Dog training is as much about communication as it is about behavior, and the words trainers use often reveal deeper insights into their philosophy, values, and understanding of dogs. In a 2022 study published in Anthrozoös, Anamarie C. Johnson and Clive Wynne conducted a qualitative linguistic analysis of 100 dog trainers’ public training philosophies to investigate how word choice reflects training methodology, gender representation, and professional certification status.
Drawing from trainer websites across 10 U.S. cities, the researchers classified trainers into two broad categories: non-aversive trainers—those relying solely on positive reinforcement—and aversive trainers, who may combine rewards with punishment-based techniques. Using text analysis software (MAXQDA), the authors identified 20 key codes representing concepts such as tools, correction, communication, and empathy. These codes were analyzed for context and frequency to highlight distinctions between methods.
The analysis revealed striking linguistic contrasts. Trainers using aversive methods tended to describe their tools in technical or neutral terms, such as “electronic collars,” while non-aversive trainers used emotionally charged phrasing like “shock collars,” emphasizing their rejection of such tools. These word differences reflected not just technique but also underlying beliefs about dogs’ emotional experience and the ethics of behavior modification.
Gender and certification trends also emerged. The study found that women were significantly more likely to practice positive reinforcement training than men (χ² = 12.79, p < 0.05). Moreover, reward-based trainers were more often certified (χ² = 18.75, p < 0.01), suggesting stronger alignment with evidence-based or academically supported approaches. Conversely, aversive trainers were less frequently certified and more likely to justify their practices through appeals to instinct, tradition, or “natural” dominance hierarchies.
Johnson and Wynne conclude that inconsistencies in terminology and the lack of regulation in the U.S. dog training industry contribute to public confusion and potential welfare risks. They advocate for greater standardization and certification requirements to promote transparency, professionalism, and animal well-being. Their findings reveal that language is more than semantics—it is a window into the trainer’s worldview and the kind of relationship they foster with dogs.
Source: Johnson, A. C., & Wynne, C. (2022). Training Dogs with Science or with Nature? An Exploration of Trainers’ Word Use, Gender, and Certification Across Dog-Training Methods. Anthrozoös, 36, 35–51. Published April 28, 2022.
