, such as standing with all four paws on a mat. Then they put the behaviour on cue, so that when they say “mat”, the dog enthusiastically runs over to the mat, looking expectantly for the meatball. They might gradually make it more difficult by asking for the behaviour in the presence of familiar people – and then unfamiliar people, until finally, after many many successful repetitions, when grandma comes, they give the cue “mat” – and the dog eagerly bounces to the mat to receive their meatball.

And if the trainer feels that the training isn’t quite there yet when grandma arrives, they will perhaps put the dog in another room or behind a barrier until they have calmed down and can say hello without going nuts. That’s another difference: in R+ training, we don’t set the animal up to fail just so we can administer a correction that they can learn from – we manage the environment to avoid the animal ever having the opportunity of practicing the unwanted behaviour.

In short, R+ lives in a completely different paradigm than training-using-aversives. 

One frequently repeated claim is “Positive reinforcement isn’t effective when recalling hunting dogs off wildlife”. I’ve heard this one a number of times, including in a recent paper whose claims I believe deserve careful scrutiny (now going under the name of “the banana-study” in R+ circles). I point out the many fallacies of the study in nerdy detail, and link to multiple R+ trainers making a living out of helping their clients successfully in those precise situations, here. I also discuss the problem of shocking dogs in Norway to render them “sheep-proof” here.

… Just out of curiosity… what other examples of myths and misinformation have you seen related to R+ training?

What about the grey areas?

In this post I’ve used very broad labels (and I illustrated them in black and white, at that!) for clarity, but real-world training is far more nuanced. There are many shades of grey between the two extremes.

Even in my definitions, there’s room for the occasional use of aversives in the “R+” group. I defined them as trainers-who-avoid-aversives-at-all-costs, not trainers-who-don’t-use-aversives. Among R+ trainers, you’ll find both kinds. I discuss situations in which some of these R+ trainers would use aversives here and here.

Likewise, in the coercive group – here defined as trainers-who-don’t-think-twice-about-sometimes-using-aversives – you’ll find that some are highly skilled at using R+ techniques – and some less so.

I believe dogs benefit when people develop more skill with R+ methods and reduce their reliance on aversives wherever possible – to me, the animal’s overall welfare has the highest priority.

This means also recognizing the unintentional (often unrecognized) aversives that we might expose the animal to.

What the R+ community can do

Coercive trainers love their dogs, and they’re doing the best they can with the information they have available. I’m not saying this to be patronizing – I’ve simply noticed that some R+ trainers forget how much learning and unlearning is involved in making a switch.

Here are some ways the R+ community might help:

• Share information – in multiple formats (videos, courses, blog posts, books, pamphlets). Some coercive trainers haven’t heard of alternative approaches and may be open to learning. Use memes!
• Dispel myths. One common barrier to switching is the belief that R+ doesn’t work. Why not make a series of blog posts dispelling those myths, one by one (and I’ll gladly pass that baton to someone else since I’m not a dog trainer – and I think video evidence is needed)..?
• Be kind when discussing training with others. Curiosity invites dialogue; hostility makes people defensive. Remember they may face backlash from peers when changing, so a welcoming community can make a big difference.

***

If you’re still here, and you’re curious about the R+ world and want to explore further, you might check out my online course Getting Behaviour – The Foundations of Animal Training. I also write the occasional blog post, participate in podcasts and summits, offer free Masterclasses as well as other extensive online courses about animal learning, behaviour and wellbeing. Sign up below to stay updated.