{"id":8151,"date":"2025-09-18T08:41:08","date_gmt":"2025-09-18T06:41:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/illis.se\/en\/?p=8151"},"modified":"2025-09-27T16:18:20","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T14:18:20","slug":"from-coercive-to-r-plus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/illis.se\/en\/from-coercive-to-r-plus\/","title":{"rendered":"From coercive to R+"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Revised Sept 27th 2025. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dog training world is currently extremely polarized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, some trainers don\u2019t 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 \u2013 or won\u2019t use it at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For simplicity, I will call the trainers-who-don\u2019t-think-twice-about-sometimes-using-aversives coercive, <\/em>and trainers-who-avoid-aversives-at-all-costs positive reinforcement trainers, or R+ <\/em>. These are just shorthand labels, not rigid boxes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I know, I know – that\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If that\u2019s you, please know no offense is intended. I\u2019m painting with big strokes here only for the sake of the discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I recently ran a poll in the Do No Harm Dog Training<\/a> group on Facebook, curious to know the backgrounds of the members \u2013 had they transitioned from coercive to R+ trainers? And their comments were revealing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ongoing evolution in the dog training world.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s how I see it:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Over time, people immersed in a culture where coercive* techniques are the norm (black) have started experimenting with R+** methods (white dots). As they\u2019ve developed their skills, they have started converting others. Once there\u2019s enough people practicing R+ methods in one area, some newcomers join them without ever being exposed to, or trying, coercive methods. *, ** – remember those definitions? In this blog, trainers-who-don\u2019t-think-twice-about-sometimes-using-aversives are defined as coercive, and trainers-who-avoid-aversives-at-all-costs are defined as R+.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

In the Do No Harm group, around 42 % of respondents in my poll said they\u2019d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
\u201cCross-over\u201d trainers started out coercive but converted to R+ and \u201cR+\u201d trainers were R+ all along. n=363.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

These data, of course, will likely shift over time \u2013 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do I think that R+ trainers will replace coercive trainers altogether, sometime in the future? No. I think there\u2019ll 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\u2019t think we\u2019ve yet reached the equilibrium point \u2013 several of the people answering the poll had crossed over only within the last few months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about the coercive trainers, I hear you ask? Don\u2019t people convert from R+ to coercive? Yes, I\u2019m sure that they do. But since the particular group I polled was created to discuss R+ training techniques, I couldn\u2019t get that data there \u2013 there weren\u2019t enough coercive trainers in the sample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s not the number per se that I find interesting, it\u2019s the fact that many people move from one approach to the other.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Switching from coercive to R+.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

I became particularly interested in the stories people shared about how they came about switching from coercive to R+ dog training. Here\u2019s some of what they shared about their coercive days and the decisions that led them to change:<\/p>\n\n\n\n