Cesar Millan, widely recognized through his television series “The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” (2004–2012) and subsequent shows like “Cesar 911” and “Better Human Better Dog,” has become a prominent figure in popular dog training. His methods, detailed in books such as “Cesar’s Way: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems” (2006), “Be the Pack Leader: Use Cesar’s Way to Transform Your Dog… and Your Life” (2007), and “Cesar Millan’s Short Guide to a Happy Dog” (2013), emphasize establishing human leadership to achieve balanced behavior in dogs. Millan’s online platform, cesarsway.com, further elaborates on these ideas, offering articles, videos, and courses that promote his philosophy.
While his techniques have resonated with many pet owners facing behavioral challenges, they have also drawn scrutiny from scholars, ethologists, and veterinary behaviorists. Critics argue that aspects of his approach, particularly those rooted in dominance and pack hierarchy concepts, rely on outdated or misinterpreted science, potentially leading to welfare concerns. This article defines Millan’s method in detail, examines his views on pack dynamics, and compares them to scholarly work on wolf behavior and canine ethology. It also incorporates insights from classical and operant conditioning principles, highlighting scholarly criticisms to foster a nuanced understanding of effective, evidence-based dog behavior modification.
Defining Cesar Millan’s Method
Millan’s training philosophy is built on the premise that dogs are pack animals descended from wolves, requiring a clear social structure to thrive. He advocates for humans to adopt the role of “pack leader” by projecting “calm-assertive energy”—a state of confident, composed authority that influences the dog’s behavior without emotional reactivity. In contrast, dogs should achieve a “calm-submissive state,” where they defer to the leader’s guidance, exhibiting relaxed body language such as lowered ears, averted gaze, and non-resistant postures.
This dichotomy is central to his method, as outlined in “Cesar’s Way,” where he explains that behavioral problems arise when dogs perceive a leadership vacuum and attempt to fill it, leading to issues like aggression, anxiety, or hyperactivity.
The method is structured around a formula Millan calls “exercise, discipline, and affection” (EDA), presented in that specific order. Exercise addresses physical needs through activities like structured walks, which he views as opportunities to reinforce leadership—e.g., the dog must walk beside or behind the owner, not pulling ahead. Discipline involves setting rules, boundaries, and limitations, often enforced through non-verbal cues, leash corrections (such as quick tugs), or physical interventions like blocking or touching to redirect attention. Affection is provided only after the first two elements are met, to avoid rewarding unbalanced states. Millan’s online articles, such as those on cesarsway.com, reinforce this by advising against using food rewards as primary motivators for obedience, instead prioritizing the owner’s energy and consistency to guide behavior (e.g., in discussions of leash training without treats).
In practice, as seen in episodes of “The Dog Whisperer,” Millan addresses issues like resource guarding, leash reactivity, or separation anxiety by first establishing dominance through these interventions.
For example, he might roll a dog onto its side (a technique he calls “alpha rolling,” though he later distanced himself from the term in interviews and writings) to induce submission, or use flooding—exposing the dog to a fear-eliciting stimulus without escape until the response diminishes.
His rationale, drawn from observations of feral dog packs in Mexico during his youth and studies of captive wolves, is that these actions mimic natural pack corrections, restoring balance and preventing escalation. Millan’s writings, such as in “Be the Pack Leader,” stress that humans must fulfill dogs’ instinctual needs for structure, drawing analogies to how wolf packs maintain order through leadership.
This approach has been praised for its emphasis on consistency, physical activity, and non-emotional handling, which can yield quick visible changes in some dogs. However, it has faced criticism for potentially overlooking individual temperament, learning history, and emotional states, as explored below.
Millan’s Views on Pack Dynamics
Millan’s framework heavily relies on pack theory, positing that dogs view their human families as packs and require a hierarchical structure to feel secure. In “Cesar’s Way,” he describes packs as having defined roles: the leader (alpha) makes decisions, enforces rules, and protects the group, while subordinates follow submissively. He argues that in the absence of strong leadership, dogs become “unbalanced,” exhibiting unwanted behaviors as they vie for control. Millan often references wolf packs as models, citing early observations of captive wolves where dominant individuals appeared to suppress subordinates through aggression. For instance, in interviews and his website articles (e.g., “Pack Leadership Technique,” cesarsway.com), he explains that pack leaders use body language—such as standing tall, direct eye contact, and physical assertions—to maintain order, and that humans should emulate this to prevent dogs from “dominating” the household.
Millan adapts this to domestic settings by positioning the owner as the unequivocal leader. He suggests practices like eating before the dog, entering doors first, or ignoring demanding behaviors to reinforce status. In “Be the Pack Leader,” he expands on this, stating that calm-submissive energy mirrors how alpha wolves lead without constant conflict, promoting group harmony. He acknowledges that dogs are not wolves but maintains that their pack instincts persist, influenced by his experiences rehabilitating aggressive dogs at his Dog Psychology Center. Millan’s method thus frames most behavioral issues—from barking to biting—as symptoms of inverted hierarchies, resolvable through reestablishing human dominance.
Scholarly Views on Wolf Packs and the Alpha Concept
Contemporary scholarship on wolf behavior, however, paints a different picture, largely debunking the rigid alpha-dominated hierarchy that Millan references.
- David Mech, a senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and founder of the International Wolf Center, played a pivotal role in this shift. In his early work, such as “The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species” (1970), Mech used terms like “alpha” to describe dominant wolves in captive packs, based on observations of unrelated individuals in artificial enclosures. These settings often led to heightened competition and aggression, as wolves vied for resources in confined spaces.
By the late 1990s, Mech revised his views after decades of studying wild wolf packs. In articles like “Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs” (1999) and “Leadership in Wolf, Canis lupus, Packs” (2000), he argued that wild packs are typically family units consisting of breeding parents and their offspring, not assemblages of unrelated adults fighting for rank. Leadership emerges from parental roles, with the breeding pair guiding the group through experience and cooperation rather than constant dominance displays. Mech emphasized that terms like “alpha” are misleading, as they imply perpetual conflict; instead, pack dynamics involve fluid, context-dependent interactions focused on survival, such as cooperative hunting and pup-rearing. He explicitly debunked the alpha myth in a 2008 video and subsequent writings, noting that the concept stemmed from flawed captive studies and does not reflect natural wolf behavior.
Other ethologists echo this. Rudolf Schenkel’s 1947 study on captive wolves, which influenced early dominance theories, has been critiqued for its artificial conditions (Schenkel, 1947). More recent field research, such as by the Yellowstone Wolf Project, shows that aggression within packs is rare and ritualized, serving to maintain bonds rather than enforce submission (Smith et al., 2016). Packs prioritize affiliation and conflict avoidance, with subordinates contributing actively rather than passively deferring.
Comparison: How Millan’s Pack Analogies Align (or Misalign) with Scholarship
Millan’s analogies falter when compared to this evidence. His portrayal of packs as strict hierarchies requiring assertive leadership to suppress subordinates aligns more with outdated captive wolf models than wild realities. Scholars like Mech argue that applying alpha concepts to dogs ignores their domestication, which has altered social behaviors—dogs form looser, more tolerant bonds with humans and conspecifics, not rigid packs (Hare & Tomasello, 2005). Wild wolves rarely encounter humans in ways that allow “training,” and attempts to dominate them could provoke defensive aggression, not submission, as wolves prioritize evasion or pack defense over deference to outsiders.
Moreover, translating wolf dynamics to pet dogs overlooks key differences. Domestic dogs have been selectively bred for reduced aggression and increased human-directed sociability, making dominance-based interventions unnecessary and potentially counterproductive (Overall, 2013). Millan’s calm-submissive ideal may interpret natural behaviors—like excited greetings—as dominance challenges, when ethologists view them as affiliative signals (Lorenz, 1966). Tinbergen’s four questions of ethology—causation, development, function, and phylogeny—highlight that canine behaviors evolve for adaptive purposes, not perpetual submission; forcing deference could disrupt these, leading to stress.
Scholarly Criticisms of Millan’s Methods
Criticisms from the scientific community are multifaceted, focusing on dominance theory’s validity, welfare implications, and efficacy.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) issued a position statement on “The Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals” (2008, updated 2019), stating that dominance is not a fixed trait but a context-specific relationship over resources. AVSAB warns that dominance-based training, which includes physical corrections to induce submission, can increase fear and aggression, as dogs may suppress behaviors temporarily but escalate later. They cite studies showing that confrontational methods correlate with higher bite risks (Herron et al., 2009).
Veterinary behaviorist Sophia Yin critiqued Millan in her blog and book “How to Behave So Your Dog Behaves” (2008), arguing his techniques rely on intimidation, potentially causing learned helplessness—a state where dogs become passive due to uncontrollable aversives (Seligman, 1975). A 2009 study in “Applied Animal Behaviour Science” found that punishment-based training increased aggression in dogs (Hiby et al., 2004). Critics like Jean Donaldson in “The Culture Clash” (1996) and Patricia McConnell in “The Other End of the Leash” (2002) contend that Millan’s wolf analogies perpetuate myths, ignoring that dogs respond better to positive reinforcement, which builds trust without fear.
From a conditioning perspective, Millan’s flooding and response prevention align with early extinction models (Baum, 1970) but risk sensitization if not paired with positives, per Rescorla’s contingency theory (1967). Frustration theory (Amsel, 1992) suggests that blocking behaviors without alternatives can heighten arousal, explaining why some dogs under dominance training show rebound effects. Operant pioneers like B.F. Skinner (1938) emphasized reinforcement over punishment for durable change, a view supported by modern applied behavior analysis.
Ethological Insights and Alternatives
Ethologists like Konrad Lorenz (“On Aggression,” 1966) described ritualized behaviors in canids as mechanisms for conflict resolution, not dominance enforcement. Tinbergen (1963) advocated understanding behaviors’ evolutionary functions, suggesting interventions should enhance natural adaptations rather than suppress them. Scholarly alternatives prioritize positive reinforcement, counterconditioning, and enrichment, as in systematic desensitization (Wolpe, 1958), which gradually reduces fear without force.
Practical Implications for Behavior Modification
Dominance methods may yield short-term compliance but risk long-term issues like anxiety or avoidance learning. Evidence-based approaches focus on diagnostics—distinguishing fear from frustration—and use graded exposures with rewards for balanced responses. For reactivity, pairing triggers with positives builds positive associations (Pavlov, 1927), more effective than corrections.
Conclusion
Millan’s method has popularized dog training but rests on pack analogies misaligned with current wolf research and canine ethology. Scholarly work reveals cooperative, family-based dynamics in wolves, not alpha suppression, and cautions against dominance in dogs due to welfare risks. By integrating ethology and conditioning, trainers can adopt humane, science-backed strategies for lasting harmony.
Addendum: Relating Millan’s Techniques to Classical and Operant Conditioning Concepts
Cesar Millan’s methods, as described in his books and television shows, incorporate elements of both classical and operant conditioning, though often in ways that prioritize aversive techniques over positive reinforcement.
Classical conditioning, as pioneered by Ivan Pavlov (1927), involves associating a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a reflexive response, refined by Konorski (1948) for excitatory-inhibitory balances and Rescorla (1967) for contingency (reliable prediction).
Operant conditioning, developed by B.F. Skinner (1938), focuses on voluntary actions shaped by consequences: positive reinforcement (adding a reward to increase actions), negative reinforcement (removing an aversive to increase actions), positive punishment (adding an aversive to decrease actions), and negative punishment (removing a reward to decrease actions). Millan typically advocates for operant techniques involving positive punishment and negative reinforcement to achieve immediate suppression, while downplaying positive reinforcement like treats for skill acquisition. Below, key techniques from his work are related to these concepts, sourced from his publications and shows, with comparisons to scholarly views from the attached documents on conditioning, frustration theory, and flooding.
- Leash Corrections (Quick Tugs or Jerks): In “Cesar’s Way” (2006) and episodes of “The Dog Whisperer,” Millan uses leash corrections to interrupt unwanted behaviors like pulling or fearful responses, describing them as mimicking a mother’s bite to redirect attention without harm. This aligns with operant conditioning’s positive punishment, adding an aversive stimulus (the tug) to decrease the behavior. Corrections are extensions of Thorndike’s Law of Effect (1911), where annoying outcomes weaken responses, but notes risks of frustration buildup per Amsel (1992), potentially energizing unwanted behaviors if not paired with alternatives. Scholars criticize this as misinformed, as Rescorla (1967) emphasizes contingency for reliable learning; inconsistent tugs may create fear associations (classical conditioning) rather than voluntary compliance, leading to escalation (McPeake et al., 2019).
- “Tsst” Sound (Sharp Vocalization): Millan frequently employs a sharp “tsst” sound as a no-mark to interrupt misbehavior, as explained in “Be the Pack Leader” (2007) and demonstrated in shows, positioning it as a non-physical way to assert leadership and redirect focus. This functions as positive punishment in operant terms, adding an aversive auditory stimulus to reduce the behavior, similar to Konorski’s inhibitory processes (1948) for suppressing responses. Contrast this with Pavlov’s contiguity-based pairings for positive associations, warning that aversive sounds risk sensitization if not contingent. Millan advocates this over treats for obedience, but scholars like Skinner (1938) argue that without positive reinforcement, skills lack durability, potentially leaving dogs misinformed on desired actions.
- Alpha Rolling (Forcing Submission): Early in his career, as seen in “The Dog Whisperer” episodes and referenced in “Cesar’s Way” (2006), Millan used alpha rolls—pushing a dog onto its side until it submits—to address aggression or dominance challenges, though he later clarified in interviews that it’s for extreme cases and not literal “rolling.” This relates to operant positive punishment and flooding (response prevention), per Baum (1970), where escape is blocked until avoidance extinguishes. This risks learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), aligning with scholarly views that it creates inhibitory associations (Konorski, 1948) but may classically condition fear to the handler. Millan positions it as mimicking pack dynamics without treats, but it can heighten frustration (Amsel, 1992), making it misinformed for long-term balance.
- Flooding (Full-Intensity Exposure): In shows and “Cesar Millan’s Short Guide to a Happy Dog” (2013), Millan exposes dogs to triggers (e.g., other dogs or noises) at full intensity until they calm, advocating it as building resilience without rewards. This is classical extinction via response prevention (Baum, 1970), where the conditioned stimulus loses power without the unconditioned outcome. This compares to Pavlov’s extinction but warns of sensitization risks if not managed, per Rachman (1980). Scholars view this as misinformed, favoring graded counterconditioning (Wolpe, 1958) with positives for contingency (Rescorla, 1967).
- Structured Walks and Rules (Without Treats): Millan emphasizes obedience through leadership in “Be the Pack Leader” (2007), teaching commands like sit, down, come, and heel via calm energy and corrections, often without treats to avoid “bribing.” He states in interviews and books that treats can be phased out after initial use, prioritizing dominance for compliance. This uses negative reinforcement (relief from leash pressure increases heeling) and minimal positive reinforcement. This contrasts with Skinner’s schedules (1938), where maintenance requires ongoing reinforcement; without it, extinction occurs. Millan is misinformed here, as skills like sit or come require initial learning via positive reinforcement (Tolman, 1948) and maintenance to generalize—dominance alone doesn’t teach voluntary behaviors, risking unreliable obedience per Guthrie’s contiguity (1935).
Overall, Millan typically advocates operant techniques with positive punishment and negative reinforcement for corrections, sourced from his books and shows, while using classical elements for association-building (e.g., energy as a cue). He downplays treats for obedience, favoring dominance (e.g., in “Cesar’s Way,” p. 128: “Affection… does not always mean treats!”). However, this overlooks how skills are learned: per Skinner (1938) and attached documents, initial acquisition demands positive reinforcement for shaping, and maintenance prevents extinction. Without it, dogs can’t reliably perform untaught behaviors, rendering Millan’s approach misinformed on learning fundamentals, as punishments suppress but don’t teach alternatives (Rescorla, 1967).
Cesar Millan’s Concept of “Energy”
Definition Based on Millan’s Own Descriptions
Cesar Millan frequently uses the term “energy” in his training philosophy to describe a non-verbal, emotional, and psychological state that humans and dogs project through their body language, demeanor, and overall presence. According to Millan, energy is not a mystical force but a tangible projection of one’s internal state that dogs instinctively perceive and respond to, influencing their behavior and emotional balance. In his book Cesar’s Way: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems (2006), Millan explains energy as “the way you carry yourself, your posture, your tone of voice, your scent, your movements—everything that communicates your state of mind to your dog” (p. 45). He categorizes it into specific types:
- Calm-Assertive Energy: This is the ideal state for humans as “pack leaders.” Millan defines it as a confident, relaxed authority that is firm but not aggressive or angry. In Be the Pack Leader: Use Cesar’s Way to Transform Your Dog… and Your Life (2007), he states, “Calm-assertive energy is the energy you project to show your dog you are the Pack Leader. Assertive does not mean angry or aggressive. Calm-assertive means always compassionate, but quietly in control” (p. 112). On his website, cesarsway.com, in articles like “Calm Assertive Energy” (accessed via archived content from 2020), he elaborates that this energy involves standing tall, maintaining eye contact without staring, and using deliberate movements to convey leadership, which helps dogs feel secure and reduces behavioral issues like reactivity or anxiety.
- Calm-Submissive Energy: This is the desired response from dogs, where they exhibit deference, relaxation, and trust in the leader. Millan describes it as a state of surrender without fear, characterized by lowered head, relaxed ears, and non-resistant posture. In Cesar Millan’s Short Guide to a Happy Dog (2013), he notes that dogs naturally seek this balance in a pack-like structure, and human energy guides them toward it (p. 67).
- Other Energies: Millan contrasts these with negative types, such as “excited” (overly energetic, leading to chaos), “frustrated” (tense and reactive), or “weak” (timid, inviting dogs to take control). In videos on his YouTube channel, such as “What is Energy in the Dog World” (2020), he emphasizes that energy is “everything”—the primary tool for communication, more important than words or tools, and that mismatched energy (e.g., a nervous owner) can exacerbate problems.
Millan advocates using energy over treats or commands for obedience, arguing in interviews (e.g., with Oprah Winfrey in 2006) and his books that dogs respond to the handler’s state first. He views energy as instinctual, rooted in his observations of feral dogs and wolves, where dominant animals project authority to maintain harmony without constant conflict.
Relation to Scholarly Work
Millan’s concept of “energy” bears similarities to established scholarly ideas in ethology, psychology, and animal behavior science, particularly emotional contagion, nonverbal communication, and handler effects on canine arousal. However, while Millan’s interpretation is largely anecdotal and framed through dominance theory, scholarly research provides evidence-based explanations grounded in observable mechanisms like olfactory cues, body language, and physiological synchronization. Below, I relate Millan’s “energy” to key scholarly concepts, drawing on peer-reviewed studies that explore how human states influence dog behavior.
- Emotional Contagion and Interspecies Empathy:
- Scholarly Definition: Emotional contagion refers to the automatic transfer of emotional states between individuals, often through nonverbal cues like facial expressions, posture, vocal tones, or scents. In human-dog interactions, dogs can “catch” human emotions, leading to synchronized behaviors or physiological responses. This is supported by studies showing dogs’ sensitivity to human affective states, facilitated by their domestication history, which enhanced social cognition toward humans (Hare & Tomasello, 2005).
- Relation to Millan: Millan’s “calm-assertive energy” aligns with the idea that a handler’s composed demeanor can induce calm in dogs, like how positive human states reduce canine stress. For instance, a 2019 study in Frontiers in Veterinary Science titled “Emotional Contagion From Humans to Dogs Is Facilitated by Duration of Ownership” (Katayama et al., 2019) found that dogs mirror their owners’ stress levels via heart rate variability, with longer cohabitation strengthening this effect—echoing Millan’s emphasis on consistent energy projection. However, the study highlights gender differences (stronger in female dogs) and environmental factors, which Millan does not systematically address.
- Another example: A 2024 study in Scientific Reports titled “The Odour of an Unfamiliar Stressed or Relaxed Person Affects Dogs’ Emotional States” (D’Aniello et al., 2024) demonstrated that human stress odors (collected from sweat) lead dogs to make more pessimistic choices in cognitive bias tests, indicating emotional contagion without visual cues. This relates to Millan’s “energy” as including scent, but scholars emphasize bidirectional influence (dogs also affect humans) and warn against anthropomorphic interpretations, unlike Millan’s one-way leadership model.
- Critique: While Millan’s concept captures contagion intuitively, scholarly work (e.g., Albuquerque et al., 2016, in Biology Letters) shows it’s not about “assertiveness” but empathy-like processes, and forcing calm through dominance can backfire, increasing fear per frustration theory (Amsel, 1992).
- Nonverbal Communication and Handler Effects:
- Scholarly Definition: In animal behavior, handler demeanor influences dogs via subtle cues like posture, gaze, and movement, affecting obedience and stress. This draws from ethology’s focus on signaling (Tinbergen, 1963) and psychology’s work on human-animal bonds.
- Relation to Millan: Millan’s focus on body language (e.g., standing tall for assertiveness) mirrors research on how confident handler postures improve dog performance. A 2017 study in PLoS ONE titled “Human Empathy, Personality and Experience Affect the Emotion Ratings of Dog and Cat Facial Expressions” (Kujala et al., 2017) found that empathetic handlers better interpret pet emotions, leading to calmer interactions—like Millan’s “energy” as a tool for harmony. Additionally, a 2017 study in Animal Cognition titled “Investigating Emotional Contagion in Dogs (Canis familiaris) to Emotional Sounds of Humans and Conspecifics” (Huber et al., 2017) showed dogs respond differently to human emotional vocalizations, supporting Millan’s use of tone in energy projection.
- However, a 2024 study in Applied Animal Behaviour Science titled “The Role of Caregiver Factors and Fear/Anxiety in Reactive/Aggressive Manifestations in Dogs” (Farhoody et al., 2025) indicates that anxious handlers exacerbate dog reactivity, aligning with Millan’s warnings about “weak energy” but emphasizing positive reinforcement over assertion to build trust.
- Arousal and Physiological Synchronization:
- Scholarly Definition: “Energy” as arousal levels, where human stress hormones (e.g., cortisol) sync with dogs via proximity, affecting behavior (emotional mimicry).
- Relation to Millan: Millan’s “calm-submissive” state for dogs resembles reduced arousal post-intervention. A 2024 review in Advanced Robotics titled “Emotional Studies in Dogs and Cats and Their Estimation Techniques” (Kato, 2024) discusses how dogs detect human arousal via senses, leading to behavioral changes—paralleling Millan’s scent and movement aspects. Yet, scholars like those in a 2017 Interdisciplinary Journal of Animal Sentience article “Canine Emotions as Seen Through Human Social Cognition” (Kujala, 2017) argue dogs impute emotions anthropomorphically, but evidence favors learned associations over innate “energy reading.”
- Critique: Millan’s avoidance of treats for obedience (as stated in Cesar’s Way, p. 128: “Affection… does not always mean treats!”) contrasts with operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938), where positive reinforcement is key for skill acquisition. Scholarly work shows energy alone doesn’t teach commands like sit or heel; it requires contingencies (Rescorla, 1967), making Millan’s approach limited for complex training.
In summary, Millan’s “energy” intuitively captures real phenomena like emotional contagion but lacks empirical rigor, often oversimplifying scholarly findings into dominance frameworks. Research supports human influence on dogs but advocates evidence-based methods like positive reinforcement for ethical, effective outcomes.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
Bibliography
- Millan, C. (2006). Cesar’s Way: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems. Harmony Books.
- Millan, C. (2007). Be the Pack Leader: Use Cesar’s Way to Transform Your Dog… and Your Life. Harmony Books.
- Millan, C. (2013). Cesar Millan’s Short Guide to a Happy Dog: 98 Essential Tips and Techniques. National Geographic Books.
- Mech, L. D. (1970). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Natural History Press.
- Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196-1203.
- Mech, L. D. (2000). Leadership in Wolf, Canis lupus, Packs. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 114(2), 259-263.
- Schenkel, R. (1947). Expression Studies on Wolves. Behaviour, 1(2), 81-129.
- Smith, D. W., et al. (2016). Yellowstone Wolves: Science and Discovery in the World’s First National Park. University of Chicago Press.
- Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like Social Skills in Dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 439-444.
- Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. Harcourt, Brace & World.
- Tinbergen, N. (1963). On Aims and Methods of Ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410-433.
- Overall, K. L. (2013). Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. Elsevier.
- American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2008). Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals. AVSAB.
- Herron, M. E., et al. (2009). Survey of the Use and Outcome of Confrontational and Non-Confrontational Training Methods in Client-Owned Dogs Showing Undesired Behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1-2), 47-54.
- Hiby, E. F., et al. (2004). Dog Training Methods: Their Use, Effectiveness and Interaction with Behaviour and Welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 63-69.
- Yin, S. (2008). How to Behave So Your Dog Behaves. TFH Publications.
- Donaldson, J. (1996). The Culture Clash. James & Kenneth Publishers.
- McConnell, P. B. (2002). The Other End of the Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs. Ballantine Books.
- Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. W. H. Freeman.
- Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. Oxford University Press.
- Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian Conditioning and Its Proper Control Procedures. Psychological Review, 74(1), 71-80.
- Baum, M. (1970). Extinction of Avoidance Responding Through Response Prevention (Flooding). Psychological Bulletin, 74(4), 276-284.
- Amsel, A. (1992). Frustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory. Cambridge University Press.
- Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century.
- Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford University Press.
