Positive Training vs. Balanced Training: What's the Difference - and What Does Science Say?
When it comes to training dogs, there are countless opinions—but two main philosophies dominate the debate: positive reinforcement training and balanced training.
While both aim to change behaviour, the methods and mindset behind them are significantly different. More importantly, modern animal behaviour science leans heavily toward one approach as being more ethical, effective, and dog-friendly.
Let’s explore the key differences—and what the evidence really says.
What Is Positive Training?
Also called force-free or reward-based training, positive training focuses on reinforcing the behaviours we want by using things the dog likes—treats, toys, play, or praise.
It avoids the use of fear, pain, or intimidation. Instead of punishing “bad” behaviour, it redirects, manages, or prevents it while building motivation for alternative behaviours.
Examples:
Rewarding a dog for sitting calmly when guests arrive.
Using treats to encourage loose lead walking.
Teaching a “leave it” command with rewards rather than shouting “no”.
Key Principles:
Positive reinforcement increases behaviour by adding a desirable outcome.
No use of aversives, including prong collars, choke chains, e-collars, or leash corrections.
Focuses on building trust and confidence in the dog.
Backed by Science:
A 2020 systematic review published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science concluded that aversive-based methods pose a risk to dog welfare, while reward-based methods are safer and more effective for long-term behaviour change (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020).
What Is Balanced Training?
Balanced training incorporates both rewards and punishments. Trainers may use treats and praise to teach behaviours, but they also use aversive tools or corrections to stop unwanted ones.
This might include:
Lead jerks for pulling.
E-collar zaps for ignoring recall.
Verbal scolding or physically moving the dog into position.
Supporters say:
It reflects the “real world,” where consequences exist.
Corrections help stop dangerous or stubborn behaviours quickly.
It provides “clear boundaries”.
But research and behaviour experts caution:
Aversive methods can increase fear, anxiety, and even aggression.
They can damage the relationship between dog and handler.
Dogs may learn to comply out of fear, not understanding.
Scientific Comparisons: What the Research Shows
Let’s look at some key findings from peer-reviewed studies:
1. Increased Stress in Aversive-Trained Dogs
A 2019 study by Vieira de Castro et al. compared dogs trained using reward-based methods versus those trained using aversives (including prong collars, choke chains, and shouting). Dogs in the aversive group showed:
Higher levels of cortisol (a stress hormone).
More stress-related behaviours such as yawning, lip licking, and lowered posture.
A more pessimistic cognitive bias—suggesting a more negative emotional state.
📚 Reference: Vieira de Castro, A. C., et al. (2019). "Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare." PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0220749.
2. Aggression Linked to Punishment
In a landmark study by Herron, Shofer & Reisner (2009), owners who used positive punishment (e.g. hitting, growling, alpha rolls) were significantly more likely to report increased aggression in their dogs.
📚 Reference: Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours." Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1-2), 47–54.
3. No Behavioural Benefit to Aversives
A study by Rooney & Cowan (2011) found that reward-based training led to better obedience scores and a stronger dog-owner bond than punishment-based training.
📚 Reference: Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). "Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability." Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3-4), 169–177.
Professional Guidelines
Leading animal welfare and behaviour organisations strongly advocate for reward-based training and oppose the use of aversive methods. Here's what they say:
🟢 ABTC – Animal Behaviour and Training Council (UK)
The ABTC recognises only training and behaviour professionals who use non-coercive, evidence-based methods. They oppose the use of punishment or tools that cause pain, fear, or distress.
“ABTC does not support the use of any training methods or equipment that employ aversive stimuli, including prong collars, electric shock collars, or choke chains.”
🟢 PPG – Pet Professional Guild (International)
The PPG is a global organisation that promotes force-free, fear-free training. They maintain a strict no-pain, no-force, no-fear policy for all members and have published position statements against aversive tools.
“There is no place in modern animal training for methods or equipment that cause pain or intimidation.”
Also Endorsed By:
RSPCA: “Reward-based training is the most humane and effective way to train a dog.”
Dogs Trust: Advocates positive reinforcement and discourages use of aversive methods.
British Veterinary Association (BVA): Recommends avoiding training methods that rely on fear or punishment.
Final Thoughts
Positive reinforcement isn’t just a “soft” or trendy option—it’s a method grounded in compassion, science, and proven results. Balanced training may promise quick results, but it often sacrifices the dog’s emotional wellbeing and trust in the process.
In the end, training should not be about controlling your dog—it should be about teaching and connecting.
🐾 A well-trained dog is not just obedient—but also confident, happy, and secure. That’s the true power of positive training.
Want to Learn More?
Book: The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson
Website: Pet Professional Guild
Course: Dog Emotion and Cognition – Coursera, Duke University
