Understanding How Emotions Are Reinforced

Date: March 1, 2024

Last Update: August 5, 2024

How to cite: Barata, R. (2024). Understanding How Emotions Are Reinforced. Human-Animal Science.

Introduction

Current trends in dog training suggest that emotions cannot be reinforced. This article critically examines the traditional behaviorist approach alongside the contemporary neurocognitive perspective, clarifying the technical nuances of emotion reinforcement in dogs (and mammals in general), and challenging the notion that emotions are impervious to such processes.

The traditional behaviorist model posits that behaviors, rather than emotions, are the primary targets of reinforcement. According to this view, emotions are seen as byproducts of conditioning, secondary to observable behavioral changes. This perspective has historically guided dog training practices, focusing on modifying observable actions through reinforcement without directly considering the underlying internal states.

Asserting that fear is not a behavior overlooks the broad psychological definition of behavior, which encompasses both observable actions and internal states or responses. Fear, while often regarded as an emotional state, manifests through various behaviors, such as avoidance, freezing, or physiological responses, which can be modified or influenced through conditioning processes.

Neuroscience, as a distinct field, offers a different perspective on animal emotions by integrating insights from genetics, which reveal the hereditary aspects of emotional responses; neurobiology, which examines the brain structures and neural pathways involved in emotions; and cognitive science, which explores the processing and expression of emotions. It also suggests that emotions are not merely reactions to external stimuli but are also structured by intrinsic factors such as genetic predispositions and cognitive evaluations. It posits that, by understanding these complex interplays, reinforcement can influence emotional states by altering the environmental and cognitive contexts in which emotional responses are elicited.

The adherence of some dog trainers to the belief that emotions cannot be reinforced may stem from several factors:

Methodological Tradition: A reliance on behaviorist principles prioritizing observable behavior changes over internal states, possibly due to behavior-based approaches’ direct measurability and simplicity.
Operational Challenges: The difficulty in quantifying and objectively assessing emotional changes in dogs, as opposed to clear, observable behaviors, makes it challenging to demonstrate emotional reinforcement empirically.
Conceptual Misunderstandings: There may be a lack of awareness, knowledge, study, or understanding of the neuroscience and neurocognitive research that illuminates how emotional states in dogs can be influenced by various forms of reinforcement, including social and environmental modifications.
Terminology Confusion and Subjective Interpretations: A significant barrier to the acceptance of emotional reinforcement among dog trainers is the conflation of terminology and reliance on subjective interpretations. Many trainers mix terminology from different fields without a clear distinction, leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes reinforcement, behavior, and emotion. The appeal to anecdotal evidence and compelling narratives on social media or in popular publications creates more confusion. Influential authors and online content creators, who echo similar beliefs about the non-reinforceability of emotions, often shape trainers’ perspectives more than the vast academic literature readily accessible to any proactive person. This reliance on less rigorous sources contributes to perpetuating misconceptions and incorporating inaccurate neuroscientific insights into training practices and discussions, which is the current problem in the field.

To clarify, while I have a background in social and affective neuroscience, it is not my primary academic area. My comfort level is limited to exploring neuroscience insofar as it is relevant to my practical work on animal behavior and training. I believe that we must concentrate on our respective areas of specialization and avoid overstepping our bounds, a tendency that has been prevalent among dog trainers and in dog training in general. My principal academic focus is ethology and human-animal studies, and my practical experience in animal training has primarily involved working with dog owners. My research aims to enhance my effectiveness and understanding in communicating with animals and people, as detailed in my book. This will be my sole article on the topic of emotions. Although I may update it as necessary, I do not intend to engage in further subjective or “ping-pong” discussions on this subject, especially in noisy environments such as social media.

I felt it was important to contribute to this subject by presenting the science from academic literature rather than from dog training groups or courses. I will provide various perspectives, questions, challenges, references, and other resources to support your research and help you form an informed opinion. I will not present a definitive “truth,” as no such absolute exists. As discussed in this article, multiple theories and perspectives often exist on a single topic. Emotions are frequently discussed and sometimes exploited, with individuals even charging fees to share their insights, often without proper education. Reaching audiences can be challenging due to language and cultural differences, which can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of terminology. Science does not offer absolute truths; therefore, trainers must step outside their comfort zones and critically evaluate their beliefs against credible sources rather than relying solely on social media groups or individuals.

Consulting and citing the relevant references individually is also necessary when challenging a viewpoint. Engaging in discussions about beliefs, resorting to the ad hominem fallacy, and dismissing efforts to provide reliable information are counterproductive. This article aims to encourage a thoughtful and open-minded approach to these issues in the future. I hope you will interact with it proactively and critically assess the information presented.

Defining basic emotions

Charles Darwin was an early emotion researcher who explored whether basic emotions, fundamentally distinct and qualitatively different from one another, exist (fig. 1). Basic emotions, if they exist, are categorized to simplify complex experiences, much like elements are classified in chemistry. It is debated, however, whether emotions fit this classification model. People tend to view emotions as distinct categories, such as happiness, sadness, and fear, possibly due to either innate traits (as proposed by some researchers) or social construction (as suggested by Neimeyer, 1995). Researchers like Ekman (1994) and Panksepp (1994) have proposed criteria for identifying basic emotions, such as universality and distinct, inborn expressions, though there is disagreement over which emotions qualify and how many there are.

Fig. 1. Darwin used photographs and drawings to illustrate the similarities between species in expressing emotions (anger/aggression). From Dalgleish (2004).

Defining basic emotions in humans is a complex challenge, and this complexity increases when applying these definitions to non-human individuals. Emotions are internal, subjective experiences that are not directly observable. As a result, researchers must infer emotional states from observable behaviors, facial expressions, and physiological responses (Shepherd, 2017).

Basic human emotions are commonly categorized into discrete, universally recognized types: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust. There is, however, an ongoing debate about whether these categories are universal and distinct, or better described as continuous dimensions or blends of more fundamental emotional states (Reevy et al., 2010).

The challenge of defining emotions becomes even more pronounced when considering non-human individuals. Although some species, such as dogs and cats, have been extensively studied and exhibit clear signs of emotional states akin to human emotions, others, such as insects and fish, have more limited behavioral repertoires, making it less clear whether they experience emotions in ways similar to humans (Adolphs, 2018).

Identifying behaviors associated with emotional states in non-human individuals does not necessarily equate these behaviors with human emotions. For instance, a rat’s freezing response to a predator may indicate fear; however, it could also be a reflexive reaction to danger that does not involve emotional experience in the same way as human fear.

The Challenge of Approaches from Different Fields

The growing interest in neuroscience has sparked interdisciplinary discussions involving psychology, sociology, philosophy, and ethology. This presents significant challenges, especially when professionals from non-neuroscientific fields engage with neuroscientific concepts without a deep understanding of the underlying principles and methodologies.

One major issue in interdisciplinary discussions is the risk of misinterpreting neuroscientific concepts. Neuroscience involves complex methodologies, including neuroimaging techniques (e.g., fMRI and PET scans), electrophysiological recordings, and molecular biology. Without knowledge of these methods, the main concepts can be oversimplified or misrepresented. For instance, the term “neuroplasticity” is often misunderstood, leading to misconceptions about the brain’s capacity for change and recovery from neurological conditions (Kolb & Gibb, 2014).

Another concern is reductionism, where complex behaviors and mental processes are reduced to simple neural mechanisms. This reductionist view can undermine the multifaceted nature of human experience, which includes psychological, social, and environmental factors. Such oversimplification can result in deterministic views of human behavior, failing to account for the interplay between biological and environmental factors (Damasio, 1999).

Integrating neuroscience with fields such as law, education, and marketing introduces ethical concerns, particularly regarding the misuse or misrepresentation of neuroscientific findings. For example, neuroimaging used in legal contexts to assess a defendant’s mental state can raise ethical dilemmas regarding the interpretation of brain data (Roskies & Morse, 2013). The potential for “neuroessentialism,” in which individuals are judged solely on neural characteristics, risks dehumanizing people by reducing them to biological substrates (Farah, 2011).

These examples show how effective communication across disciplines is necessary for successful collaboration. Jargon and discipline-specific language can create barriers to understanding, and when neuroscientific concepts are discussed without adequate explanation, it can lead to confusion and miscommunication, particularly in collaborative research efforts where shared terminology and methodology are fundamental (Sperber & Wilson, 1995).

Anthropomorphism in Neuroscience

The field of neuroscience has made significant strides in understanding brain function and behavior. Integrating multiple theoretical frameworks, particularly when addressing phenomena like fear, can lead to confusion and oversimplification. This examination highlights the challenges of mixing theories and the impact of anthropomorphism, including the metaphorical use of terms such as “fidget.”

Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial are two interrelated but distinct concepts that shape how humans interpret the emotional lives of non-human entities. Though they represent opposing cognitive biases, both concepts are pivotal to our understanding and treatment of others.

Anthropomorphism involves attributing human-like characteristics, emotions, or behaviors to non-human individuals. Anthropodenial, on the other hand, refers to the denial of human-like characteristics, emotions, or behaviors in non-human individuals. This cognitive bias can obstruct the recognition and appreciation of the complexity and diversity of animal emotions.

If a term like “fidget” is used metaphorically to describe a neural mechanism with human-like characteristics, it may lead to oversimplified and misleading interpretations (Gordon, 2008), and such anthropomorphism can create a false sense of understanding and hinder accurate scientific discourse.

Mixing theories and using anthropomorphic language can result in oversimplification, which is problematic in neuroscience’s intricate domain. The brain’s complexity and many factors influencing emotional responses necessitate a nuanced approach. Oversimplification, whether through theory mixing or anthropomorphism, can obscure the multifaceted nature of emotional processing and limit clinical interventions (LeDoux, 2012).

Do All Emotions Need to Be Expressed Physically to Be Considered Emotions?

The question of whether emotions must be expressed physically to be considered valid invites a nuanced exploration of the nature of emotions and how they are expressed. Emotions encompass subjective experiences, physiological responses, and behavioral expressions. The James-Lange theory posits that physiological arousal precedes and constitutes emotional experience, suggesting that bodily changes are crucial to feeling emotions (James, 1884). The Cannon-Bard theory, by contrast, argues that emotional experiences and physiological responses occur independently and simultaneously (Cannon, 1927). These theories indicate that while physical responses often accompany emotional experiences, they are not strictly necessary for emotions to exist.

The distinction between emotional experience and emotional expression is important in understanding whether physical expression is required for emotions to be valid. Emotional experience pertains to internal, subjective feelings, whereas emotional expression involves outward manifestations such as facial expressions and body language (Ekman, 1992). Research indicates that individuals can experience a range of emotions internally, even without physical expression. For instance, individuals with neurological conditions, such as those affecting facial musculature, may find it challenging to express emotions outwardly but still experience them internally (Hennenlotter et al., 2009), supporting the notion that emotional validity is not contingent upon physical expression alone.

Philosophical views also offer critical insights into this discussion. Existentialist philosopher Sartre (1943) argued that emotions are deeply personal and subjective, not fully captured by external expressions. According to Sartre, the essence of an emotion resides in the individual’s internal experience rather than its outward manifestation. Similarly, Merleau-Ponty (1962) emphasized that while physical expressions can enhance communication, they are not necessary for emotions to exist. From these perspectives, the internal experience of emotions holds primacy over their external expression.

Neuroscientific research has identified specific neural circuits associated with emotional experiences, such as the amygdala’s role in processing emotions like fear and anger (LeDoux, 1996). Research on patients with complete bilateral amygdala showed that individuals who presented no outward fear responses to external threats nonetheless experienced intense subjective fear when exposed to internal physiological triggers, confirming that emotional experience can occur through pathways that operate independently of observable outward expression (Feinstein et al., 2013).

Sociological perspectives highlight that cultural norms and social contexts shape emotional expression, as cultural expectations can influence how and when emotions are outwardly displayed, indicating that physical expression is culturally contingent rather than universally required (Hochschild, 1983).

In clinical psychology, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) emphasizes the importance of understanding and processing emotions internally, regardless of their physical expression (Beck, 2011), supporting the notion that emotions are valid and meaningful even without physical manifestation.

The interplay between sensory processing and emotional experience is also relevant here. Sensory processing involves the detection of stimuli through the senses, such as sight and touch, which are then interpreted by the brain to elicit emotional responses (Schacter & Singer, 1962). Physical sensations, such as warmth or texture, can evoke emotional responses and illustrate the connection between physical sensations and emotional states. Perception also structures emotional experiences by interpreting sensory inputs based on past experiences and beliefs (Neisser, 1976). Damasio’s concept of somatic markers illustrates the interplay between physical sensations and emotional experiences. Somatic markers are bodily sensations associated with emotions that guide decision-making and influence emotional responses (Damasio, 1994). This interplay highlights the importance of understanding emotions as encompassing physiological and emotional dimensions, though it does not imply that physical expression is necessary for validity. The assertion that all emotions must be expressed physically to be considered valid is a reductionist perspective that overlooks the complexity of emotional experiences.

Panksepp’s Theory in Dog Training

In recent discussions about dog training methodologies, I’ve observed a growing trend of positioning Jaak Panksepp’s theory of affective neuroscience as the sole acceptable framework for discussion. This trend has led to the rejection of alternative perspectives, even those from credible authors with differing views. During a brief exploration of social media, it became evident that proponents of other theories often face skepticism or outright rejection.

My review of various neuroscientific encyclopedias revealed that Panksepp’s work is not extensively referenced within the broader field of neuroscience (Della Sala, 2020; Ray, 2024; Reevy, Ozer, & Ito, 2010; Shepherd, 2017). This absence likely reflects a more nuanced understanding of emotional processes that no single theory fully captures, given that the study of emotions encompasses a range of perspectives. Adolphs (2013) highlights at least nine distinct views on fear, each contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of emotional responses.

Restricting our focus to a singular theory, such as Panksepp’s, poses risks similar to those observed in past debates. I often give the example of the discussion on the “theory of dominance” in dog training, which was once widely spread and debated, with Mech’s work being always referred to, but later revealed to be a misinterpretation of Mech’s work, as he clearly confirmed that people misunderstood his writings (Barata, 2012). Panksepp’s work, too, is being similarly isolated and potentially misapplied. The current trend of treating Panksepp’s theory as the definitive approach overlooks valuable insights from other perspectives and limits our understanding of canine behavior, leading to more subjective assumptions and pushing us even further away from what we can observe and measure, which is already complex.

The term “affective neuroscience,” popularized by Jaak Panksepp, refers to the interdisciplinary field that integrates the study of emotions (affect) with neuroscience to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying emotional processes. Panksepp’s work in the early 1990s established this field, focusing on the emotional systems in other individuals and their neural correlates. His identification of seven primary emotional systems — SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY — aimed to provide a foundational framework for understanding the neurobiological bases of behavior (Panksepp, 1998, 2005).

The study of emotions and their neural correlates has earlier theoretical foundations, laid by psychologists and neurologists such as William James and Carl Lange in the late 19th century, who proposed physiological bases for emotions. Subsequent advancements in the mid-20th century included James Papez’s formulation of the Papez circuit, which mapped a neural circuit involved in emotional expression, and Paul MacLean’s expansion of the concept of the limbic system. Research in the 1960s and 1970s further refined our understanding by exploring specific brain structures, such as the amygdala, and their roles in emotional processing (LeDoux, 2012).

Despite Panksepp’s significant contributions, several limitations of his theory are apparent, particularly in practical applications such as dog training. Panksepp’s model tends to oversimplify the complexities of canine behavior by focusing on primary emotional systems, potentially neglecting the multifaceted interplay of cognitive processes, environmental influences, and learned behaviors. This simplification contrasts with cognitive learning theories, such as those proposed by Pavlov and Skinner, which emphasize the role of reinforcement, punishment, and associative learning in influencing behavior (Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1953). The most prominent current theoretical alternative, Barrett’s constructed emotion theory (2017), goes further still, arguing that emotions are not biologically hardwired categories but context-dependent constructions of the brain, a position that fundamentally challenges the categorical primary-emotion framework Panksepp proposed. Panksepp’s theory has also been critiqued for its insufficient consideration of behavioral ecology and ethology, which examine natural behaviors within ecological contexts and emphasize species-specific adaptations. The theory’s failure to account for individual variation and breed-specific behaviors can lead to less effective training strategies, as dogs exhibit significant diversity due to genetic and selective breeding factors (Shettleworth, 2010).

Panksepp’s dualistic perspective, which separates mind and body, may further constrain the applicability of his theory. While historically significant, this dualistic approach may limit the acceptance of integrative models that combine cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors (Damasio, 1994; Rolls, 2013). Panksepp’s research methodologies, which often involve invasive procedures, also raise ethical concerns about the balance between scientific analysis and the welfare of the individuals studied (Panksepp & Biven, 2012).

Furthermore, Panksepp’s focus on subcortical emotional systems might overshadow the role of higher cognitive functions located in the neocortex. Cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem-solving, and memory play important roles in how dogs learn and interact with their environment (LeDoux, 2012; Barrett & Satpute, 2013). It is also worth noting that LeDoux himself subsequently revised his model, arguing that the amygdala governs survival circuits and defense responses rather than conscious fear per se, and cautioning against using the word “fear” as a label for nonconscious threat-processing in ways that conflate it with subjective emotional experience (LeDoux, 2014). Claims that dogs lack cognitive coping mechanisms for stress simplify their complex behavioral and cognitive responses.

Evidence shows that dogs possess sophisticated cognitive abilities that aid in managing stress, and research has revealed that they can process information beyond mere instinctive reactions. Through training and conditioning, dogs learn complex tasks and adapt their behavior in response to specific signals, a process that involves memory and problem-solving skills. Miklosi (2007) demonstrates that dogs can engage in problem-solving, memory, and learning, which are crucial for handling stress. These cognitive skills imply that dogs use more than just basic responses to cope with stress. Dogs also exhibit significant behavioral flexibility in response to changing environments, indicating cognitive processing, and they can adapt their behavior based on new experiences and information. Dogs can modify their behavior in response to changes in circumstances, such as age, reflecting their ability to adjust their coping strategies (Wallis et al., 2013). This flexibility suggests that dogs employ cognitive mechanisms when dealing with stress.

Comparative research supports the view that domestic mammals have advanced cognitive functions. Research on the sociocognitive abilities of domestic mammals shows that some species can recognize us, detect, and interpret human emotions or signals (Jardat & Lansade, 2021). These findings challenge the idea that non-human individuals rely solely on instinctual responses. The emotional lives of dogs further illustrate their cognitive coping mechanisms. Dogs experience emotions such as stress and anxiety, which influence their coping strategies, and a study of dogs’ emotional responses, including their capacity for empathy and stress management, supports the argument that cognitive processes are involved in their coping mechanisms (Bradshaw, 2011). Observations of dogs in natural settings provide additional insights into their stress-coping strategies, as dogs employ various coping behaviors, such as seeking comfort or changing their actions in response to stressors. These behaviors suggest that cognitive strategies affect how dogs handle stress and adapt to their environment.

As a final note on this topic, critical neuroscience examines the intersection of cognitive neuroscience with broader philosophical, cultural, and social contexts. It challenges the reductionist view that the mind can be fully explained by brain functions alone, advocating instead for a more holistic understanding that incorporates the dynamic interactions between neural processes, the body, and the environment. This perspective also critiques how neuroscience is sometimes employed ideologically to support or justify social and economic structures, such as flexible capitalism. Critical neuroscience seeks to expose how scientific “facts” are constructed and urges a more nuanced and reflective approach to understanding the mind and brain (Choudhury & Slaby, 2011).

What is “Reinforcement”?

Reinforcement is the process of strengthening or increasing a behavior through a stimulus. There is a tendency to associate reinforcement only with operant conditioning. Skinner did not introduce the concept, even though he defined it precisely. Hull, Watson, and Thorndike had already mentioned reinforcement as a stimulus that increases a response. Arguing against the view that reinforcement should be exclusively associated with operant conditioning requires a nuanced understanding of learning and behavior-modification principles, because at its core, reinforcement is about increasing the probability of a behavior or response through stimuli, a principle not limited to the deliberate manipulation of outcomes as seen in operant conditioning.

The argument that reinforcement should be an exclusive term for operant conditioning overlooks the adaptive significance of learning and physiological mechanisms. Both classical and operant conditioning have evolved to help organisms learn from their environment in ways that enhance survival and reproduction. In terms of mechanism and applicability, the concept of reinforcement is fundamental to understanding how organisms adapt to their environments. Limiting the concept of reinforcement to operant conditioning, as widely promoted on social media, is inaccurate and overlooks the complexity and diversity of learning and behavior-modification mechanisms.

Classical conditioning, a learning process first described by Ivan Pavlov, involves the association of a neutral stimulus with an unconditional stimulus to elicit a conditional response. In this framework, the unconditional stimulus (US) naturally elicits a response, while the conditional stimulus (CS) is initially neutral but becomes associated with the US through repeated pairings. For example, in Pavlov’s famous experiment, the sound of a bell (CS) was paired with the presentation of food (US), leading the dogs to salivate (conditional response, CR) at the sound of the bell alone.

Some researchers extend the concept of reinforcement to classical conditioning. In this context, the US can be viewed as a reinforcer because it strengthens the CS-CR association. The food serves as a reinforcer that solidifies the connection between the bell and the salivation response when the bell is rung before the food is presented. This reinforcement is necessary for establishing the conditional response, as it helps the organism learn that the CS predicts the arrival of the US. It is important to recognize, however, that the terminology and concepts of classical and operant conditioning are distinct. Classical conditioning focuses on the association between stimuli, while operant conditioning emphasizes the role of consequences in structuring behavior. Using the term “reinforcer” in classical conditioning can lead to confusion, as it blurs the lines between these two fundamental learning processes.

Classical conditioning also involves the modification of behavior. Pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditional stimulus to produce a conditional response can be seen as reinforcing because it increases the likelihood of the conditional response to the previously neutral stimulus (Olson, 2016). The distinction between classical and operant conditioning is not always clear-cut in real-world learning scenarios. Many behaviors are influenced by a combination of associative learning and the consequences of actions, suggesting that reinforcement operates along a continuum rather than within strictly defined categories. The development of phobias, for example, can be explained through classical conditioning, but the maintenance of avoidance behavior can be reinforced operantly by the relief it provides, demonstrating the interconnectedness of these learning processes.

The original Russian term used by Pavlov that corresponds to “reinforcer” is “подкрепление” (pronounced “podkreplenie”). This term is often translated as “reinforcement” in English. While Pavlov’s work laid the foundation for concepts related to reinforcement in behaviorism, he did not develop these ideas as extensively as other psychologists would later. His focus was primarily on the mechanisms of classical conditioning and the associations formed between stimuli and responses. As it is understood today, the concept of reinforcement was not a primary focus of Pavlov’s terminology or theoretical framework. The term “подкрепление” is nonetheless associated with his research on conditional responses and learning processes.

Pavlov used the term to describe the strengthening of an already-learned but weakening response, not the modern definition of selecting and strengthening new behaviors. Although the widespread use of the term reinforcement in learning theory is traceable to Pavlov’s influence (1927), he was not himself a reinforcement theorist in the sense that came to be accepted in American psychology. He identified reinforcement with the occurrence of the unconditional stimulus and its elicited response. Key terms like “reinforced” and “reinforcement,” which now serve as the approved labels for the central concept in our discipline, arose largely by accident. They are universally, and in a sense correctly, attributed to Pavlov (1927/1960), but in the historical compendium of his addresses published in 1928, the word “reinforcement” appears only once and then as a rather loose translation of the original Russian text (Razran, 1955). According to Razran, Pavlov and his students never used the term “reinforcement” for the trials preceding the full-fledged emergence of the CR. In the more systematic series of lectures published in 1927, Pavlov often used the notations “reflex reinforced” or “stimulus reinforced” in the trial-by-trial protocols for individual experiments, but “reinforcement” never appeared as a theoretical concept. It was used to describe the practice of reinvigorating the conditional salivary secretion after it had been weakened by repeated elicitation, by presenting one or more trials in which the original unconditional stimulus followed the conditional stimulus. If the unconditional stimulus was not presented on a given trial, the effectiveness of the conditional stimulus declined, and the trial was classified as an extinction trial, a term apparently borrowed directly from common language.

Some argue that the acquisition of conditioned responding should be broken down into components, including the point of acquisition and the asymptotic response magnitude (Gallistel, Fairhurst, & Balsam, 2004). Generally, increasing the US intensity or number tends to increase the magnitude of conditioned responding (Mackintosh, 1974, pp. 70-71). Morris and Bouton (2006) detected effects of US magnitude on the point of acquisition in aversive and appetitive procedures in rats, though the extent to which US magnitude influences this point remains unclear. Unlike the effects of US intensity, the effects of increasing US duration are not consistent across procedures (Mackintosh, 1974).

Perhaps some of these terms are lost in translation or conflated with those in Tolochinov, Vurfson, Babkin, Boldyrev, or Kashereninova’s work (Windholz, 1989). Many English-language textbooks, for instance, use terms such as “unconditioned stimulus” and “unconditioned response,” which originated from translation errors in which Pavlov’s original Russian terms (conditional, not conditioned) were rendered into English (Fitzpatrick, 1990; Goldman, 2012). Reinforcement is a term that can mean many things in both its technical and nontechnical usage. It always involves something related to strengthening, but even in lay language, it can legitimately refer to the act of strengthening, the state of being strengthened, or the thing that strengthens. In its technical use in psychology, reinforcement has been employed in all these senses and many other specialized ones. In the dictionary of psychological terms compiled by English and English (1958), two and a half pages are required to list and describe the various usages, covering nine psychological meanings of the term “reinforcement” and 32 separate entries of its various combined forms, such as aperiodic, primary, and serial reinforcement. They prefer the usage based on the Pavlovian paradigm: “the natural occurrence or the experimental presentation of the unconditional stimulus along with the conditional stimulus; or the strengthening of the conditional response relationship thereby.” For the remaining special meanings that have enough operational specificity to be useful, English and English recommend using alternative terms such as facilitation, reward, drive, tension reduction, confirmation of reaction, and goal attainment.

You can read more about it in the following references: Dinsmoor (2004), Pavlov (1960), Rescorla & Wagner (1972), Schoenfeld (1978), Schoenfeld (1995), Windholz (1989), and Yokoyama (2023).

Mechanisms of Reinforcement

As mentioned above, the terms “reinforcer” and “reinforcement” generally refer to something that enhances or strengthens a behavior. The mechanisms of reinforcement vary across disciplines, and although the core idea of reinforcement as a means to strengthen behavior remains consistent, interpretations and mechanisms differ due to their distinct focuses. Each field may define and interpret these mechanisms differently, focusing on distinct processes or principles that underpin how reinforcement operates within that domain. The specific mechanisms through which reinforcement operates are thus shaped by each field’s own theoretical and empirical framework.

Neuroscientific Perspective

In neuroscience, reinforcement is closely linked to the brain’s reward circuitry, which involves several key structures, including the nucleus accumbens, ventral tegmental area (VTA), and prefrontal cortex. “Reward circuitry” refers to the network of brain structures and pathways involved in processing rewards, motivating behaviors, and reinforcing learning. This circuitry is vital for survival, as it helps organisms seek out and repeat beneficial behaviors, such as eating, mating, and social interactions.

The reward circuitry is heavily implicated in the experience of pleasure, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Mechanisms include:

Dopaminergic Pathways: The release of dopamine in response to rewarding stimuli is a fundamental mechanism of reinforcement. Dopamine signals the perceived value of a reward and reinforces behaviors that lead to its attainment.
Neuroplasticity: Reinforcement can change synaptic strength and neural circuitry, facilitating learning and memory. Long-term potentiation (LTP) enhances synaptic transmission and is associated with the reinforcement of learned behaviors.
Conditional Responses: Classical conditioning studies, such as those conducted by Pavlov, demonstrate how neural pathways can be reinforced through associations between stimuli and reinforcers, leading to conditional responses.

Neural Mechanisms of Reinforcement

The brain regions involved in reinforcement processes are part of the reward circuitry:

Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA): The VTA contains dopamine-producing neurons that project to various midbrain regions. It is a primary source of dopamine, a neurotransmitter central to reward processing.
Nucleus Accumbens: This basal ganglia area is crucial for processing rewards, pleasure, and reinforcement learning. It receives dopamine signals from the VTA.
Prefrontal Cortex (PFC): This area, particularly the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), is involved in decision-making, reward evaluation, and planning. It integrates information about reward value and helps regulate behavior based on expected outcomes.
Amygdala: This structure is involved in emotional processing and associating stimuli with reinforcers or punishments, playing a role in both reinforcement and fear conditioning. A 2024 computational model of the amygdala circuit demonstrated, through error-driven synaptic plasticity, how fear conditioning, extinction, renewal, and generalization can all be accounted for by learning on synapses between amygdala nuclei, providing a precise mechanistic account of how fear memory is formed and modified at the neural level (Duggins & Eliasmith, 2024).
Hippocampus: Important for memory formation and spatial navigation, the hippocampus interacts with the reward circuitry to help form memories of rewarding experiences, guiding future behavior. Recent work has also clarified its coordinating role, alongside the medial prefrontal cortex and thalamic nucleus reuniens, in regulating context-dependent retrieval of extinction memories, a finding with direct implications for behavior modification in clinical and applied settings (Plas et al., 2024).
Striatum: This includes the caudate nucleus and putamen, which are involved in motor control and reinforcement-based learning. The striatum integrates reward information to influence movement and behavior.
Hypothalamus: Involved in regulating homeostatic functions like hunger and thirst, the hypothalamus interacts with the reward circuitry to influence motivated behaviors related to survival.

Fig. 2. Fear learning in the human amygdala. A) The medial temporal lobe, including the amygdala, is bilateral. B-D) Activation of the amygdala towards the CS is observed bilaterally after fear conditioning (b) and observational fear learning (c) and unilaterally (d) in the left amygdala after instructed fear. From Olsson et al. (2007).

Limbic System Involvement

The limbic system, a set of brain structures including the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex, plays an important role in emotion processing and reinforcement.
The amygdala is particularly important in emotional learning and memory, particularly fear conditioning. It assesses emotional salience and generates appropriate emotional responses.
The hippocampus facilitates the formation of emotional memories, which are crucial for reinforcing future emotional responses based on past experiences.
The prefrontal cortex regulates emotions and decision-making processes, allowing for the modulation of emotional responses based on social norms and logical reasoning.
The nucleus accumbens plays a central role in the reinforcement circuit. It releases dopamine in response to reinforcing stimuli, reinforcing behaviors that lead to positive emotions.

Neurotransmitter Systems and Hormones

Dopamine pathways, particularly in the mesolimbic system, are associated with the reward circuit, reinforcing pleasurable emotions.
Serotonin influences mood, anxiety, and happiness, and its dysregulation is linked to mood disorders.
Norepinephrine affects arousal and alertness, mediating stress responses and emotional intensity.
Cortisol, the “stress hormone,” is released in response to stress and can reinforce the emotional response to stressful or threatening situations (McEwen, 2007).

Neural Plasticity

Repeated emotional experiences can lead to neural plasticity, where the brain’s structure and function are modified, reinforcing specific emotional responses. This is evident in phenomena like fear conditioning and habituation (see images below).

Synaptic Strengthening

Synaptic strengthening, or long-term potentiation (LTP), is a process where repeated stimulation of a neural pathway increases the strength of synaptic transmission. This mechanism is crucial for learning and memory and also applies to emotional learning. Emotional experiences can lead to LTP in neural circuits associated with emotion, reinforcing these emotional responses.

Neural Circuits and Feedback Loops

The brain operates through complex neural circuits and feedback loops that involve cortical and subcortical regions. The prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is involved in decision-making and moderating social behavior, can regulate the emotional responses generated by the limbic system. Through top-down regulation, the PFC can reinforce or inhibit emotional responses based on past experiences and cognitive appraisal of the situation.

Emotional Reinforcement

Emotions themselves can act as reinforcers. Pleasure from social interactions can reinforce social behaviors, while discomfort from fear can reinforce avoidance behaviors. Emotional reinforcement is integral to learning from our environment and experiences, influencing our future behaviors and emotional responses.

Neurocognitive Perspective

Neurobiological Basis of Emotions:

The field of neurobiology has highlighted the role of specific brain regions, such as the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, in processing emotions. The amygdala, for instance, is crucial in fear and aggression, while the prefrontal cortex regulates these responses.
Neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin play significant roles in mood regulation and emotional bonding. Oxytocin release during positive interactions between humans and dogs, for example, can reinforce the attachment.

Cognitive and Social Influences on Emotions:

Dogs have shown the ability to interpret human emotional signals, such as tone of voice and body language, which can influence their emotional states. A dog might sense its owner’s stress and react accordingly, reinforcing its emotional response to human states.
Social learning is another key aspect. Dogs can learn from observing other dogs or humans, which can influence their emotional reactions. A dog might learn to associate a vet visit with fear, for instance, if it observes other individuals exhibiting fearful behavior in that context.

Genetic and Temperamental Factors:

Genetics plays a role in predisposing dogs to certain emotional responses. Some breeds are more prone to anxiety or fearfulness, which can be reinforced through their interactions with their environment.
Individual temperament, influenced by genetics and early life experiences, also affects how a dog processes and reinforces emotional states. Research on fear conditioning has documented consistent individual differences in both the strength of the conditioned fear response and the speed of recovery from it, suggesting that the ease with which fear is acquired, consolidated, and extinguished varies meaningfully across individuals and cannot be predicted from population-level findings alone (Bush, Sotres-Bayon, & LeDoux, 2007).

Cognitive-Appraisal Theory:

This theory suggests that an individual’s perception and evaluation of an event influence their emotional experience. The cognitive appraisal process involves two stages: primary appraisal (assessing whether an event is positive, neutral, or negative) and secondary appraisal (considering one’s ability to cope with the event’s outcome). While more applicable to humans due to the complexity of the cognitive processes involved, aspects of this theory also relate to other individuals in how they assess their environment and how that assessment influences their emotional state.

Learning Theories Perspective

Classical Conditioning: Pavlov demonstrated this learning process, which involves pairing a neutral stimulus with an emotionally charged stimulus to elicit a conditioned emotional response. If a sound (neutral stimulus) is repeatedly paired with a painful stimulus (unconditional stimulus), the sound alone can elicit a fear response (conditional response).
Operant Conditioning: B.F. Skinner’s theory posits that behaviors followed by positive outcomes are more likely to be repeated, while those followed by adverse outcomes are less likely. In the context of emotions, behaviors that lead to positive emotional states (such as happiness or relief) are reinforced. In contrast, those that lead to negative emotions (such as fear or sadness) might be avoided.
Social Learning Theory: Developed by Albert Bandura, social learning theory posits that learning occurs within a social context and can happen purely through observation or instruction, even without motor reproduction or direct reinforcement. This theory emphasizes the role of observational learning, imitation, and modeling in reinforcing emotions and behaviors. Pets might observe and reflect the emotional responses of their human caretakers or other individuals in their environment, reinforcing certain emotional behaviors without direct experience. Olsson and Phelps (2007) provided the neuroscientific confirmation of this mechanism, demonstrating that fear can be acquired through observation of a distressed peer, with amygdala activation, and without any direct aversive experience on the observer’s part.

Behaviorism Perspective

Behaviorism, particularly as articulated by B.F. Skinner focuses on observable behaviors and the environmental factors that influence them. Mechanisms of reinforcement in behaviorism include:

Operant Conditioning (Reinforcers) involves reinforcing a behavior by adding a stimulus (positive reinforcement) or removing a stimulus (negative reinforcement). Skinner’s experiments with rats and pigeons illustrated how reinforcement schedules (e.g., fixed-ratio, variable-ratio) affect the persistence of behavior.
Successive Approximations: This technique involves reinforcing successive approximations of a desired behavior, gradually guiding an individual toward the target behavior through incremental reinforcement.
Behavior Modification: Techniques derived from behaviorism, such as token economies and reinforcement schedules, are widely used in educational and therapeutic settings to promote desired behaviors.

Active and vicarious learning both play a role in structuring and reinforcing emotional responses, and it is worth addressing them here. Active learning involves direct engagement with experiences that evoke emotions, such as through expressive arts or role-playing. This approach allows individuals to confront and express their feelings, reflect on their emotional experiences, and receive feedback, thereby enhancing emotional awareness and resilience. Vicarious learning, by contrast, involves learning about emotions through observing others. By witnessing how others handle emotional situations through stories, films, or real-life interactions, individuals gain insights into managing their emotions and internalizing social norms regarding emotional expression.

Expanding on the Behaviorist Approach

Detailed Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning: In dogs, classical conditioning often involves creating associations between stimuli and emotional responses. If a dog repeatedly hears a specific sound (like a whistle) before mealtime, it may begin to associate that sound with the pleasure of eating, leading to excitement when they hear the whistle.
Operant Conditioning Nuances: Emotional reinforcement is closely tied to the consequences of the dog’s behavior. If a behavior leads to a benefit (such as receiving a treat or affection), the dog will likely repeat it, reinforcing the associated positive emotion.
Negative reinforcement also has influence, in which a behavior that leads to the cessation of a stimulus (like stopping a loud noise) is reinforced by relief or decreased anxiety.
Emotional Extinction and Counterconditioning: Extinction occurs when a conditioned emotional response diminishes over time as the conditional stimulus is presented without the unconditional stimulus. If the sound of a doorbell no longer signals visitors, a dog’s excitement or anxiety may gradually decrease. Counterconditioning involves replacing an unwanted emotional response with a more desirable one, and is often used in behavior modification programs to address fearful or aggressive behaviors. A critical point for applied practice is that extinction does not erase the original fear memory but instead creates a new, competing, context-dependent, and fragile inhibitory memory that remains vulnerable to relapse through renewal, reinstatement, or spontaneous recovery (Plas et al., 2024). Mowrer’s (1947) two-process theory clarifies the mechanism underlying this dynamic: classical conditioning establishes the fear through stimulus pairing, while operant conditioning maintains it through the negative reinforcement of avoidance behavior, with each process sustaining the other.

Ethology Perspective

Ethology, the study of animal behavior in natural environments, provides insights into the evolutionary significance of reinforcement. Mechanisms include:

Natural Selection: Evolutionary processes reinforce behaviors that enhance survival and reproductive success.
Innate Behaviors and Learning: Ethologists study how certain behaviors are instinctual while others are learned through reinforcement.
Social Learning: Ethology also examines how individuals learn by observing others, with reinforcement influencing the adoption of behaviors within social groups. This can include learning through imitation or the reinforcement of social hierarchies.

Ethology also offers a robust model for understanding how behaviors are structured by their associated costs and benefits. As a discipline focused on the study of animal behavior, ethology underscores the necessity of assessing the outcomes of actions from a net-value perspective.

A central concept within ethology is the Net Value of Behavior (BNV), defined as the difference between the benefits (B) and the costs (C) associated with a behavior. This relationship is mathematically expressed by the formula: BNV = B – C. A positive BNV signifies that the benefits exceed the costs, making the behavior advantageous. A negative BNV indicates that costs exceed benefits, making the behavior less favorable. A BNV of zero means the behavior is considered neutral, presenting no distinct advantage or disadvantage.

The frequency of a behavior (BF) is closely correlated with its net value, as represented by the equation BF = f(BNV). The probability of a behavior being repeated is directly proportional to its net value. An individual who encounters a behavior that provides substantial benefits with minimal costs is more likely to repeat it, thereby reinforcing the positive emotional response associated with it.

Merging Neuroscience and Behaviorism

Emotional Learning: Both fields acknowledge that emotional responses can be learned and modified through experience (figs. 3, 4, and 5). Neuroscience explains the underlying brain mechanisms, while behaviorism focuses on observable behaviors and their consequences.
Feedback Loops: Behaviorism’s reinforcement principles align with the neuroscientific understanding of reward pathways. Behaviors leading to positive emotional states activate reward circuits in the brain, possibly reinforcing these behaviors.
Adaptive Significance: Emotions have an adaptive role from an evolutionary perspective. Neuroscience explains this through the brain’s survival mechanisms (e.g., the fear response), while behaviorism interprets it through the lens of behaviors reinforced over time for survival advantages.
Affective Neuroscience: Affective neuroscience explores the neural mechanisms of emotions, offering insights into how emotions are processed and reinforced at the biological level. This field studies how different brain regions (like the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus) and neurotransmitter systems contribute to the formation and reinforcement of emotional experiences.
Emotional Regulation Theory: Emotional regulation involves the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express those emotions. This theory is complex and primarily human-focused, but some aspects can be applied to understanding how pets manage or modify their emotional responses in response to their environment or training. Pets can learn to regulate their emotional responses to stimuli (such as reducing fearfulness or aggression) through training and socialization.
Attachment Theory: Originally formulated to describe the dynamics of human relationships, attachment theory has also been applied to understand the bonds between humans and pets. This theory suggests that the quality of attachment affects emotional security and behavior. Secure attachments can reinforce positive emotions and adaptive behaviors, while insecure attachments may lead to anxiety and maladaptive behaviors. Pets, like humans, can exhibit signs of secure or insecure attachment based on their interactions with their caregivers, which can influence their emotional well-being. The fine line of anthropomorphism should, however, be critically evaluated here.

Fig. 3. A neural model of non-social fear learning in humans. Connectivity is bidirectional, although the arrows point in one direction and describe the flow of information between different brain functional regions. Fear conditioning occurs by associating the conditional stimulus (CS) representation with the somatosensory representation of the unconditional stimulus (US). The lateral nucleus (LA), where CS and US converge, is the site of learning. The amygdala receives information from the hippocampal memory system (Hipp), anterior insula (Al), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which contain secondary representations of the CS and US (information about the learning context and the organism’s internal state). From Olsson et al. (2007).

Fig. 4. In observational fear learning, the CS is modified by its association with a representation of the distressed peer, which serves as the US. The hypothesis of CS and US representations converges in the LA. The strength of the US can be modulated by MPFC input related to the mental interpretation of the other, and by cortical representations of empathic pain through the ACC and the LA. From Olsson et al. (2007).

Fig. 5. Fear-instructed learning occurs by modifying the processing of the visual representation of the CS through an abstract representation of the threat. Consequently, contingency is likely to rely heavily on the hippocampal memory system rather than on the amygdala. From Olsson et al. (2007).

Integrated Emotional Model (IEM)

My suggestion on this topic introduces the Integrated Emotional Model (IEM) for animal training, a direct approach that emphasizes the emotional, cognitive, and social complexities of the individuals we work with. This suggestion encourages a nuanced understanding of animal behavior, steering clear of anthropomorphism, the tendency to attribute human emotions and motivations to other individuals, which can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of their actions and needs.

The IEM focuses on accurately recognizing and interpreting behavioral signals, a crucial skill for tailoring training to each individual’s unique circumstances and promoting their well-being. By carefully avoiding the pitfalls of anthropomorphism and grounding our practices in an evidence-based understanding of animal behavior, the IEM offers a realistic, respectful framework for training that is both effective and considerate of the individual’s emotional state.

In practice, the IEM challenges trainers and owners to be more attuned to the subtle nuances of animal behavior. It underscores the importance of creating training scenarios that are physically safe and emotionally supportive, allowing individuals to learn and thrive without fear or distress.

The Integrated Emotional Model represents a forward-thinking approach to training that prioritizes the health and welfare of the individuals in our care, paving the way for more humane and educated interactions between humans and other species.

Intrinsic Emotional Factors:

An individual’s emotional responses are not solely products of conditioning but are also influenced by inherent factors such as genetics, neurobiology, and temperament.
Neuroscientific research, including fMRI studies, indicates that dogs have complex neural networks for processing emotions, suggesting an innate component to their emotional experiences.
Understanding and accommodating the living (biotic) elements, such as social interactions, health, and nutrition, alongside non-living (abiotic) factors like temperature, habitat structure, and sensory stimuli, ensures training is adapted to each individual’s environmental context, promoting comfort, focus, and optimal learning conditions.

Cognitive and Social Elements:

Dogs demonstrate significant cognitive abilities, including understanding human signals and influencing their emotional responses beyond simple conditioning.
As mentioned, studies in canine social cognition show that dogs are sensitive to human emotions, indicating that their emotional states are shaped by interactions with humans and their environment, not just by reinforcement. A critical perspective on anthropomorphism remains essential here: while recognizing the emotional lives of other individuals, we must avoid projecting human emotions and motivations onto them, as this can lead to misinterpretations and inappropriate responses to their needs. This stance encourages a respectful and nuanced approach to interpreting behaviors and emotional states.

Neurobiological Insights:

The exploration of neurobiology has enriched our understanding of animal emotions, identifying specific brain regions and neurotransmitter systems involved in emotion processing. This parallels human emotional neurobiology and offers insights into the evolutionary continuity of emotional mechanisms across species, emphasizing the importance of a neurobiologically informed approach to training and health care.
The role of neuroendocrine factors, like the oxytocin system, in mediating social bonding and stress responses highlights the biochemical underpinnings of animal emotions. These insights underscore the importance of considering how emotional well-being is linked to physical health and of advocating for training and care practices that support both.

Critical Thinking Models for Practical Analysis:

Systemic Thinking:

Systemic thinking encourages trainers to view the training process as part of a larger system, recognizing the interconnectedness of various elements affecting an animal’s learning and behavior:

Identify Interconnections:: Understand how different aspects of the individual’s life, such as the home environment, interactions with people, and prior training experiences, influence their behavior and response to training.
Holistic Approach: Develop training plans that consider these interconnections, aiming for consistency across environments and situations. This approach ensures that behaviors learned in training are transferable and stable across contexts.

Feedback Loops:

Pay attention to the individual’s feedback during training sessions. This includes direct responses to signals and more subtle signs of stress, confusion, or interaction. Adjust training strategies based on this feedback to create a more responsive and adaptive training process.

Critical Thinking:

Critical thinking in animal training involves questioning assumptions, analyzing information, and evaluating the effectiveness of training methods. Practical steps include:

Question Assumptions: Challenge common beliefs about animal behavior and training methods. This could involve re-evaluating the use of certain reinforcers or punishments based on the latest research or the individual’s specific needs.
Evidence-Based Decisions: Use scientific research and data to inform training practices. This means staying up to date with the latest research in animal behavior and neurobiology and applying those insights to training methodologies.

Reflect and Evaluate:

Regularly assess the results of training sessions, not just in terms of immediate behavior changes but also considering long-term effects on the individual’s emotional and physical well-being. This reflective practice allows for continual improvement and adaptation of training methods.

The “Comfort” Discussion

To finish, I want to address this popular trend. The notion that emotions are immutable has been popularized, in part, by examples of comforting dogs in distress. This belief, appealing due to its emotional resonance and the desire to alleviate animal suffering, ironically can contribute to its proliferation. This trend continues despite contradicting the academic consensus, as shown in the documents and references below, and is propelled by social reinforcement and cultural survival mechanisms.

Many pet owners and trainers advocate comforting dogs during storms, despite their contentious nature and extensive documentation in academic circles. Neuroscience, learning theory, and canine behavior all shed light on the potential drawbacks of this approach. This discussion raises several challenging questions that warrant further exploration:

How do people define comfort, and how do they apply it in various contexts? The subjective nature of comfort can vary significantly among individuals and cultures. What one person perceives as comforting may be distressing to another. This variability complicates the understanding of emotional responses and the appropriateness of comforting behaviors.
What are the long-term effects of comforting behaviors on human and animal emotional development? While immediate comfort may alleviate distress, it is essential to consider whether such interventions promote healthy emotional regulation or inadvertently reinforce maladaptive behaviors. Does comforting a dog during a storm help it cope with future storms, or does it create a dependency on human reassurance?
How do societal norms and cultural beliefs structure our understanding of emotional expression and comfort? Different cultures have varying beliefs about emotional expression, which can influence how comfort is perceived and enacted. Understanding these cultural dimensions can provide insight into the broader implications of comforting behaviors and their acceptance within different communities.
What role does individual temperament play in the effectiveness of comforting strategies? Just as humans have different emotional responses based on personality traits, dogs may also respond differently to comforting behaviors. Some dogs may thrive on reassurance, while others may become more anxious. How can we tailor our approaches to accommodate these individual differences?
How do advancements in neuroscience inform our understanding of emotional responses in humans and other individuals? As neuroscience research continues to evolve, it offers new insights into the mechanisms underlying emotional experiences. How can this knowledge be applied to improve our approaches to comforting behaviors, ensuring they are grounded in scientific understanding rather than anecdotal evidence?
What ethical considerations arise from the practice of comforting individuals in distress? The desire to alleviate suffering is noble, but it is important to examine whether our interventions are genuinely beneficial for the individual’s emotional well-being. Are we prioritizing our emotional needs over the individual’s natural coping mechanisms?

Many pet owners and trainers advocate comforting dogs during storms, despite the contentious nature of this practice and its extensive documentation in academic circles. Neuroscience, learning theory, and canine behavior all shed light on the potential drawbacks of this approach:

Emotional Reinforcement, A Scientific Fact: Contrary to popular belief, neuroscience supports the idea that emotions can be reinforced, with experiences structuring or modifying neural pathways in the brain, thereby influencing emotional responses. This well-established scientific principle has yet to fully permeate the dog training industry, where misconceptions still persist.
The “Double-Edged Sword” of Comfort: Fear conditioning shows that fear-related emotions and behaviors can be reinforced. The effectiveness of comfort as reinforcement varies by individual and situation. If a dog interprets comfort as a positive reinforcement during a storm, this could unintentionally encourage fearful behavior. Alternatively, if the comfort alleviates fear, it may serve as negative reinforcement, encouraging the dog to seek comfort in future stressful situations. This dynamic maps directly onto Mowrer’s (1947) two-process model, in which the relief produced by proximity-seeking negatively reinforces the behavior, simultaneously preserving the conditioned fear state that motivated it in the first place.
The Importance of Fostering Independence: Over-reliance on comfort can hinder a dog’s development of independent coping mechanisms. Autonomy should be encouraged while safe spaces are provided, as both are crucial to a dog’s emotional health, especially when the owner is absent.
The Impact of the Owner’s Emotional State: Dogs are highly sensitive to human emotions, and an owner’s distress can amplify a dog’s fear, creating a compounded reaction to both the storm and the owner’s state of mind.
Inconsistency and Confusion: The unpredictable nature of storms, coupled with inconsistent human reactions, can lead to confusing and potentially harmful comforting practices that negatively affect the dog.
Towards a More Informed Approach: Although the intention behind comforting dogs is compassionate, a deeper understanding of canine emotions and behavior underscores the necessity of a more informed approach. Overlooking scientific research and the individual needs of each dog, and failing to consider the specific context, can reinforce the notion that dogs are perpetually vulnerable. This “poor dog syndrome” becomes a marketing niche, detracting from the need to provide accurate information and promote resilience.

Ethological models also provide a differentiated approach to understanding behavior by evaluating its net value, benefits minus costs, based on observable actions, as mentioned above (Ethology Perspective). This model is particularly useful for analyzing behaviors such as a dog’s response to storms and the owner’s subsequent comforting actions. A storm induces fear in the dog, and the owner’s comforting behavior can then be assessed by quantifying observable benefits, such as physical comfort and perceived safety, against observable costs, such as the time spent and potential disruption to the owner’s routine. A positive net value indicates that the benefits of comforting the dog outweigh the costs, suggesting that this behavior will likely be repeated. If the net value is neutral or negative, meaning the costs outweigh the benefits, the behavior may become less frequent. Although ethology effectively captures the dynamics and consequences of behavioral patterns, it does not directly measure emotional experiences. Instead, it relies on observable actions and outcomes to infer the relative value of behaviors and their impact on future actions.

From a psychological perspective, the owner’s behavior can be understood through concepts such as attachment and emotional regulation. The owner feels a compelling drive toward comforting behaviors, motivated by a desire to alleviate the dog’s visible distress. This need for comfort may stem from the owner’s own emotional discomfort in witnessing the dog’s fear, leading them to seek a sense of control and purpose in the situation.

It is worth noting that, in some cases, the owner benefits more from these interactions than the dog does. Comforting the dog during a storm might provide the owner with an emotional boost from alleviating their own feelings of helplessness or anxiety. This act of comforting can give the owner a sense of purpose and control over a stressful situation, potentially more than it alleviates the dog’s fear. This perspective shifts the focus from the dog’s needs to the owner’s psychological reinforcement.

I could use the term “empathy” here, but I won’t. The term is often used in discussions about dog training and behavior, sometimes as a marketing trend. Although empathy suggests a deep understanding of another’s feelings, it can be misleading in the context of dog behavior. Owners may assume that their comforting actions are what the dog truly needs, but this assumption can overlook the individual’s own coping mechanisms and emotional needs. This reliance on a superfluous concept of empathy in dog training can unintentionally neglect the dog’s ability to develop resilience. Rather than promoting independence, the owner’s comforting behavior may inadvertently reinforce the dog’s fearful behavior, creating a cycle of dependency. The owner, believing they are acting empathetically, may not recognize that their actions could hinder the dog’s emotional growth and ability to cope with stressors independently.

The owner’s anxiety and need for reassurance can also have a significant influence. Faced with a storm, the owner may experience heightened feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty. By comforting the dog, they channel their anxiety into nurturing actions, creating a temporary sense of control over the chaotic environment. This dynamic can lead to a cycle where the owner’s need for comfort becomes a coping mechanism, allowing them to manage their own emotional discomfort while potentially neglecting the dog’s need to learn self-soothing strategies.

This situation can raise ethical questions about dependency and autonomy. A dog’s reliance on its owner for comfort during storms may foster a dependency that complicates its ability to cope with fear independently. The owner’s well-intentioned actions, while rooted in concern, may inadvertently hinder the dog’s emotional growth and resilience. Seeking comfort or help is a common coping mechanism in response to fear, and an individual who feels threatened or anxious will often seek proximity to a trusted figure as part of their fear response (e.g., Hennessy & Kaiser, 2006). This behavior is an aspect of social buffering, a well-documented phenomenon where social support mitigates stress responses in fearful situations (Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013). This paradox highlights the tension between the desire to protect and the need to allow space for self-soothing and personal development.

The concept of existentialism also comes into play as both the dog and the owner navigate their experiences of fear and anxiety. The dog’s fear of storms represents a fundamental aspect of existence, the confrontation with the unknown and the uncontrollable. The owner’s comforting behavior, while an attempt to mitigate this fear, also reflects their struggle with life’s unpredictability. In seeking to provide comfort, the owner grapples with their own existential concerns, revealing the interconnectedness of their emotional states.

Dreschel & Granger (2005) examined interactions among HPA axis activation, owner behavior, relationship quality, and behavioral responses in thunderstorm-phobic dogs and their caregivers. Using a controlled repeated-measures design with 19 dog-owner pairs, all dogs previously diagnosed with thunderstorm phobia, salivary cortisol was collected at baseline, 20 minutes, and 40 minutes after exposure to a simulated thunderstorm played at home.

Dogs exhibited behavioral signals consistent with fear — pacing, whining, and hiding — and canine cortisol rose 207% from baseline, failing to return to baseline within 40 minutes. Owner behavior and the quality of the dog-owner relationship had no significant effect on either the dogs’ HPA reactivity or their behavioral responses; comforting did not reduce the physiological fear response. The only factor associated with a mitigated response was living in a multi-dog household, which correlated with less pronounced cortisol reactivity and faster recovery. The owner’s mood influenced the owner’s behavior toward the dog, but not the dog’s cortisol levels.

The findings provide direct empirical evidence that the physiological fear response in dogs with storm phobia is robust and not easily modulated by owner comforting alone. This supports the argument that fear represents a reinforced neurobiological state that requires targeted behavioral interventions, such as desensitization, counterconditioning, and, where appropriate, pharmacological support for meaningful and lasting change, rather than reassurance as the primary strategy.

In conclusion to this specific topic, providing comfort to dogs during storms requires a balance between compassion and scientific understanding. Without the reinforcement or inhibition of emotions, survival and social relationships would be profoundly compromised, as emotions serve as fundamental guides for adaptation. Fear mobilizes responses that protect against imminent dangers, while joy strengthens social bonds and behaviors that benefit group living. An individual with no emotional mechanism of this kind would neither learn to avoid threats nor seek out experiences that promote safety and well-being, resulting in random, uncoordinated behavior.

In discussions about comforting dogs during thunderstorms, the debate often drifts into moralistic territory, disregarding the function of emotions. Emotions are not simply arbitrary feelings to be indulged or suppressed; they are integral to the survival and social cohesion of both individuals and groups. In relationships, the absence of emotional reinforcement would erode trust and empathy, leaving bonds fragile and unable to support the complex interactions required for coexistence and cooperation.

It is also important to consider the complicated emotional states of canines, the tendency for subjective assumptions, the fine line of anthropomorphism, and the impact of human behavior on them. This will help dogs develop the skills they need to tackle challenges independently. We should move past simplistic notions of vulnerability and strive to develop a more resilient and informed relationship between dogs and their owners. Neuroscience supports the concept that emotions can be reinforced, indicating that comforting a dog during a storm might unintentionally reinforce fearful behavior.

Whether comfort acts as reinforcement depends on the individual and the context; not all individuals will perceive comfort similarly, and not all situations will lead to comfort acting as a reinforcer.

Multimedia

Playlist “Animal Like Us”: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTOUyQcU3JG38kwqjUnxhn0zFRHA5dB09
https://youtu.be/a9LjXHtLvlY

References

Adolphs R. (2013). The biology of fear. Current biology: C.B., 23(2), R79–R93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.055

Adolphs, R., & Anderson, D. J. (2018). The neuroscience of emotion: A New Synthesis. Princeton University Press.

Barata, R. (2012). Dominance in Dogs: A Comprehensive Scientific Compilation. Human-Animal Science.

Barrett, L. F., & Satpute, A. B. (2013). “Large-scale brain networks in affective and social neuroscience: Towards an integrative functional architecture of the brain.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 361-372.

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. Second Edition. Guilford Press.

Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. New World Library.

Bradshaw, J. (2011). Dog sense: How the new science of dog behavior can make you a better friend to your pet. Basic Books.

Bush, D. E., Sotres-Bayon, F., & LeDoux, J. E. (2007). Individual differences in fear: isolating fear reactivity and fear recovery phenotypes. Journal of traumatic stress, 20(4), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20261

Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange Theory of Emotions: A Critical Examination and an Alternative Theory. Psychological Review, 34(6), 106.

Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (2011). Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience. Wiley-Blackwell.

Dalgleish, T. (2004). The emotional brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(7), 583–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1432

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam.

Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt.

Della Sala, D. (Ed.). (2020). Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience (2nd ed.). Elsevier.

Dinsmoor, J. A. (2004). The etymology of basic concepts in the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(3), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.82-311

Dreschel, N. A., & Granger, D. A. (2005). Physiological and behavioral reactivity to stress in thunderstorm-phobic dogs and their caregivers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95(3–4), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.009

Duggins, P., & Eliasmith, C. (2024). A scalable spiking amygdala model that explains fear conditioning, extinction, renewal and generalization. European Journal of Neuroscience, 59(11), 3093–3116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16338

Ekman P. (1992). Are there basic emotions?. Psychological review, 99(3), 550–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.3.550

Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In P. Ekman & R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 15–19). New York: Oxford University Press.

English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms: A guide to usage. Longmans, Green.

Farah, M. J. (2011). Neuroscience and neuroethics in the 21st century. In Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199570706.013.0172

Feinstein, J. S., Buzza, C., Hurlemann, R., Follmer, R. L., Dahdaleh, N. S., Coryell, W. H., Welsh, M. J., Tranel, D., & Wemmie, J. A. (2013). Fear and panic in humans with bilateral amygdala damage. Nature Neuroscience, 16(3), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3323

Fitzpatrick, S. (1990). Russians on the psyche: A review. Science, 248, 881-883.

Gallistel, C. R., Fairhurst, S., & Balsam, P. (2004b). The learning curve: Implications of a quantitative analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(36), 13124–13131. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404965101

Goldman, J. G. (2012). What is classical conditioning? (And why does it matter?). Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/thoughtful-animal/what-is-classical-conditioning-and-why-does-it-matter/

Gordon, R. M. (2008). Beyond mindreading. Philosophical Explorations, 11(3), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790802239250

Hennenlotter, A., Dresel, C., Castrop, F., Ceballos-Baumann, A.O., Wohlschläger, A.M., & Haslinger, B. (2009). The link between facial feedback and neural activity within central circuitries of emotion–new insights from botulinum toxin-induced denervation of frown muscles. Cerebral cortex, 19 3, 537-42 .

Hennessy, M. B., & Kaiser, S. (2006). Social buffering of the stress response: Diversity, mechanisms, and functions. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 27(3), 274-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.06.001

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Hostinar, C. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2013). The developmental psychobiology of stress and emotion in childhood. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, J. Mistry, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Developmental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 121–141). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

James, W. (1884). What is an Emotion?. Mind, 9(34), 188-205.

Jardat, P., & Lansade, L. (2021). Cognition and the human-animal relationship: a review of the sociocognitive skills of domestic mammals toward humans. Animal Cognition, 25(2), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01557-6

Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2014). Brain Plasticity and Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 441-470.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

LeDoux, J. E. (2012). Rethinking the Emotional Brain. Neuron, 73(4), 653-676.

LeDoux, J. E. (2014). Coming to terms with fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(8), 2871–2878. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400335111

Mackintosh, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. Academic Press.

MacLean, P. D. (1990). The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. Plenum Press.

McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873–904. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2006

Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., & Paul, E. S. (2010). An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1696), 2895-2904.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.

Miklosi, A. (2007). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford University Press.

Morris, R. W., & Bouton, M. E. (2006). Effect of unconditioned stimulus magnitude on the emergence of conditioned responding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.32.4.371

Mowrer, O. H. (1947). On the dual nature of learning—a re-interpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-solving.” Harvard Educational Review, 17, 102–148.

Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. Freeman.

Neimeyer, R. A. (1995). An invitation to constructivist psychotherapies. In R. A. Neimeyer & M.J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism is psychology (pp. 1–8). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Social learning of fear. Nature Neuroscience, 10(7), 1095–1102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1968

Olson, M. & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2016). An Introduction to Theories of Learning, Ninth edition. Psychology Press.

Panksepp, J. (1994). The basics of basic emotion. In P. Ekman & R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 20–24). New York: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Panksepp, J. (2005). Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(1), 30-80.

Panksepp, J., & Biven, L. (2012). The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. Norton & Company.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Oxford University Press.

Pavlov, I. P. (1960). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Dover. (Original work published 1927).

Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: From animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48(2), 175-187.

Plas, S. L., Tuna, T., Bayer, H., Juliano, V. A. L., Sweck, S. O., Arellano Perez, A. D., Hassell, J. E., & Maren, S. (2024). Neural circuits for the adaptive regulation of fear and extinction memory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 18, 1352797. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1352797

Ray, W. J. (2024). Fundamentals of brain and behavior: An Introduction to Human Neuroscience.

Reevy, G., Ozer, Y. M., & Ito, Y. (2010). Encyclopedia of Emotion. Abc-clio.

Rescorla, R., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.

Rolls, E. T. (2013). Emotion and Decision Making Explained. Oxford University Press.

Roskies, A. L., & Morse, S. J. (2013). Neuroscience and the law. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 240–255). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199859177.003.0009

Sartre, J. P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Washington, DC: Washington Square Press.

Schacter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046234

Schoenfeld, W. N. (1978). “Reinforcement” in behavior theory. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 13, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03001385

Schoenfeld, W. N. (1995). “Reinforcement” in behavior theory. The Behavior Analyst, 18(1), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392705

Shepherd, S. V. (2017). The Wiley Handbook of Evolutionary Neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons.

Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior. Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell Publishing.

Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a Hostile World: The Evolution of Human Cognition. Blackwell Publishing.

Wallis, L., Range, F., Müller, C., Serisier, S., Huber, L., & Viranyi, Z. (2013). Age effects on interspecific communicative abilities of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 8(4), e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.04.016

Windholz, G. (1989). The discovery of the principles of reinforcement, extinction, generalization, and differentiation of conditional reflexes in Pavlov’s laboratories. The Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 24(2), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02964534

Yokoyama, O. (2023). Pavlov on the Conditional Reflex. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190941871.001.0001