Dog training-related guilt: Prevalence and associations with owner demographics and self-compassion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".