Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DOGS ARE SMART, emotional, and deeply social animals, but the way we think about their behaviour is often shaped by outdated beliefs and viral misinformation.
One of the most persistent myths in dog training is the idea that if you comfort a frightened dog by petting, cuddling or offering a treat, you’ll “reinforce the fear.” But fear isn’t a behaviour that can be rewarded, like sitting or jumping up. It’s an involuntary emotional and physiological response to a perceived threat.
When a dog hears a sudden bang or sees something unfamiliar, their brain reacts automatically. They might freeze, run, bark or hide, not because they’re misbehaving, but because they’re scared. Just like a person who’s afraid of spiders wouldn’t become more afraid if someone comforted them, your dog won’t become more fearful because you reassured them during a scary moment.
In fact, offering calm support can help your dog feel safer and recover more quickly. Research by Levine et al. (2007) found that dogs with noise phobias who were comforted during stressful events like fireworks or thunderstorms recovered faster and were less likely to develop long-term behavioural problems than those left alone. Similarly, Dreschel (2010) showed that dogs with emotionally responsive guardians were better able to regulate their stress levels overall.
Sometimes, dogs may whine or seek closeness when they feel unsure, and it can look like they’re “putting it on” for attention. Dogs don’t manipulate emotions in the way humans do. What’s really happening is that your dog has learned that you are a safe place.
So no, comforting your dog won’t “reinforce” fear. It will help them feel safer, more secure, and more connected to you and that’s exactly what they need when the world feels scary.
A common belief in dog training is that dogs are always trying to dominate their humans. You may have heard that you should eat before your dog, walk through doors first, or never allow them on the furniture because if you don’t, they’ll see themselves as the leader and start misbehaving.
This idea stems from outdated interpretations of wolf behaviour. Early studies on captive wolves in the mid-20th century observed rigid dominance hierarchies, where an “alpha” wolf maintained control through physical dominance. These findings were widely publicised and quickly applied to domestic dogs, with the assumption that dogs, as wolf descendants, must follow the same strict social structure.
But science has evolved. Later research, particularly by Dr David Mech (1999), who originally promoted the alpha theory, found that wild wolves don’t live in hierarchies of constant conflict. Instead, wolf packs operate more like families, with parents guiding their offspring. Leadership is based on cooperation, not dominance.
More importantly, domestic dogs are not wolves. While they share ancestry, dogs have undergone thousands of years of evolution alongside humans. They’re highly attuned to human cues and thrive in relationships based on trust, not power struggles.
In fact, Herron et al. (2009) found that the use of aversive, dominance-based training methods such as alpha rolls or physical corrections increased the likelihood of fear and aggression in dogs.
What about the “pecking order”?
The term pecking order was first introduced in 1921 by Norwegian zoologist Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe, who observed that domestic hens form social hierarchies through interactions that often involve pecking.
These hierarchies determined access to resources like food, mates and preferred roosting spots. While later research has confirmed that chickens do form social rankings, these structures are more nuanced than originally thought. Group dynamics are fluid, relationships shift depending on context, and not all interactions involve aggression.
Importantly, this concept is species-specific. The way chickens organise their social lives doesn’t apply to dogs, wolves or humans. Using “pecking order” to explain dog behaviour is inaccurate and misleading.
There’s a common misunderstanding when people say, “The dog tried to bite me but missed”. In truth, if a dog genuinely wants to bite you, you will be bitten.
Dogs are incredibly fast when it comes to reactive movements. Studies estimate that the average dog’s bite reaction time from the decision to move to actual contact can occur in less than 0.3 seconds. To put that into perspective, the average human reaction time to visual stimuli is around 0.25 to 0.30 seconds, and that’s just to start moving, not to successfully block or evade something.
In real-world terms: By the time you consciously register that a dog is lunging toward you, the bite has likely already happened. You cannot physically react faster than a dog deciding to bite once the choice is made. The only things that can prevent a bite once a dog has truly decided to commit are: A barrier or the dog’s own choice to pull away or inhibit themselves. Dogs are incredibly precise with their mouths.
Misunderstanding the nature of bite risk can lead to dangerous situations. If people believe they can “stop” a bite by being fast enough or shouting loudly enough, they are likely to misread escalation signs and place themselves at greater risk. When a dog is truly pushed to bite, they are faster than any of us. The safest and most respectful approach is to create an environment where they never feel they have to make that choice in the first place.
This saying has been around for centuries, first recorded in a 16th-century book by John Fitzherbert and was meant to highlight how older individuals may resist change. But when it comes to dogs, this old adage simply doesn’t hold up. The truth is, dogs can learn at any age. Just like humans, older dogs may take a little more time to pick up new skills, but they are absolutely capable of learning and often eager to do so, especially when the training is fun and rewarding.
Research backs this up. A study by Wallis et al. (2016) on canine cognition found that older dogs who were engaged in regular training showed improvements in memory and problem-solving skills. So next time someone tells you an old dog can’t learn new tricks, let them know: not only can they learn, they thrive on it.
You walk through the door after a long day and discover a shredded cushion on the floor. Your dog slinks away, head low, eyes wide, tail tucked. Instantly, the conclusion forms: He knows he’s been bad. But science tells a different story.
That look you’re seeing? It’s not guilt. It’s appeasement.
This idea was put to the test in a well-known study by Dr. Alexandra Horowitz in 2009. She set up a situation where owners asked their dogs not to eat a treat while they left the room.
In some cases, the dogs obeyed. In others, the treat was secretly removed by the researcher, so the dog didn’t do anything wrong at all. But when owners returned and were told (incorrectly) that their dog had disobeyed, the dogs still gave that “guilty” look.
In other words, dogs showed submissive or appeasing behaviour whether or not they had actually “misbehaved.” What mattered most was the owner’s tone and body language, not the dog’s actions.
But what about when the person hasn’t reacted yet?
Even in situations where the human hasn’t changed their posture or spoken yet, dogs may still respond anxiously, not because of guilt, but because:
Dogs don’t reflect on the past and feel moral guilt the way humans do. They live in the present moment. If you come home and scold them for something they did hours ago, they’re not connecting the punishment to the action. They’re trying to avoid conflict, not confess to a crime.
We tend to believe things we’ve heard over and over, even when they’re wrong. This is called the Illusory Truth Effect, and it’s why myths like “dogs need to be dominated” or “comforting a scared dog makes them worse” keep showing up, even though science has disproven them.
Our brains also rely on the Availability Heuristic. We think dramatic stories (like rare dog attacks) are more common than they are, especially when they’re all over the news. And with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, people with little training often feel overly confident giving out advice, while real experts are more careful, because they know how complex dog behaviour really is.
These thinking errors are why outdated methods still spread. But modern, science-based training focuses on kindness, communication, and trust. Supporting your dog’s emotional needs isn’t spoiling them, it’s effective, ethical, and backed by research.
Suzi Walsh is an expert dog behaviourist and dog trainer. She has an honours degree in Zoology and a Masters in Applied Animal Welfare and Behaviour from the Royal Dick School of Veterinary. She has worked as a behaviourist on both TV, radio and has also worked training dogs in the film industry.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say