OVERVIEW: A real dog training case shows how Sam Basso investigates inconsistent recall, prey drive, motivation, learned skill accessibility, and owner handling before developing individualized, measurable training homework. A dog can complete several obedience classes, practice commands every day, hike seven miles, and still ignore his owners when something more interesting appears. As an expert dog trainer, I don’t automatically assume the dog needs another obedience class or more practice. I investigate what the dog has actually learned, what motivates his behavior, whether his learned skills are accessible under different conditions, and why the training isn’t producing the results his owners need.
Introduction
A dog can complete several obedience classes, practice commands every day, hike seven miles, and still ignore his owners when something more interesting appears. The problem is not necessarily that the dog needs another obedience class. We need to determine what he has learned, what motivates his behavior and learned skills, and why his training isn’t producing the results his owners need.
I recently met a dog whose owners were experiencing exactly this problem. They were dedicated, experienced dog owners who had already invested considerable time and effort in training. Their dog was generally a good companion, but when he encountered wildlife, picked up an interesting scent, or acquired something he wanted to keep, he tended to pursue his own interests rather than cooperate with his owners.
The appointment became a useful example of how I approach professional dog training. I didn’t begin with a predetermined set of exercises. I began with a detailed questionnaire, developed working hypotheses, met the dog, tested what he and his owners could do, and then translated those findings into individualized homework.
The distinction matters. There is a big difference between knowing how to teach a dog a command and knowing what to teach their dog, why it matters, and how to determine whether the training is working.
What Did the Owners Tell Me Before I Met Their Dog?
The owners’ questionnaire described a dog who was receiving plenty of attention, exercise, and training, but whose behavior changed substantially depending on what was happening around him.
Before the first appointment, I sent the family my BASSO Method questionnaire. It asks about the dog’s background, medical history, behavior, daily routines, environment, training experience, and relationships with people and other animals. I also ask why the owners have a dog and what they would do together if all their training problems were solved. These questions are important because training should be directed toward something meaningful in the owners’ lives, not merely toward completing a standardized curriculum.
This family enjoyed traveling, hiking, and spending time outdoors with their dog. They wanted a companion who could accompany them on adventures, explore nature, and reliably return when called. Their ideal future included off-leash hiking where it would be safe and legal.
Their dog had attended puppy classes, additional obedience courses, and training intended to address anxiety. The owners continued practicing training exercises every day.
He also hiked approximately seven miles daily, usually divided into several outings. Yet he chased wildlife, actively searched for animal scents, pulled on the leash when something interested him, and sometimes ignored recall commands. He could run through an open door toward activity outside, and he was not reliably responsive when he obtained something valuable.
There were other concerns. The owners reported barking at outside noises, occasional jumping, sensitivity to slippery floors and handling around his head, and food guarding around other dogs. They also described increasing sensitivity to certain noises and some recent irritability.
The dog had a significant medical history, including treatment for Valley Fever and surgery to remove a tumor. Those details were relevant because physical health can affect behavior and skill responses, and recent behavioral changes should not automatically be attributed to inadequate training.
The family also lived in a recreational vehicle and frequently changed locations. That meant the dog encountered changing environments, sounds, surfaces, wildlife, and social situations. It also meant that whatever homework I assigned needed to be practical for people who did not have a permanent backyard or a fixed daily environment. By the time I finished reviewing the questionnaire, I already had several questions I wanted to investigate.
Why Didn’t I Simply Recommend More Exercise or More Obedience Training?
Because the information I had did not support either recommendation as an adequate explanation or solution.
The dog was already receiving substantial exercise and had completed multiple training courses. That didn’t mean the previous training was worthless. It meant we needed to examine what the training had accomplished. The owners described a dog who could perform familiar skills when food was available, yet became difficult to influence when wildlife or other interesting activities appeared. That contrast was important.
I use what I call Mechanism-First Analysis. Instead of starting with a label such as stubborn, disobedient, dominant, or reactive, I investigate the biological, motivational, environmental, learning, and handling processes associated with skills and behaviors.
In this case, I was interested in several interacting questions. What was motivating the dog’s outdoor behavior? How much control did the owners have over his learned responses? What did he understand about recall? How had the owners’ previous interactions influenced his behavior? Were some learned skills becoming less accessible under certain conditions? And what opportunities was the dog receiving to reward himself independently of his owners?
The questionnaire gave me a preliminary picture. It did not provide all the answers.
I needed to meet the dog.
Why Did I Begin With a Greeting Instead of Training?
Because the dog was defensive when I first met him, and I needed to establish a workable relationship before evaluating his training. That was my first direct observation. I wasn’t going to immediately approach him, start issuing commands, or pressure him into accepting contact. We began with a calm social greeting at the dog’s pace so that he could become sufficiently comfortable with my presence to participate.
This illustrates an important distinction in my approach: the dog’s current behavioral state matters before we begin asking him to perform learned skills. If a dog perceives an unfamiliar person as threatening, defensive behavior may interfere with his ability or willingness to participate in training. A dog may have learned a command perfectly well under ordinary circumstances yet not respond normally while concerned about an unfamiliar person. I discuss this broader issue in my article on Learned Skill Accessibility. The concept concerns whether a learned skill is functionally available under the dog’s current physiological, emotional, motivational, and environmental conditions. However, skill accessibility is not an explanation for every training failure. Sometimes a dog hasn’t learned the skill adequately in the first place.
That distinction would become important as the appointment progressed. Once the dog was sufficiently comfortable with me, I could begin evaluating his training without unnecessarily adding the complication of an unfamiliar person pressuring him.
What Did I Discover When I Asked the Owner to Call His Dog?
I discovered that the recall was inconsistent in both the commands being used and the dog’s actual performance. I asked the owner to perform some simple recalls. I wanted to see the owner’s handling, the cues being used, the dog’s response, and the intensity of his motivation. I didn’t want to demonstrate my preferred technique first and then judge the dog on his response to me. I wanted to observe the training relationship that already existed.
One thing became apparent: the owner was using different commands during the recalls. That can create problems with stimulus control. In learning theory, stimulus control refers to the relationship between a particular cue and the skill it signals. A dog can certainly learn several different cues for the same skill. But those cues need to be trained deliberately and used consistently enough that the dog understands what each one means. In this case, the changing commands made it harder to establish a precise, reliable recall.
The dog’s performance was also imprecise. He had a general understanding that he was supposed to come toward the owner, but he was not demonstrating the clearly defined, repeatable response I wanted to see. He would come slowly for a visible treat. That is not the same as a dog who promptly responds to a verbal recall cue and completes the expected skill without first seeing the reward. These differences may seem minor when the dog is only a few feet away in a quiet setting. They become much more important when the dog is a considerable distance away and something interesting is happening.
Before we could work on advanced recall around wildlife, we needed to improve the foundations of the skill itself.
Did the Dog Know the Command but Refuse to Obey?
I couldn’t justify that conclusion from the evidence. The dog had some understanding of recall, but I had not established that he possessed a precise, reliable recall that merely became inaccessible during predatory activity. That distinction matters.
There are several possible reasons a dog might respond under one set of conditions and fail under another. The cue may not have been trained consistently. The expected response may be poorly defined. The dog may not have sufficient reinforcement history for responding under difficult conditions. Competing activities may be more rewarding. Or the dog’s current state may affect his ability to perform what he has learned. More than one explanation may apply.
For this dog, I was seeing evidence that the basic recall needed refinement even before introducing the challenges associated with wildlife. At the same time, his owners’ descriptions suggested that predatory motivation was a major factor in the situations where recall failed. I therefore had two related but different training problems. One was to develop a clearer, more dependable, learned response. The other was to develop the dog’s ability to perform useful skills under progressively more demanding motivational conditions.
Simply repeating the command more loudly would not resolve either problem.
Why Was I So Interested in the Dog’s Prey Drive?
Because the dog wasn’t merely becoming distracted by an occasional rabbit. He was actively searching for wildlife and obtaining rewards from those activities.
The owners described a dog who would investigate animal scents, follow signs of wildlife, pull when he was on the trail of something, and pursue animals when given the opportunity. This suggested that his interest began before the actual chase. Predatory behavior is not one isolated action. It involves biologically organized processes that can include detecting, orienting toward, stalking, pursuing, capturing, and handling prey. Different dogs express different components of these sequences, and their responses vary with genetics, development, experience, and the circumstances.
I discuss this in greater detail in Understanding Prey Drive in Dogs. For this dog, I was interested in what activated his predatory behavior, how intensely he pursued the activity, what happened as the sequence progressed, and whether we could identify motivational opportunities that would be useful in training.
His daily hiking was particularly relevant. He was getting substantial opportunities to investigate the environment and follow his own interests. That is not inherently undesirable. Sniffing, exploration, and other species-appropriate activities can be important parts of a dog’s life. But if the dog spends much of his outdoor time pursuing activities that reward him independently, while the owner has relatively little influence over those activities, the training problem becomes more complicated. The dog has a powerful source of reinforcement that the owner does not directly control. In practical terms, he is working for himself.
My goal was not to eliminate his interest in wildlife or prevent him from enjoying his walks.
It was to develop a more cooperative relationship in which the owners could meaningfully influence his behavior, including when he was interested in something else.
Why Weren’t Treats Enough?
The dog was willing to work for food, but food did not appear to generate the same intensity of motivation that the owners described when he was pursuing wildlife.
After our initial greeting, he would accept treats from me. That was useful. It meant food could serve as an initial reinforcer while we developed foundation skills. But there is an important distinction between a dog who will accept a treat and a dog who is highly motivated to interrupt another rewarding activity to obtain one.
Imagine the difference between coming several feet for a piece of food and pursuing a live rabbit. The rabbit may activate an entire sequence of searching, orientation, pursuit, and other predatory responses. The food reward may not compete effectively with that experience, particularly if the dog has repeatedly found chasing highly rewarding.
This is why I don’t automatically assume that a higher-value treat will solve every recall problem. The relative value of a reward depends on the individual dog and the conditions under which the choice occurs.
I have discussed the limits of relying exclusively on food rewards in my article High Drive Dogs and the Limits of Positive Reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is an important training process. The issue is not whether reinforcement works. The issue is whether the consequence available to the handler can effectively influence behavior under the conditions being tested.
We also need to prevent unsafe opportunities for the dog to continue rehearsing uncontrolled pursuit. For this dog, treats gave us a reasonable place to begin. But I had not yet identified the optimal motivational stimuli for the more advanced work. That remained an important unresolved question.
Why Did I Test Different Toys?
I wanted to see whether we could engage useful components of the dog’s predatory motivation through a controlled activity involving the handler.
The owner had toys, and I brought additional toys with me. We tried several. The dog showed little interest. That was an important result, even though it wasn’t the result I was hoping for.
Some dogs become highly motivated by a ball, tug toy, moving lure, or other play object. In suitable circumstances, those interests can become valuable parts of training. But a dog who chases live animals does not necessarily respond the same way to a manufactured toy. The sensory characteristics may be different. The movement may be different. The dog may have a different learning history with toys. And the motivational system activated by the toy may not be equivalent to the one involved in searching for or pursuing wildlife.
We were looking for a way to tap into the dog’s motivation, not simply entertain him with a toy. The toys we tested were not producing the response I wanted. So I didn’t pretend that they were effective stimuli or reinforcers.
That is one of the reasons assessment matters. Sometimes an exercise tells us what is not working, and that is useful information. We could begin with food while continuing to investigate better motivational opportunities. I also needed to consider whether the dog’s history of object play was interfering with the cooperative activities I wanted to develop.
That led to another significant finding.
Why Was Playing Keep-Away With This Dog a Problem?
Because the dog had a history of running away with valuable objects, and the owners had participated in chase and keep-away games with him. This was particularly important given his strong interest in animals.The owners described situations where the dog would find a stick or even part of a dead animal on a trail and keep it away from them.He did not reliably release objects on command.
Now consider the behavioral goal attainment and skill consequences. If a dog acquires something valuable and the owner approaches to take it away, the dog may learn that moving away allows him to keep possession. If the owner then chases him, the interaction may become a game or a competitive situation. Over time, the owner’s approach may become a cue for the dog to leave faster. That is exactly the opposite of what we want in a dog whose owners need dependable recall and cooperation around wildlife.
I am not suggesting that every game of chase is harmful. There is a difference between a dog enthusiastically chasing his owner, a structured game with clear rules, and a dog learning to evade the owner while carrying something valuable. Those are different behavioral and skill arrangements.
In this case, the history of keep-away could undermine the very behaviors and skills the owners wanted to develop. If the dog perceives that the owners want something he has acquired, running away may become even more attractive. That is why I wanted to change the interaction. Instead of strengthening a pattern in which the dog avoids the owners when he possesses something valuable, we need to develop cooperative object handling, appropriate exchanges, and reliable responses to relevant cues. We also need to avoid creating unnecessary conflict over objects, particularly when the dog is highly motivated to retain them. This is not just about teaching “drop it.” It is about changing the dog’s expectations regarding what happens when he cooperates with his owners.
Why Was the Dog’s Limited Response Distance So Important?
Because he was not responding well to commands beyond approximately 20 feet, while the owners’ desired lifestyle required reliable communication over much greater distances. That was another important observation during the appointment. At short distances, the owners could obtain some responses, particularly when food was visible. But performance deteriorated when the distance increased. I wanted to develop the dog’s responsiveness at much greater distances, potentially up to 100 yards under appropriate conditions.
That is a substantial progression. We cannot simply move the dog 100 yards away, call him, and hope that the training transfers. Distance changes the training problem. The dog must detect the cue, recognize its meaning, initiate the correct response, and maintain that response while moving toward the handler. Meanwhile, other activities may be available.
A dog who has primarily been reinforced for responding at short distances may not have a sufficiently developed history of responding at much greater distances. But the precise cause of the limitation must be investigated. Hearing, attention, competing activities, and the strength of the learned cue can all affect performance. The important objective is to develop the dog’s expectation that responding to the handler remains worthwhile even when they are far apart. That requires systematically extending distance while maintaining the quality of the skill. It also requires appropriate safety arrangements.
A dog who chases wildlife, runs through open doors, and shows little hesitation around traffic should not be turned loose in an unsecured area merely to test his recall. A long line or other suitable containment can be used where appropriate, with careful attention to the risks of entanglement or sudden impacts. The 100-yard objective is a training target, not a promise that the dog will eventually be safe off leash in every environment.
What Did All These Findings Tell Me About the Dog?
They told me that the dog had learned some useful skills, but his training had not yet produced the degree of cooperation, precision, and responsiveness needed for the owners’ outdoor goals.
Consider how the findings fit together. The owners had practiced obedience, but the recall cues were inconsistent and the response lacked precision. The dog would accept food, but his interest in food appeared modest compared with his reported interest in pursuing wildlife. He actively searched for environmental rewards, often without looking to his owners for direction. He had learned keep-away interactions that could make him less willing to approach when carrying something valuable. The toys we tested did not engage the motivational system we hoped to use. His responsiveness deteriorated beyond relatively short distances. And when I first met him, his defensiveness required us to establish a comfortable interaction before training could proceed.
These were not all the same problem. They involved different learning, motivational, environmental, skill and behavioral-state considerations. But together they explained why simply prescribing another set of obedience exercises would be inadequate. The dog was not consistently working in cooperation with his owners during the activities that mattered most to them. He was largely following the opportunities that interested him. That was the broader relationship I wanted to begin changing.
How Did I Turn the Assessment Into Homework?
I consolidated the questionnaire and my firsthand observations into concrete homework intended to begin developing the foundation skills needed for the owners’ goals. I don’t want owners leaving a lesson with vague instructions to practice obedience or be more consistent. I want the homework to have a purpose.
For this dog, the first priorities included developing a clearer recall, improving the precision of his responses, establishing more effective reinforcement, changing unhelpful object-possession interactions, and beginning to extend his responsiveness beyond short distances. We also needed to develop greater cooperation during ordinary activities. The dog’s ability to respond to his owners needed to become more than something he did when a treat was visible. That does not mean eliminating food rewards. It means developing reliable, learned skils, making reinforcement more effective, and teaching the dog that cooperating with the handler produces worthwhile consequences.
We could begin with treats because the dog was willing to work for them. At the same time, we would continue investigating other motivational opportunities. The training also needed to address the owners’ handling. They had to understand why cue consistency mattered, why the response needed to be more precisely defined, and why certain games or interactions could work against their long-term goals.
The dog was not the only learner in the lesson. The owners were learning how to create the conditions for successful performance. And because they traveled frequently, the exercises needed to be practical in changing environments. I could not responsibly assume that one appointment had solved the problems. The purpose of the first homework was to begin developing the necessary skills and to produce information that would help determine what to do next.
How Do I Measure Whether the Training Is Working?
I look for observable changes in the dog’s performance under defined conditions, not merely whether the owners have spent time practicing.
For example, recall can be evaluated by recording how often the dog responds to a particular cue, how promptly he begins moving, whether he completes the expected response, and whether he can perform without seeing a treat first. Distance can be measured. The effect of different distractions can be observed. We can compare performance between handlers and environments. We can also examine whether the dog is becoming more willing to cooperate during object exchanges and whether he is developing useful attention to the handler during outdoor activities.
These are different measures because they address different components of the problem.
A dog might become more precise at short-distance recall without improving around wildlife. He might learn to release a toy without reliably releasing an animal carcass. He might respond at 100 yards in a quiet, secure field yet remain unsafe off leash near traffic or wildlife. We should not confuse improvement in one skill with proof that every related problem has been solved. The measurements help us identify what is improving, what remains difficult, and when the training needs to be adjusted. They also help us evaluate our own assumptions.
If a particular exercise fails to produce the expected result, I want to know why.
Was the cue unclear? Was the dog insufficiently motivated? Was the task too difficult? Did
the environmental conditions change? Was the dog in a state where the response was not readily accessible? Those questions guide the next decision.
Homework is therefore not just practice between lessons. It is also part of the continuing assessment.
Why Can’t Owners Get the Same Results From an AI Search or Facebook Group?
An AI search or Facebook discussion can provide useful information, but it cannot automatically replace the process of investigating the individual dog and observing the owners’ actual handling.
Suppose these owners had searched for “dog won’t come when called around rabbits.” They might have received advice about high-value treats, long lines, recall games, distraction training, and positive reinforcement. Some of that advice would be reasonable. But it would not, by itself, have revealed the specific findings from this appointment.
The dog was initially defensive toward an unfamiliar trainer. The owner was varying the recall commands. The response itself lacked precision. The dog would accept food but did not demonstrate the same motivational intensity that the owners described around wildlife. The available toys failed to engage him. The owners had established keep-away interactions that could work against cooperative retrieval and object release. And the dog’s response to commands deteriorated beyond approximately 20 feet. Those findings changed how I understood the case. They also changed what I considered appropriate homework.
A knowledgeable person or AI system could analyze those findings once they were supplied. But someone still had to obtain the observations, decide what to test, distinguish the results from assumptions, and translate the evidence into a practical training plan. This is the difference between having access to information and applying professional judgment to an individual case. It is also why I do not believe that being a professional automatically makes someone’s recommendations correct. A trainer who gives every dog the same program without adequate assessment may make the same mistakes as a generic online answer.
The important distinction is whether the recommendations follow from the evidence and whether the training produces useful, measurable results. I have discussed the broader implications in my essay, When AI Search Answers Replace Professional Judgment (see on LinkedIn). My concern is not that dog owners are finding information online. It is that a plausible answer can create the impression that a complex behavioral and skill problem has been adequately understood when the necessary investigation has not occurred.
Why Didn’t I Fix Everything in the First Lesson?
Because the first lesson identified several distinct training needs, and dependable skill must be developed and evaluated over time. An expert dog trainer approaches problems to be unravelled, and making the training fit the dog rather than having the dog fit the training.
This dog did not arrive with one isolated problem. He had previous training, established habits, strong environmental interests, some handling and sound sensitivities, and a history of interactions that affected his cooperation with the owners. He also had genuine strengths. He traveled well, participated in family activities, accepted food, had experience with training, and was generally comfortable in his daily life. Those strengths gave us useful starting points.
But they did not eliminate the work ahead. We still needed to improve recall precision, strengthen stimulus control, develop effective reinforcement, change the keep-away pattern, extend distance, and eventually work under more challenging motivational conditions. We also needed to remain attentive to safety and possible medical considerations.
Some problems may improve relatively quickly. Others may require considerable work, and some desired outcomes may not be appropriate for the dog under every circumstance.
I would rather establish realistic goals and demonstrate measurable progress than promise an outcome I cannot substantiate.
The next lesson should be informed by what the owners and dog accomplish with the homework. If something works, we can build on it. If something does not work, we need to investigate why and make adjustments. That is how the training progresses.
What Is the Difference Between Teaching a Dog Commands and Understanding How to Train This Dog?
The difference is that teaching a command is only one part of developing useful skill.
For this family, the problem was not a lack of affection for their dog, a lack of exercise, or a complete absence of obedience training. They had already invested considerable effort. What they needed was a clearer understanding of the behavioral processes that were preventing their dog from performing reliably in the situations that mattered most from an expert dog trainer. The questionnaire gave me the history and the owners’ goals. The first meeting showed me the dog’s initial defensiveness and the importance of establishing a comfortable working relationship. The recall exercises revealed problems with cue consistency, response precision, motivation, and distance. The toy tests showed that we had not yet identified an effective way to engage his predatory motivation through the available play objects. The history of keep-away revealed an interaction that could undermine the cooperation we wanted to develop. And the owners’ outdoor lifestyle helped determine which skills needed to be prioritized.
I used those findings to begin developing individualized homework, with measurable goals and a process for evaluating progress.
That is what my first appointment was intended to accomplish. It was not a demonstration of how many commands I could make the dog perform. It was the beginning of a training program based on the actual dog, the actual owners, and the circumstances in which they wanted to succeed.
If your dog performs well in some situations but not others, or you have already tried training advice without obtaining the results you need, an individualized assessment can help determine what is missing.
You can learn more about my private in-home dog training in Gilbert and the Phoenix area.
The central question is not whether someone can tell you how to teach a dog to come when called.
It is whether they can determine why your dog is not responding, what needs to change, and how to establish that the training is actually working.
That is the difference between giving advice and doing the work of professional dog training.
Glossary
BASSO Method: Sam Basso’s assessment-first approach to dog training, incorporating the dog’s history, environment, behavior, skills, owners’ goals, individualized instruction, homework, and progress evaluation.
Mechanism-First Analysis: A framework for examining the interacting biological, learning, motivational, environmental, and handling processes associated with behavior before selecting an intervention.
Learned Skill Accessibility: A framework describing whether a previously learned skill is functionally available under the dog’s current conditions. A failed response does not, by itself, establish an accessibility problem.
Prey drive: A commonly used term for biologically influenced motivation associated with predatory activities. It is not a single standardized scientific measure.
Predatory sequence: A pattern of behaviors that may include detecting, orienting, stalking, chasing, capturing, and consuming prey. Individual dogs vary considerably in the components they express.
Stimulus control: A learned relationship between an antecedent cue and a particular skill, established through the consequences associated with responding under those conditions.
Reinforcement: A consequence that increases the future probability of a skill under relevant conditions.
Competing reinforcement: Different available consequences that influence which skills are likely to occur.
Self-reinforcing: An informal term for skill maintained by consequences generated through the activity itself rather than by a reward supplied by the handler.
Response precision: How closely the dog’s performance matches the specific behavior or skill being taught or activated.
Response latency: The time between presentation of a cue and initiation of the dog’s response.
Generalization: The occurrence of a learned response under conditions that differ from those present during initial training.
Behavioral state: The current physiological, emotional, motivational, and environmental conditions that influence the dog’s behavior.
Behavioral assessment: The systematic collection and evaluation of information about behavior and the conditions under which it occurs.
Behavioral measurement: Recording observable variables such as response frequency, duration, latency, accuracy, and performance under specified conditions.
Foundation skills: Learned skills and behavioral relationships that support more complex training objectives.
Scholarly Bibliography
- Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford University Press.
- Miklósi, Á. (2015). Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2001). Dogs: A new understanding of canine origin, behavior, and evolution.Scribner.
- Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
- Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Sloan Publishing.
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
- Overall, K. L. (2013). Manual of clinical behavioral medicine for dogs and cats. Elsevier Mosby.
- Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W., & Mol, J. A. (1998). Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58(3–4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7
- McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307
- Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023