Dog training-related guilt: Prevalence and associations with owner demographics and self-compassion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract While professional organizations advocate for positive reinforcement in dog training, many owners continue to use aversive methods, potentially creating guilt when their practices deviate from recommended approaches. Similar to parental guilt in child discipline, dog owners may experience negative emotions when resorting to punishment-based training techniques. This study examined the prevalence and predictors of dog training-related guilt among dog owners and the potential mitigating role of self-compassion. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with 361 dog owners aged 18 and older residing in the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom, recruited through Prolific in June 2025. Participants completed measures assessing frequency of negative feelings related to dog training, negative feelings associated with training-related behaviors, guilt regarding their dog’s behavior, and self-compassion. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted examining predictors of training-related guilt, including demographics, experience with professional training sessions provided by a dog trainer or behaviorist, and self-compassion subscales. Results : Dog training-related guilt was prevalent among participants. Approximately 40–45% of owners reported often feeling guilty for not spending adequate time training, raising their voice, or being inconsistent with rules. Over 50% felt guilty when reacting negatively to their dog’s behavior or feeling pressure to always use positive reinforcement. Regarding specific dog behaviors, a majority of owners reported often feeling guilty about their dog jumping on guests (53.8%), lunging at cars/bikes (57.5%), or chewing inappropriate items (51.6%). Regression analyses revealed that younger women owners, who had attended training sessions with a dog trainer or behaviorist, and reported lower self-compassion, had greater levels of training-related guilt. Conclusions : Dog training-related guilt is common among owners, particularly affecting younger women who have had training sessions with a dog trainer or behaviorist. Lack of self-compassion, characterized by self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification, predicted training-related guilt. These findings suggest that dog trainers and veterinary behaviorists should normalize training challenges and promote self-compassion interventions to help owners cope with guilt. Encouraging self-compassion training alongside positive reinforcement techniques can optimize welfare for both dogs and their owners by reducing the psychological burden associated with imperfect training experiences.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».