MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083696857 · doi:10.1079/hai.2025.0043

Dog training-related guilt: Prevalence and associations with owner demographics and self-compassion

2025· article· en· W7083696857 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman-Animal Interactions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingTrainerDemographicsLogistic regressionAnimal welfare

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it