Have you ever read a book on dog training, scrolled through a forum, or chatted with a veterinarian, only to feel like everyone is using the same words but talking about entirely different things? If so, you’re not alone. The term “behavior” is at the heart of this mix-up. In the worlds of animal science and dog training, “behavior” has been applied to such varied ideas that it often leads to crossed wires. This isn’t about who’s right or wrong—it’s about unpacking the layers so we can all communicate more clearly. By understanding these differences, we build a stronger foundation for discussing our dogs’ needs, whether we’re owners, trainers, or caregivers.
At its core, the confusion stems from how “behavior” has been defined across different scholarly traditions. In ethology—the study of animal behavior in natural contexts—it’s one thing. In the realms of classical conditioning, operant learning, and applied training, it shifts to mean something else. This overlap in terminology has sparked widespread misunderstandings, making it harder to interpret research, navigate training debates, and make informed decisions about our dogs’ welfare. Let’s explore this gently, with an eye toward clarity rather than debate.
To appreciate why “behavior” pulls double (or triple) duty, a quick look at history helps. In the early 20th century, Ivan Pavlov described “behavior” in terms of conditioned reflexes—automatic responses triggered by associated stimuli, like a dog salivating at the sound of a bell after linking it to food (Pavlov, 1927). Around the same time, B.F. Skinner viewed “behavior” as any observable action influenced by its consequences, such as rewards or punishments shaping what an animal does (Skinner, 1938). Meanwhile, ethologists like Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen saw “behavior” as evolved, species-typical patterns that serve biological functions, such as a bird’s nesting rituals or a dog’s social greetings (Lorenz, 1952; Tinbergen, 1951). These pioneers weren’t contradicting each other; they were simply focusing on different aspects of how animals interact with their world. Yet, because they all used the same word, it set the stage for today’s tangled conversations.
This historical backdrop brings us to the heart of the matter: we need clearer distinctions to avoid lumping everything under one umbrella. Let’s break it down into three key concepts, each with its own role in how we understand dogs.
First, consider “behavior” in the ethological sense. This refers to an evolved, functional system that organizes how an animal responds to biologically meaningful situations. These are the built-in frameworks that dogs inherit from their wolf ancestors and breed histories, existing long before any training begins. For instance, predatory behavior might involve stalking and chasing, while social signaling could include tail wagging or ear positioning to communicate with pack members. Care-giving behavior shows up in how a mother dog nurtures her pups. Ethologists like Lorenz emphasized these as adaptive systems honed by evolution, not just random actions (Miklósi, 2015). They’re the big-picture patterns that help dogs survive and thrive in their environments.
In contrast, think of “actions” or “learned actions” as specific movements or responses that can be shaped through experience. These are the building blocks of training, like teaching a dog to sit on cue, heel during a walk, touch a target with their nose, or come when called. While we often casually call these “behaviors,” they’re not the same as ethological behaviors—they’re more like customizable skills. Studies on dog genetics and socialization, such as those by Scott and Fuller, highlight how these actions build on innate tendencies but aren’t the tendencies themselves (Scott & Fuller, 1965). Recognizing this difference helps us see training as refining tools rather than rewriting a dog’s core nature.
Then there’s the realm of conditioned responses, which sit somewhere in between. These are learned triggers that activate existing response systems without creating entirely new ones. Drawing from Pavlov’s work, a classic example is when a neutral sound, like a clicker, becomes associated with something positive, leading to an emotional response such as excitement or calm. It’s not a skill like sitting, nor a full ethological behavior like hunting—it’s a bridge that links stimuli to reflexes. This distinction matters because it reminds us that not all learning is about teaching commands; some is about influencing underlying emotions or instincts.
When we call everything “behavior”—from a dog’s evolutionary wiring to a simple trick—we blur these lines. This muddles how we interpret research (is a study on “aggressive behavior” about biology or learned habits?), fuels endless training debates (should we “correct behavior” or shape actions?), and impacts welfare decisions (does a “behavior problem” stem from genetics, conditioning, or poor training?). It even shapes owner expectations: if we expect to “fix behavior” like flipping a switch, we might overlook the deeper layers involved. By teasing these apart, we gain a more nuanced view, leading to kinder, more effective interactions with our dogs.
Quick Glossary of Key Terms
Behavior (Ethological sense)
An evolved, species-typical, functional system that organizes an animal’s responses to biologically significant situations (e.g., predatory behavior, social signaling, care-giving behavior). These systems are inherited and exist independently of individual learning or training.
Action (or Learned Action)
A specific, observable movement or response that can be shaped, strengthened, or modified through experience, typically via operant conditioning (e.g., sit, heel, recall, touch). These are trainable skills, often built upon but distinct from ethological behaviors.
Conditioned Response
A learned automatic reaction triggered by a previously neutral stimulus after association with a biologically relevant one (classical conditioning). These responses activate existing emotional or reflexive systems rather than creating new functional patterns (e.g., excitement at the sound of a treat bag).
Making Sense
In the end, clear language leads to better understanding, and better understanding leads to better decisions. Precision in our words matters, especially when animals’ welfare is involved—it helps us honor the complexity of our canine companions without getting lost in translation.
References
- Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Oxford University Press.
- Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century.
- Lorenz, K. (1952). King Solomon’s Ring: New Light on Animal Ways. Crowell.
- Tinbergen, N. (1951). The Study of Instinct. Clarendon Press.
- Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press.
- Miklósi, Á. (2015). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.