Social and training implications of giving our dogs affection
First published in March 2023 and last tweaked in July 2024.
When I first got into the dog training world, I was inundated with the idea that “you get what you pet”. Multiple professionals told me we need to limit the affection we give our companions. Okay, I thought. If you say so. Who was I to argue with their expertise?
I feel pretty differently now.
Sharing affection in my social relationship with Scout has become a core part of my dog ownership philosophy. I understand why it’s not a straightforward topic, though—so I wanted to talk about some of the nuance.
TLDR highlights and Instagram post summary
My reciprocal relationship with Scout is one of my favorite things. We are both social, emotional, intelligent mammals whose species coevolved with each other. We need affection to thrive.
I also do think it’s possible to create “bad” habits (in quotes because every owner’s definition of problematic behavior will vary—what bothers me might not bother you and vice versa) if we aren’t cognizant of the ways we interact with our dogs.
Blanket statements about affection miss the mark. If a trainer tells me to completely stop petting or talking to my dog? That’s a red flag. Same if a trainer insists sharing affection has zero impact on our relationship at all.
First up: Different dogs have different affection preferences
I think any conversation about affection—especially the “you get what you pet” training context that assumes petting is reinforcing (more on that later)—is remiss without acknowledging that we all like different types of touch. Our dogs included!
We may think we’re showing our pets love… when in reality we’re causing discomfort.
Some dogs enjoy being patted on top of the head. Others (like Scout) shy away from it.
Some dogs like really rough, deep massage. Others are more sensitive.
Some dogs are interested in physical affection at pretty much all times. Others only want it in certain contexts.
It’s important to pay attention to our individual pets’ body language cues. Then we can make sure our scratches and rubs send the message we intend to!
The Other End of the Leash and For the Love of a Dog by Patricia McConnell helped me think more critically about this.
Affection is a basic need for social mammals!
Domestic dogs and humans are both social, emotional mammals. Our ancestors coevolved with each other through generations and generations. That means our cross-species bond is arguably the strongest in the entire animal kingdom. Many dogs seek out human contact over that of other canines!
What this means for affection: Social interaction is a basic need for both us and our dogs.
It’s important Scout feels secure in our bond. While she isn’t a human herself, she can absolutely pick up on much of my intent in a given situation. We can cause our pets significant distress if we fail to recognize the importance of regular social interaction for their mental health.
Dog is Love by Clive Wynne and The Genius of Dogs by Brian Hare were particularly great reads about the deep dog-human bond. Canine intuition isn’t perfect in our anthropocentric world… but it sure isn’t nothing, either. I’m uncomfortable with advice to completely eliminate affection with our dogs or make them “work” for every interaction they have with us.
Affection in relationship hierarchies: Will it make dogs pushy or dominant?
One of the most common justifications for limiting the affection we give our dogs is that it will cause them to feel dominant (or otherwise unsure) of their social standing.
There is a lot to unpack here. “Dominance” is an emotionally charged word in the dog training space! Here’s my current understanding.
Initial wolf studies that gave us the “alpha” term were based on captive wolf packs. Most naturally occuring wolf packs actually function more like family units. The parents are leaders, and overt displays of aggression are rare.
What’s more: Dogs are also not wolves anyway. While domestic dogs and their closest relatives do share many similarities, several things set them apart. We need to let these differences inform the way we live with them. More on that in this article!
Dominance is a real thing. It’s a trait of a social relationship—and it can fluctuate between situations. For example, one dog might get preference over physical location while the other gets it over food. (To me that sounds pretty similar to a lot of human group interactions I’ve witnessed.)
The idea that sharing affection with a fellow social creature will automatically result in “hierarchy” issues feels deeply flawed to me. Dogs and people have a long coevolutionary history of living in relative harmony! Even if their ancestors did always want to “challenge” us or take control, we’d have selected for more cooperative individuals over time.
I’m far from a dominance expert and realize it’s a messy topic—I recommend Marc Bekoff’s The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Temple Grandin’s Animals Make Us Human, and Clive Wynne’s Dog is Love for a place to start with more discussion. Our “Books” story highlights on Instagram also annotate several key passages.
Affection as training reinforcement: Do you always “get what you pet”?
While I don’t think sharing affection with our dogs automatically makes them confused about “where they stand” in our partnerships, I do think it’s possible to create undesirable behaviors if we never consider how we interact with our pets.
(An important note: “Undesirable” or “bad” behavior is going to be subjective to each owner, dog, and situation. What bothers me might not bother you and vice versa! I talk about this more in our “why does your dog need to do anything” article and “default dog rules” Instagram post.)
The good intentions of people saying “you get what you pet”
The “you get what you pet” phrase is often well intentioned. It tries to remind owners that our dogs are always learning—training doesn’t only happen in structured sessions—and that we can influence their behavior in small ways we might not realize.
I’m fully aligned with that underlying message!
If I hated when Scout nosed my hand to be pet, for example, but always responded to the nudge with affection, I’d absolutely be responsible for building a bad habit.
Why “you get what you pet” falls short
But I think the specific presentation of “you get what you pet” is too simplistic. Our relationships with our dogs are far more complicated than surface-level rules of thumb.
A brief overview of operant conditioning
Operant conditioning is a learning theory where an animal makes an association between a particular behavior and a following consequence, and that consequence affects how often they perform the behavior moving forward. It’s not all there is in dog training—but it’s often the core conceptual foundation.
There are four operant conditioning quadrants based on two criteria:
You either want a behavior to increase or decrease, and
You either add something or remove something to achieve that result.
If you add something, it’s called “positive” (even if what you’re adding is unpleasant). If you take something away, it’s called negative. This is important because we often have strong gut reactions to those two words. In operant conditioning, “positive” does not mean good and “negative” does not mean bad!
If you’re increasing a behavior, it’s called reinforcement. If you’re decreasing a behavior, it’s called punishment.
Is petting always reinforcing? (Spoiler: Nope)
Affection can be reinforcing—but isn’t necessarily so. Petting can also be used to calm our dogs down (conditioned relaxation, massage techniques, etc) or can even be punishing if it’s not what they want in a given moment.
A Scout example: I inadvertently punished her for lying close to me after play sessions at our apartment back in Florida. I naturally pet her when she settled nearby… but she was hot and tired and didn’t really want to be touched. Over time, I reduced the behavior of her staying right next to me. Details on that in the below Instagram post!
And a human example: I usually love hugging Sean. But if he reaches for me when I’m busy with something else or have a sore muscle, I might actually find it aversive.
How we personally approach affection with our cattle dog
I happily respond to most of my dog’s requests for affection. These moments have improved our bond and training!
Her requests need to be polite for our lifestyle. No jumping on my lap without permission, knocking things out of my hand, or similar behavior.
I’m able to tell my dog “not right now”—and I listen when she says the same thing to me if I’m coming in to smother her with my own demands.
Ultimately: We can share love freely… while also being mindful of our long-term habits
Affection doesn’t have to be all or nothing. I think we can prioritize a healthy social relationship with plenty of mutual love while also setting our dogs up for success.
I look at it similarly to my human relationships. No, incessantly poking me when I’m in the middle of a task is not a kind way to get my attention. But the creatures I love are absolutely allowed to express their needs and request my focus!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I haven't come across "you get what you pet" before, and it's giving me some food for thought. My two dogs have been polar opposites in terms of affection, so I learned to let them lead the way in those interactions. I understand why it is important to consider what behaviour I could be reinforcing if I give them affection, but the dominance theory sounds a bit far-fetched. Are the proponents of that theory concerned about guarding behaviours? My understanding is that guarding behaviours stem from a lack of confidence, not an excess of dominance.
From a personal perspective, I'm very grateful that my dog is a big fan of snuggling and affection. We keep each other warm in the winter, I love her enthusiastic wiggly demands for pets after she wakes up from a nap, and it makes me laugh as I try to dodge her crazy kisses.