Image
Giving and Taking Away: Rethinking Food Tubes

Giving and Taking Away: Rethinking Food Tubes

A small, white bowl with a black plastic spoon

It may have begun with the milk bowl.

When I eat popcorn, I dip each piece in milk before I eat it. And as long as I’ve had dogs, I’ve shared the leftover milk with them after I’m done. I hold the bowl in front of one dog while the other waits, then, before Dog 1 has time to finish the milk, I pull it away and offer some to Dog 2. And on to Dog 3 when I had that many. I try to divide it up fairly, with each dog getting a portion adjusted for their size.

I’ve done the same when there was a cooking pan with safe food residue to lick out. Let one dog lick for a while, then pull it away and offer it to the next dog.

I have also used food tubes and spray cheese with my dogs a lot during training and conditioning. I squeeze out a swallow for the dog, then pull the container away. I’ve done the same when I’ve tried commercial squeeze tube and lickable products.

And early in my training journey, I learned to dole out multiple treats from one hand, setting the rate of reinforcement and holding some treats back according to my choice.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Do you think the removal of the thing they are currently eating—food that might be right there flowing into their mouth—is fun for a dog? Might it be . . . aversive?

Why Did I Start Reconsidering Food Tubes?

When Kate Woods of Train and Simple Dog Behaviour mentioned in a course the aversive nature of removing the bulk of something a dog was eating mid-slurp, it wasn’t the first time I’d heard this. But it was the first time I paid attention.

Credit where credit is due. Years ago, in one of Susan Garrett’s books or videos, she instructed us not to hold a handful of treats in the same hand we used to dole them out with. She pointed out that at the same time we were giving the dog one treat, we were pulling 15 away from them. I didn’t heed Susan Garrett’s advice, which was unusual for me. I sometimes still carried multiple treats in my treating hand. 

I noticed recently how adept Lewis has gotten at forcing his nose into my hand that’s closed around the group of treats to try to get them all at once. I saw this as an annoying dog behavior, but really, who was being annoying?

Is Punishment Happening When We Pull Food Away?

An event can be aversive without a decrease in behavior happening as a result, or there can be a decrease that is hard to perceive. So even trainers who seek to make training a joyful experience for their dog and to use the least coercive methods possible may not catch it.

A closeup of the threaded end of a food tube that shows many bite marks from dogs

For instance, every one of my dogs has loved canned cat food. Throwing a food tube full of it was a tremendous reinforcer when I used to play agility with Summer and Zani. I saw it enhance their love of the game; it was such a difference from the other moderate-to-high-value food I had used. So, in that increase in joy and performance, how would I notice a downside of my pulling the food away mid-swallow? The “net joy” (total joy minus the effects of my pulling the tube away) was still greater than the gross joy of whatever good treats I had given them before.

Keep in mind that pulling food away contingently on an undesired behavior is negative punishment, if that behavior decreases. It’s the same move! The difference is that in most dogs, it’s hard to see a decrease in “treat eating” or some micro-behavior that’s involved in eating.

In the agility scenario, I didn’t see a punished behavior because the value of the food was so massive. But it didn’t mean this was all perfect and nice for the dog.

There was one clue. There are permanent teeth marks on the threads of the food tubes from where my dogs would try to grab them as I pulled them away. I remember what it felt like when they did that, but I didn’t think about it empathetically. I just pulled it away. “Hey, time for the other dog to run—you’ll get some more later!”

Hey, Choice and Control People!

We do so many things to control our dogs and make choices for them. Some are necessary for their survival and well-being. Some are for our own convenience. Some are—thoughtless? Out of habit?

I love that people are thinking about things like degrees of freedom and opt-out stations with the goal of making training and behavior change the least coercive they can be. And oh, yes, positive reinforcement training can be coercive.

Using a high-value food tube for husbandry with no opt-out setup—that’s the essence of R+ coercion. (And yes, I’ve done that plenty.) Even with an opt-out contingency it’s not great if we are still pulling the food away when we want them to stop.

We usually use food tubes to deliver very high-value food. Something the dog really, really wants. Then we pull it away while food is still flowing into their mouth or available to their tongues. So let’s put “getting to eat without a person jerking the yummy thing back” on our lists of how to give dogs more agency in their lives.

OMG Classical Conditioning

Agility was the primary activity in which I used food tubes. But I also used it for classical conditioning in husbandry and to help dogs get through scary situations. Classical conditioning is tricky; so many things can sneak in to ruin the pairing. The function of the food is to change the dog’s emotional response. Why would I want to tag each bite of food with a little “Dammit, why can’t I have the rest!” for the dog at the end?

How Can We Give Our Dogs Soft or Liquid Treats?

We can set up a bowl or can of soft food well out of reach of the dog. Then we can use a spoon or a rubber or silicone spatula to give the dog a bite and let them finish the whole bite. Or dump or spray soft food onto a target for the dog to lick off.

“Well out of reach of the dog” relates to what most of us know experientially. For instance, if we’re training a dog not to take food that is on the ground, we start our training with the food a distance away from the dog and gradually work it closer. There is also good evidence in human research that proximity and visibility are linked with the likelihood that we will eat something (Wadhera & Capaldi-Phillips, 2014). There is reason to think this could carry over to other mammals. For dogs, we would weigh the effects of olfactory stimuli, as well.

For something like a vet visit, you can use preloaded syringes of food (no needles!).  

I think the frustration level for the dog may vary between these food delivery methods. For example, see the photos below, which are roughly at the same scale. Spray cheese is controlled by a valve, and if you let the dog lick up all they can from the small nozzle after the valve closes, perhaps that’s less frustrating that pulling away the open food tube with its larger opening.

I’ll probably keep a food tube. There may be a circumstance where it is so uniquely helpful that I’ll be willing to inflict the frustration of pulling it away from my dog. But for now, I’m learning to use a spoon for soft food, and cleaning up my act with treats I deliver by hand.

But Doling Treats Out Piece by Piece is Controlling, Too!

Yep! We control our dogs all the time. Traditional R+ training is controlling, particularly when the dog has only one way to access the reinforcer. So why would we want to make it even more controlled? We already put contingencies on when a dog gets a treat; that’s the essence of building behavior well. So why add another layer of control that says, “I’m going to give you this treat but not let you finish it.”

I have long been troubled by food toys that merely slow dogs’ eating down. Would dogs choose that? Some toys seem fun, others, not so much. It’s odd that I questioned the kindness of drawing out a dog’s eating session, but didn’t seriously consider the practice of interrupting it after every bite. But these two issues are connected. In both cases, we are putting contingencies about how (and how fast) the dog eats.

Will I Take Down My Old Posts?

I’ve been using food tubes and spray cheese for delivering food on and off for years. I have several posts about them, and I even provide recipes.

I’m putting a caveat at the beginning of each post and keeping the posts up. I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I have a wide audience. It’s still hard to get people to use good food, or food at all, when training. I can’t judge the frustration factor for individual dogs out there, but I’m guessing that most would prefer getting some good food, overly controlled by the human, than none.

Is This Too Trivial for a Whole Post?

There are huge welfare considerations for dogs and all animals, domesticated and wild. Dog training advice on social media has gotten worse when I didn’t think it could, with showy, cruel trainers getting tons of traction. But thinking about how the small things work helps me conceptually with the bigger things. And this issue gives me, and perhaps others, a way to make our dogs’ lives a little sweeter.

Epilogue

The last time I ate popcorn, I grabbed another bowl and poured part of the leftover milk into it so each dog had their own bowl. They didn’t thank me or anything, but each could drink all their milk and lick out their own bowl as thoroughly as they pleased. It gave me joy to see them taking their time, getting all the good stuff.

References

Wadhera, D., & Capaldi-Phillips, E. D. (2014). A review of visual cues associated with food on food acceptance and consumption. Eating behaviors15(1), 132-143.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

Related Posts

6 Ways to Prepare Your Dog for Fireworks Starting NOW

6 Ways to Prepare Your Dog for Fireworks Starting NOW

Photo looking down at a white dog with brown on his face and one ear. His tail is down, ears pulled back, and his face is sad and stressed
We haven’t seen this look in a while—sound-phobic Lewis is doing far better now with meds and careful training

Is your dog scared of fireworks? Don’t wait until the holiday hits. Even with just two weeks of lead time, you can plan and act now to help your dog be less afraid of the scary, unpredictable sounds of fireworks, firecrackers, whistles, and even guns.

Get Ready

Here are some things you can do starting today.

A black and rust hound mix is standing in a vet exam room, tilting her head quizzically
Zani says, “What are we at the vet for this time?”

1. Most important: contact your vet, now.


If your dog gets very anxious about noises and you have never talked to your vet about it, do so now. They may be able to prescribe something to help. If your dog has never had a full medical workup for pain, that should be started. More and more evidence shows that a large percentage of behavior issues, including sound phobias, are because of pain (Mills et al., 2020). Diagnosis can take time, but in the meantime, your vet can likely help with some situational meds. Sound reactivity and phobia are long-term problems that usually get worse without intervention. They are not something to be taken lightly. More information about meds in this post.

2. Countercondition to noises.

Get some great treats and start carrying them around. Whenever there is any kind of sudden or startling noise, including stray bangs and booms as people test their noisemakers, rain treats down on your dog. Use those special treats only for noises; don’t pass them out for nice behavior (use something else for that!), and don’t ask for any particular behavior from your dog when the noise occurs. Just give the special treats.

You may wonder why I am not recommending buying an app or CD, or using a YouTube video with fireworks sounds to “practice” with. Performing desensitization/counterconditioning with sounds is tricky.  People who haven’t done DS/CC before run a real risk of scaring their dogs further instead of helping them. This is why I am suggesting this method, which uses environmental noises that are happening anyway. It’s called ad hoc counterconditioning and there is evidence from studies that it is effective, including this study that is specific to fireworks (Riemer, 2020). Save the formal training for after the holiday, when your dog is less likely to experience accidental exposures to the sound.

3. Create a safe place.

Make (or adapt) a safe place for your dog. They may even choose their own! Refrain from trying to get them to come out or change locations, as long as it is safe. Keep in mind that the flashes of light that come with big fireworks displays can be scary too, so consider a method to temporarily darken any windows nearby. Also, please know that acoustic foam and even sound blankets don’t block the booms. The big fireworks sounds can’t be “soundproofed” against except with materials that are much too big and heavy to use inside most houses and are not do-it-yourself friendly. Get the best protection you can in a basement or your most internal room. Despite the marketing claims, dog earmuffs or dog crates with walls a few inches thick can’t dampen low-frequency sounds to an effective degree, either. The walls of your house are probably five to ten inches thick and include insulation, but you can still hear thunder inside your house, right? But if a crate is your dog’s safe place, that’s great. And a blanket over it can muffle echoes and may create a cozy feeling for some dogs. Here are some examples of safe places for dogs.

A black and white rat terrier is relaxed, tucked between piled pillows and blankets
Cricket liked her cozy place on the bed next to me

4. Play sound or music.

Experiment with sound masking to find out what is most helpful for your situation. Try some kind of recorded white or brown noise, natural noise, a fan, or music to mask the pops and booms. (Even a noisy food toy can be helpful.) This approach is evidence-based and is called sound masking. You can even create your own recording of household noise or noises.

And here’s a tip: the lower the frequencies included in the masking or music, the better it can hide those low-pitched booms (Kinsler et al., 1999, p.318–320; Gelfand, 2017, p. 187). So, if your dogs are already habituated to pounding rock music, metal, or something else with a lot of bass or percussion, play it! And play it on your best sound system to include those low frequencies. It can mask some of the scary noises coming from outside your house more effectively. Before anyone mentions it: that’s right, heavy metal has not ranked well in the dogs and music studies, tending to make shelter dogs more agitated (Kogan et al., 2012). That’s not surprising. But if you play it already and your dogs are fine with it, they are habituated. In that case, this music could be the very thing for you and your dog.

Taiko drumming is great if your dogs are accustomed to it. You can buy a few songs and loop them or find some on YouTube. But be absolutely certain that the music itself doesn’t scare your dogs first. If they are already sensitive to booms, it’s a strong possibility.

Household appliances can help. Most fans hit low frequencies and can be helpful. You can run the dryer (no heat) with a pair of sports shoes in it for some booms that will probably be familiar and not scary. You’ll need to find the line of best fit for your dogs. And you can use several of these at once, again, as long as they don’t scare your dog.

The evidence supporting certain music being relaxing for dogs is comparatively weak (Lindig et al., 2020), and all the reviewed studies were performed in clinics and shelters, not homes. So it’s best to choose music or sound based on its ability to mask, rather than for claimed relaxing qualities.

5. Make safety preparations and practice going out.

Many dogs bolt from fear and are lost in the first week of July in the U.S. Check your gate locks, keep your dogs’ ID tags on, and create a redundant safety system. Make a plan for taking your dog out to potty. Do you know when the noise is usually at its worst and can you work around that? Are your fences and/or leash and harness secure? If your dog is not used to being on leash for potty time, start practicing now, including getting the harness on. Dogs who are usually sedate may panic and run off on noisy holidays. Don’t let that happen.  

Image
Lewis sometimes likes to be close to me when he is scared, and sometimes prefers to hide

6. Comfort your dog if that helps.

LOSE that idea that there’s something wrong with comforting your dog, if that’s what your dog wants. Helping a dog through a tough time is not “coddling.” Assess what is most helpful to your dog: a cuddle, food or a fun game after every scary noise, some lap time, sweet talk, being in their crate with a food toy, or hiding by themselves in a secluded place. Then help them do it. If they want to hide, let them.

Check out more resources and tips on my page “You Can’t Reinforce Fear.

Another good resource is this article by Val Hughes: My Dog Fears Fireworks and Thunderstorms—What Should I Do To Help? Her article has suggestions for both long- and short-term solutions.

References

Gelfand, S. A. (2017). Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics. CRC Press.

Kinsler, L. E., Frey, A. R., Coppens, A. B., & Sanders, J. V. (2000). Fundamentals of acoustics. John Wiley & Sons.

Kogan, L. R., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., & Simon, A. A. (2012). Behavioral effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior7(5), 268-275.

Lindig, A. M., McGreevy, P. D., & Crean, A. J. (2020). Musical dogs: A review of the influence of auditory enrichment on canine health and behavior. Animals10(1), 127.

Mills, D. S., Demontigny-Bédard, I., Gruen, M., Klinck, M. P., McPeake, K. J., Barcelos, A. M., … & Levine, E. (2020). Pain and problem behavior in cats and dogs. Animals10(2), 318.

Riemer, S. (2020). Effectiveness of treatments for firework fears in dogs. Journal of veterinary behavior37, 61-70.

© Eileen Anderson 2015, 2026 

The Most Important Thing to Know about Ear Protection for Dogs

The Most Important Thing to Know about Ear Protection for Dogs

A standing brown and white stuffed dog wears Mutt Muffs ear protection
Feisty wearing ear protection

Most of you are going to be disappointed if you buy ear protection (muffs, hoods) for your thunder- or firework-phobic dog. I’m going to give you enough information here to decide whether ear protection might help, and you can decide for yourself.

The Problem with Ear Protection for Low-Frequency Noises

The most important thing to know about ear protection for dogs is that it won’t work well against thunder and fireworks. No matter the marketing claims, no matter the good fit. It can’t.

The protection from sound that barriers like ear gear can provide isn’t the same for high-pitched and low-pitched noises. Ear gear can prevent the transmission of sound well at high frequencies (birdsong, digital beeps, whistling, bats, and higher noises we can’t hear) and poorly at low frequencies like thunder and fireworks. Low-frequency sound waves are gigantic pressure waves that are so much larger than the inch of material in ear muffs that they go straight through them with much less decrease in volume than higher frequencies do. That’s physics—you can’t get around it.

Text: "Even the best earmuffs and hoods don't work well as ear protection against low-frequency sounds. Sincerely, Physics"

Also, sound waves, especially low-frequency ones, travel through our skulls (Stenfelt & Goode, 2005). They don’t have to enter through the ear canal. This almost certainly happens to dogs as well, since their auditory systems have similar physical structures.

When your dog wears ear protection, there will be some decrease in the volume of the low-frequency sounds, but they will still hear those sounds just fine. We tend to imagine that sound barriers block sound completely, but they don’t. Ear protection will not create anything resembling silence for your dog. Active noise control systems were invented because passive sound barriers are insufficient for low-frequency noises. Please read the first paragraph in the linked article. It’s by two of the most eminent acousticians in Great Britain, experts on noise control.

In graduate school, I worked with loud, low-frequency sound. I went to a gun store and purchased the best quality ear protection I could find. I doubled up with foam earplugs. I couldn’t hear my teacher well enough to understand his speech when he was standing right in front of me, but I could still hear our 125 Hz sound signal loud and clear. I could feel it in my body. But it was diminished enough by my gear that I didn’t get ear damage.

Speaking of preventing ear damage—this is the original purpose some ear protection for dogs was brought to market. Mutt Muffs, for example, were marketed to people who took their dogs on motorcycles or private planes. In that situation, even a 10-decibel (dB) decrease can make a difference.

What about That “30 dB Decrease in Sound” Some Products Claim?

Illustration of a red flag

This talking point is actually a red flag.

Many sound products advertise a “30 dB decrease in sound” for their product. When they compute that decrease, they are computing across the whole sound spectrum, so it’s something like an average. There are complications that mean it’s not exactly an average, but for our purposes we can think of it that way. The important thing is that they are computing over all frequencies. So while you might get 40 dB or more reduction for higher frequencies, you might only be getting12 dB reduction on a 110 dB thunderclap. And even if you got 20 dB on that thunderclap, it would still be awfully loud.

So, this “30 dB” claim does not mean that the sound waves from thunder and fireworks are reduced by that amount. An honest company will tell you that, and provide a spectral analysis—a graph that shows the reduction in each frequency range. A less honest company will stick with the “30 dB decrease,” and hope you assume that applies to the sounds your dog is concerned about. Acoustics is counterintuituve and most of us get no training in it, so we would have no reason to disbelieve them.

“Noise-Canceling”: Another Red Flag

Illustration of a red flag

There is a headset with electronics on the market that is advertised to perform active noise cancelation for dogs. I wrote a full review of it. But I’m bringing up the term here because it is sometimes used to advertise non-electronic ear protection like I’m discussing here. The latter is a deceptive use of the term. If headphones don’t have batteries and electronics in them, they are performing passive sound reduction, not active. Another inaccurate term used is “sound-blocking.” I wouldn’t buy a product that uses disingenuous terminology to make sales.

Final Red Flag: “It’s Patented!”

Illustration of a red flag

There is at least one ear protection product whose marketing leans heavily on the fact that they have a patent. I’ve looked it up, and it’s true. But the patent is for how the gear fits and fastens around the dog’s head. It doesn’t have anything to do with the product’s ability to prevent sound from entering the ears.

Which Dogs Might Benefit

If your dog is not worried when they hear fireworks or thunder from far away, then ear protection might work for closer noises. The dog will still hear them, but they will be diminished somewhat. Some might be decreased to the level of far-off sounds. For some dogs, this decrease in volume might help.

But many dogs with clinical sound phobia learn that those rumbles in the distance are precursors to the louder ones. That’s how conditioned fear works: a stimulus that predicts something scary can become scary itself. My dog Lewis is afraid of far-off, relatively quiet thunder. So a gadget that made closer thunder sound far off wouldn’t help.

And no gear can help with those thunderclaps that are close or right on top of us. They will still be very loud, even through earmuffs.

How to Choose

None of these products are going to be super effective at preventing the transmission of low-frequency waves. But if I still wanted to try some, I’d look closer at the company’s marketing. I won’t buy from a company that makes fraudulent claims.

Of the ear protection products I know of, Rex Specs has the most honest marketing. They publish a spectral analysis and point out that their Ear Pro is less effective at lower frequencies. I don’t know whether their product is superior to others in performance, but they’ve shown us honestly what it can do. Hush Muffs also gives a good accounting of what the product can do, but, being a cloth-based item, it attenuates sound less. On the other hand, 4Paws Aviation K-9 Ear Muffs publishes misleading information. They claim a 41 dB reduction in sound, but they completely eliminate low frequencies from the computation, which inflates the average. (If they have disclosed that omission and acknowledged the effect of it on their site, please let me know and I will amend my remarks.)

Finally, I would weigh the effort of conditioning the gear against the gamble of a benefit. See below.

Conditioning

I mentioned above that items or events that predict scary things become scary themselves. Unfortunately, this can work perfectly for the event of “bringing out the earmuffs.” If you use them without first conditioning them, they can become a perfect predictor of “SCARY NOISES COMING.” So you need to condition them—separately from loud noises—to predict great things. And even after they are conditioned, you would ideally have your dog wear them (and get good stuff) for time periods without scary sounds.

So if you decide to try this kind of gear, you’ll need to condition the hell out of them with a very careful protocol. If this is above your skill level (it’s above mine for my current dog), get help from a positive-reinforcement based trainer who specializes in husbandry.

That’s a whole lot of prep work for something that might not be effective. But it could be worth it for some dogs, such as those who are bothered only by the loudest thunder or fireworks.

A tan dog with a black muzzle has her mouth open in a smile while she wears ear protection
Clara briefly modeling Mutt Muffs after a very quick conditioning session with play

A Better Use for Ear Protection

I’ve been planning to write another piece on this, but what the heck. You know what situation calls for ear protection? Grooming. That’s because the noises of grooming—clipping and drying—have high frequencies and are often very close to the dog’s head. Ear gear could help a lot. I tested a standard handheld hair drier for humans with my ultrasound mic and found that it puts out loud ultrasound as well as the frequencies we can hear. Those gadgets are even louder than we humans can perceive. But dogs with normal hearing will hear all of it—unless they can wear good quality ear protection, which works well against high-frequency sounds.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

Related Posts

References

Elliott, S. J., & Nelson, P. A. (1993). Active noise control. IEEE signal processing magazine10(4), 12-35.

Stenfelt, S., & Goode, R. L. (2005). Bone-conducted sound: physiological and clinical aspects. Otology & neurotology26(6), 1245-1261.

Wagnific: A Review of the Product and Its Marketing

Wagnific: A Review of the Product and Its Marketing

Image

Is Wagnific a scam? If you came here because of issues around being overcharged, check out the Better Business Bureau’s report on them.

I’m here to talk about whether the music is what they say it is and does what they say it does.

This new music-for-dogs product has come out with some extreme claims. Its marketing page states it can:

  • Alleviate anxiety
  • Minimize barking
  • Control aggression
  • Boost immune system and overall health
  • Improve sleep
  • Reduce noise sensitivity

Wow, it does it all! Maybe it cures cancer, too?

Their page is like a bingo card of typical BS about sound products for dogs. Their descriptions include buzzwords like “natural frequencies,” “resonance,” “mimicking resting heart rate,” and most important, “natural.” But first let’s talk about the music itself. What’s it like?

Wagnific’s Music

I took one for the team and paid my $19 and endured a subsequent flood of upselling emails from Wagnific, not to mention that I listened to and analyzed the music.

Three racks of buttons, sliders, and some wires comprising a modular synthesizer.
Eurorack Modular Synthesizer

This music is all likely generated electronically. There are possible exceptions in a couple of pieces (with acoustic guitar or a sound-alike), but most or all of the sounds are not created by acoustic instruments.

To convey what much of this music sounds like, I need to tell you about synth pads. These are background washes of sound, usually big chords, that are generated by a synthesizer. Here’s a quick example of a pad with a good demonstration of its function. Synth pads have been popular in dog music for a while, I believe because they add a richness that humans enjoy and can also provide an ultra-slow harmonic progression that conveys calm to some people (and makes others want to climb the walls). Here’s a piece of music that is based entirely on pads. It’s important to note, though, that dogs don’t hear as well in the lower ranges that pads usually include, so they probably do not hear the richness and depth that we do. (In case you haven’t realized, the target audience for “calming music for dogs” is actually humans.)

On the access page are seven ten-minute pieces, one to be played each day for their “7-Day Nervous System Healing.” In addition, they include four bonus tracks to: “ease separation anxiety,” “calm your dog during thunderstorms, fireworks, and other loud noise events,” “soften whining and barking,” and to support “recovery and relaxation during illness or after veterinary procedures.”

Of these eleven pieces, four are mainly synth pad and nature sounds, three have piano (or a piano-like sound) with heavy use of synth pad, two are mainly acoustic guitar or harp (but probably synthesized), one is a very loud and dense pad-heavy piece with some moving inner parts that are hard to hear, and one is a synth pad with percussion and some odd high frequencies that might be trying to mimic insect (nature?) sounds. Ironically, this droning buzz would probably be the part that dogs heard best.

This music is nothing to write home about. The pieces sound like off-the-shelf tracks you can buy on a site like Pond5. To hear similar pieces, search YouTube for music with the keywords, “New Age,” “Meditation,” Relaxation,” “Yoga,” or “Ambient.”

So, let’s see if this very ordinary music lives up to the odd and extreme claims.

We Use “Special” Frequencies!

This is a popular talking point with music-for-dogs purveyors, and Wagnific’s version is particularly silly. Here’s a quote from the “Science” section of the front page of their site.

Natural Frequencies: Specific range of frequencies between 432Hz and 639Hz. These are chosen because they resonate closely with the natural frequencies found in the body, promoting harmony and balance.”

OK, first off, whose body? Natural frequencies relate to body parts or whole bodies, and dogs have one of the widest varieties of sizes of any mammal on the planet. I would love for Wagnific to tell me which body parts (on which dogs) resonate to those frequencies. There are a few studies on the natural frequencies of human bones and organs, but a quick look through Google Scholar didn’t turn up any for dogs, although there were some on other mechanical properties of bones in dogs.

And as far as “promoting harmony and balance,” I have a whole post written on the absurdity of the claims about external sounds resonating in the bodies of humans or dogs and having magic effects.

Here are the frequencies they mention in the marketing point I quoted above. For your listening pleasure, I generated a sine wave with five seconds of each. Listen to hear the magic!

432 Hz tone
639 Hz tone

They Got the Pseudoscience Wrong

I do know why they picked those frequencies. The frequencies 432 and 639 Hz are both popular in pseudoscience; just look them up on YouTube. They are each purported to have magical qualities. But remember, each of them is just one tone. Wagnific didn’t even get the pseudoscience right. Note that they said “between” those two frequencies. They counted on people recognizing the numbers as having some purported glamor. But they simply made them into boundaries of a “range” of frequencies, instead of exact frequencies with supposed individual characteristics, as is usually claimed.

An 88-key piano keyboard with Middle C marked, and the notes a, b-flat, b, and c above it in a red box.
The red box shows the approximate location and range of the “special” frequencies on an 88-key keyboard. Of course, it depends on what pitch the instrument is tuned to. Both named frequencies are not included in standard turning, so don’t correspond exactly to any of the keys.

And you know what’s funny? This frequency “range” is not in dogs’ optimal hearing range, which centers on 8,000 Hz. It’s pretty low for dogs.

But wait, there’s more! On the paid access page to the music, in answer to an FAQ question about whether senior dogs can hear the music, they say, “Even dogs with mild hearing loss can often still detect the specific frequencies we use (432Hz and 528Hz).” So, which is it, folks? Is it a range, or is it those “specific” frequencies? Not to mention—which frequencies? The second one is different on this page. It (528 Hz) is yet another frequency popular in pseudoscience.

You can always tell when someone who doesn’t understand frequency uses that word.

Nevertheless, does Wagnific’s music include frequencies between 432 and 639 Hz as they claim? Or the individual frequencies of 432 and 528 Hz? The second claim is easy to check. No. Those frequencies didn’t pop out in the spectral analysis except in one piece (Day 5). As for the “range” claim—yes, frequencies in that range are present. But they’re in a central range for almost all human vocal and instrumental music, and were more prominent in several random “meditation” tracks I checked from other sources.

If you think I’m writing an awful lot about this—remember Brandolini’s Law, or the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. And I haven’t even begun to cover all the nonsense from this company!

Music That Matches Heart Rate (Except They Got It Wrong)

Again, Wagnific wins last place.

Now, it’s a common claim that the tempo of some music matches the resting heart rate and that there are benefits to this (you can look up “entrainment”). And in the research about the effect of music on humans, that’s one of the few things that has some evidence behind it. But the many papers have varied results.

So, the purveyors of dog music like to mention synchronization or entrainment between music tempo and heart rate. However, it appears that Wagnific didn’t bother to look up information about dogs’ heart rates.

A large, fluffy Great Pyrannees mix dog is facing a black pug who is standing on a rock so they are face-to-face. Their mouths are open with playful grins.
If buddies Angus and Jem were to rest (I’ve heard that they do) their resting heart rates would likely be different from each other and probably at least one would be outside the human range

Their claim:

Precise Beats Per Minute: (60–80 BPM) Tunes set to a tempo of 60–80 beats per minute (BPM), mimicking the calming effect of a dog’s resting heart rate, leading to physiological changes that promote obedience and focus.”

Except 60–80 bpm is NOT the dog’s resting heart rate. Wagnific used the numbers for human resting heart rates! The Merck veterinary manual states the range of dogs’ resting heart rates as 70–120 beats per minute.

So, even though it’s the wrong range, is Wagnific’s music paced at 60–80 beats per minute as they say it is? Most of it isn’t. Out of the eleven pieces I analyzed, just four had an audible beat in that range. The majority (six) didn’t have much of a beat at all; they were just washes of different synth pads without a lot of rhythm. Some of those had an implied beat around 40 bpm. I say “implied” because it’s hard to hear. One had a beat that was tinkered with to where it was irregular (rubato). Most of the pieces have the OPPOSITE of “precise beats per minute.” You would be hard put to even tap out a rhythm when you heard those.

Naturalistic Fallacy

They claim: “Wagnific Is A Natural, Affordable and More Effective Solution For Improving Behavior.”

More effective than what? They say it’s more effective than “dominance training,” “private trainers,” “bark collars,” and “treat training.” The problem with treat training, by the way, per Wagnific, is that it “requires constant bribing with no lasting results. The moment treats disappear, so does the good behavior.” (More critique from Wagnific about training is in “Amusing and Tragic Odds and Ends” below.)

There is a lot of irony here, starting with the fact that they don’t understand how positive reinforcement-based training works. But more to the point: music is not “natural.” Music is human artistry (since it’s not relevant to their claims, I’m omitting things like birdsong and the philosophy of some avant-garde composers). And virtually any music we listen to at home these days is made of ones and zeros stored in computer memory, played over a digital device. Electronic music that includes no recorded actual instruments is the least “natural” of all. I’m not putting down synthesized music. People can do amazingly artistic things with it. But “natural” it ain’t.

Buzzword Gobbledygook

On the access page to their magic music, along with the creepy AI art of a golden retriever in different life periods, they have blurbs for the different pieces. Every one of them is a mishmash of buzzwords. Here’s just one of them.

Day 4: Harmonic Trust – Limbic Balance
Harmonic progressions strengthen neurological trust pathways, reinforcing obedience behaviors as your dog’s nervous system adapts to sustained relaxation.”

Here’s my commentary.

Music notation of the chord progression I, IV, V, I in C major.
Wow! A harmonic progression!
  • “Harmonic trust”: This is not a thing. Limbic balance is, but it’s an extreme claim that a ten-minute piece of bargain-basement synthesized music could help with that.
  • “Harmonic progressions”: Almost all music has harmonic progressions. “Happy Birthday” has harmonic progressions. This is not a talking point. It’s like saying someone’s special recipe soup has liquid in it.
  • “Neurological trust pathways”: The only hits you’ll get on searching that term are a handful on pseudoscience sites.
  • “Reinforcing obedience behaviors”: OBEDIENCE BEHAVIORS?!? Well, that’s certainly convenient.

I’m not arguing that teaching and encouraging dogs to relax is a bad or ineffective thing. Just that Wagnific’s jargon is all mixed up (and music is not very effective at relaxing dogs).

The descriptions of their pieces are all like this: mixtures of buzz words and terms from music, neuroscience, physics, or ethology, usually used incorrectly.

In their FAQ, they state that “Our melodies are specifically engineered based on canine neurology research and clinical testing, not human music preferences.” It’s just hard to believe, since they refer to the tempo of the human heart rate and state a focus on frequencies that humans hear better than dogs. Anyone who feels like asking them about the clinical testing part, feel free. They have a support email on their website.

Amusing and Tragic Odds and Ends

We have to laugh so we don’t cry, right? Products like these prevent pet owners from finding valid help for the problems their dog or their family is enduring. They can prolong suffering.

  • Although there is mild evidence that “classical” music can relax dogs in some situations, specially designed dog music has not been found to do so (Lindig et al., 2020), and has failed in eight studies so far. And there is not ANY scientific support for the idea that music can address specific issues in dogs such as separation anxiety or sound sensitivity. This is a trend that was started by other “music for dogs” companies: different playlists to address dogs’ different mental, behavioral, and physical conditions. It is nonsense, and it preys upon the desperation of people who are trying to help their troubled, scared, old, or painful dogs.
  • The birdsong found in many of the clips would have triggered some sound-phobic dogs, including my Zani, before her mental health improved with meds and training (not music).
  • Wagnific runs an ad on Instagram that compares aspects of training a reactive dog with a trainer (60 days, $2400 dollars, on meds, still barking) and buying their product (7 days, responds to “commands” again, no destruction, no meds, $19). Note the appeal to the naturalistic fallacy with the “no meds” line.
  • They’ve run an ad on Facebook with another outlandish claim, and said their product was backed by science. I responded in the comments, asking for a link to the study supporting it but got no response.
  • The separation anxiety music includes not only running water, but loud splashing. (?)
  • The sound sensitivity music is the most lively and busy of all the clips, with synthesized maracas and other percussion including pseudo handclaps. Maybe they are going for masking? It’s strange after all the soft and mooshy pieces.
  • Quote from the music access page: “These melodies may sound simple, but they’re backed by years of love, research, and testing.” (Emphasis mine.) Their website was registered in 2024, and that’s also the date of establishment listed on the Better Business Bureau page. BBB isn’t usually very valuable, but the Wagnific entry is worth a look. Check out the complaints.

About Wagnific

The business appears to have existed for two-plus years, since 2024, and they started selling their product in the second year (or possibly the first year). They list a street address in Phoenix, AZ, but it is a box at a UPS store, so they likely do not have a brick-and-mortar office. I couldn’t find them registered in the state of Arizona on any of the government business listings. (If anyone does, please let me know and I’ll correct this.) This page lists the business name “Wagnific” as available for use/registry in Arizona.

Extraordinary Claims

So, is Wagnific a scam? It has many of the hallmarks. They sure say a lot of things that aren’t true, and they use language in disingenuous ways. They do not come off as a company that is in it for the love of dogs, whatever they claim.

Carl Sagan (standing on the shoulders of other giants who said similar things) famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But these claims by Wagnific are beyond extraordinary; they are ridiculous. They can’t even get their story straight.

Comments

Regarding comments: if your dog is helped by Wagnific or any dog music, I’m glad for you. But I won’t publish anecdotal comments about that. My stance is that it’s irresponsible to lead people toward such things even if they “worked for you.” There is plenty of evidence-based information out there about helping dogs with behavior problems. And there are lots of other places you can write about the wonders of music for dogs. Not here.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

Reference

Lindig, A. M., McGreevy, P. D., & Crean, A. J. (2020). Musical dogs: A review of the influence of auditory enrichment on canine health and behavior. Animals10(1), 127.

Images

Eurorack modular synthesizer is from Wikimedia Commons via user Paul Anthony under this license

88-key keyboard is from Wikimedia Commons via user Guypeter4 under this license (I altered it by cropping it from a more extensive graphic and adding the red box)

Harmonic progression is from Wikimedia Commons via user Hyacinth. It requires no license because, according to Wikimedia Commons, “a chord progression is a musical concept or technique, which is considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, or which consists only of technique, with no original creative input.”

The photo of Angus and Jem kindly provided by and copyright Blanche Axton.

Resonance: Beware the Myths and Pseudoscience

Resonance: Beware the Myths and Pseudoscience

A spiritual-style abstract human form with colored rays fanning out from it
This image from iStock was not created with AI

Note 4/1/2026: At the time of writing this, I was unaware that some Electromagnetic Field (EMF) therapeutic devices also claim to operate benefically on humans and dogs through resonance. Resonance is a valid term in electromagnetism, but these devices use the buzzwords of pseudoscience in their marketing. I am skeptical, but that is my personal opinion, since they are slightly out of my area of expertise. I may work with an electrical engineer or physicist in the future to weigh in on these.

There’s a whole “healing” industry based on the terms “resonance,” “resonant frequencies,” “natural frequencies,” and “sympathetic vibrations.” But the usage of these terms is rarely scientific. The marketing has infected the dog world, with the plethora of sound and especially music products that promise to make our dogs feel good (or at least lie down). The marketing—and often the products—are based on pseudoscientific sleight-of-hand.

This post explains why the talk of resonant frequencies related to music—for dogs or humans—is nonsense.

The Science of Natural Frequencies and Resonance

Most of us have a general idea about resonance having to do with an object vibrating because of some external force. That’s a good start. But to really understand resonance, we need to understand natural frequency.

Natural Frequency

Natural frequency is defined as:

The frequency of the free oscillation of a system. — Law & Rennie, 2019

Natural frequencies exist in both mechanical and electrical systems. They are inherent physical attributes. When considering sound and vibration, we are discussing a subset of mechanical systems: acoustical systems. In this case, natural frequencies result from a relationship between a dimension of an object and the length of a corresponding sound wave. The oscillation involved is from sound waves or other mechanical vibration.

There are multiple natural frequencies of any object. If you strike a tubular bell with a wooden mallet, you will hear its natural frequencies, the most prominent one corresponding to its length.

For easily measured objects such as metal tubes or beams or even rooms (hollow boxes), it’s straightforward to compute the natural frequencies. I wrote a program to compute these frequencies for the enclosure we built as part of my graduate research (see page 45 and following in my thesis, on the topic of “modes”).

Resonance

OK, take a breath. Now, here’s a scientific description of resonance:

Resonance occurs when the frequency of the excitation force is equal to the natural frequency of the system. When this happens, the amplitude of vibration will increase without bound and is governed only by the amount of damping present in the system. — Seto, 1971, p. 4

An acoustics example in plainer English:

When an external sound of the same frequency as an object’s natural frequency is generated near that object, the object vibrates more than when sounds of other frequencies are played. This is resonance. Here’s a demo using tuning forks.

Here’s a different mechanical example involving not sound, but force applied to spring systems. The text explanation is solid, too.

You will also hear the term sympathetic vibration, which is close in meaning.


Summary and Comparison

Natural frequency is a frequency inherent to a system or object. Resonance happens when an external periodic force causes the object to vibrate at a natural frequency.

Damping

Here’s the reason that natural frequencies and resonance are not prominent in human (and dog) bodies.

A graphic that says, "We are more like sacks of peanut butter than we are like tubular bells"

For many objects, frequencies are highly damped. Damping is what it sounds like: the prevention of vibration. In general, it means that the vibration energy dissipates into a material. Following are examples of undamped and damped vibrations. But damping in the real world is not binary. It would be more accurate to discuss “less damped” and “more damped,” because nothing is completely undamped except in theory. But I’ll go with the binary terminology.

Undamped vibrations: Imagine our tubular bell again. If you struck it with a wooden mallet, you would hear a bell-like tone that would ring for a few seconds. It is resonating at its natural frequencies.

Damped vibrations: Now imagine a canvas sack of peanut butter suspended from a frame by a stout wire. It has resonant frequencies. You can add to your mental picture some rubber balls and wooden dowels of various lengths encased in the peanut butter to represent bones and organs, if you want. They also have natural frequencies. What would happen if you struck this canvas sack with the same wooden mallet? Thud, right? No pure tone, no duration. It would still vibrate at its natural frequencies, but the amplitude would be small, and duration would be short as the peanut butter absorbed the vibration.

We humans and dogs, with our bodies full of muscle, fat, organs, and fluids, are far more like that sack of peanut butter than we are like bells or gongs that vibrate extensively when excited. That’s the reality, and the most important physical factor when considering so-called resonance effects on our bodies. We don’t resonate well at all.

We understand damping from life experience. Which of these gongs can vibrate more freely? Which is considerably damped, and how is it damped?

Two Chinese gongs. The one on the left is suspended from a frame. The one on the right is sitting on and leaning against cloth.

Resonant Frequencies in Our Bodies

An illustration of the lower leg bones, with the tibia colored in red
My tibia may have a resonant frequency between 95 and110 Hz

Our bodies, and parts of our bodies, do have resonant frequencies. My femur has a resonant frequency (Gautam & Rao, 2021). So do my skull (Fonville et al., 2022) and my lungs (Duarte & de Brito Pereira, 2006). My individual cells probably do, too (Puerto-Belda et al., 2024). But remember the peanut butter.

If I, a living person, am exposed to a pure tone that corresponds to one of the resonant frequencies of my tibia or kidney, am I going to experience a pleasant vibration in that bone or organ? Not likely. There is way too much damping. And even if I could feel the vibration, who is to say that it would be pleasant?

The human body as a whole has a resonant frequency. It’s generally between 3 and 7 Hz (Brownjohn & Zheng, 2001), although some researchers have found frequencies as high as 16 Hz (Randall et al., 1997). Sounds in those ranges are all below the threshold of human hearing.

What Is That Sweet Feeling, Then?

Some people enjoy the feeling of loud music and sounds vibrating in their bodies. When the movie Return of the Jedi came to theaters, I travelled to Cinema 1 in Corte Madera (north of San Francisco) with some musician buddies because that theater was said to have giant subwoofers. I wanted to hear and feel that jacked-up bass! The low-frequency rumbles of Jabba the Hutt and the inevitable explosions didn’t disappoint.

A photo of the Star Wars character Jabba the Hutt

So what’s that feeling? It’s generally the palpable vibration from the external high-amplitude sound waves passing through our bodies. Sound waves are pressure waves, and we can feel the big ones (those with low frequencies). The name of this type of vibration is forced vibration.

One more definition:

When external forces . . . are acting on the system during its vibratory motion, the resultant motion is called forced vibration. At forced vibration, the system will tend to vibrate at its own natural frequency as well as to follow the frequency of the excitation force. . . . In the presence of damping, that portion of motion not sustained by the sinusoidal excitation force will gradually die out. As a result, the system will vibrate at the frequency of the excitation force regardless of the initial conditions or the natural frequency of the system (italics mine). — Seto, 1971, p. 4

We have extensive damping in the human body. Hence, the above definition suggests that any natural frequency resonance will “die out” in the presence of forced vibration, e.g., loud, low-frequency sounds that jiggle our innards.

Forced vibration doesn’t have to come from sound. There are different “excitation forces.” If you’ve ever sat in a back massager chair, the excitation force is the vibration mechanism, and you are experiencing forced vibration.

I recently discovered a resonant frequency in my shower when I hummed. One pitch audibly popped out and made the whole enclosure vibrate pleasantly. I did some measurements and computations and the pitch corresponded to a natural frequency—of the shower. The highly reflective walls of the shower made for an intense sound field, and that was fun to experience.

I was not the one resonating; I was experiencing forced vibration. But don’t tell that to the “resonant frequency” pseudoscience purveyors. They want to convince you that the mathematical relationships between your body parts and sound waves makes you feel good. Oh yeah, and they’ll tell you it’s true for dogs, too.

Physics and acoustics textbooks define forced vibration and resonance in contrast to each other. In the real world, we will experience forced vibration much more often. It can range from pleasant to annoying to dangerous. The effects of different vibrations on human bodies are widely studied to prevent harm. Industrial settings and automobile design are two of the many settings in which potentially harmful forced vibrations are in play.

The Pseudoscience

It is widely believed that a resonant frequency from an external sound (or other waveform or “energy”) can be felt as a pleasant sensation: a buzzy-ness, warmth, or affinity in our bodies. Some say it’s more ethereal, a more spiritual energy. It’s supposed to feel really good. But this is not a scientific concept. It’s pseudoscience.

Here is some typical language about resonant frequencies. Dr. Joshua Leeds, the psychoacoustician affiliated with iCalm Pet (Through a Dog’s Ear), has this to say:

Everything has its resonant frequency—I think of it as a “resident,” or home, frequency—and we humans are no exception. That is why certain colors feel good to us and why we are attracted to certain instruments and sounds. The colors or sounds are within our resident frequency range and can make us vibrate from across the room. Our familiarity with their frequency has an effect on our mood.  — Leeds, 2010, p. 17

This is not the scientific definition of resonance or resonant frequency. Which is fine; it’s common for there to be more abstract or metaphorical versions of scientific terms in our language. We talk about the gravity of a situation or overcoming inertia. I have certainly said that a concept resonated with me when it felt true and right.

The problem is that people are led to believe that such language is scientifically based. In Dr. Leeds’ quote above, he is stating that mathematical relationships between our bodies and outside stimuli cause us to vibrate and feel good. That is vanishingly unlikely, especially with the examples he gave. For instance, the frequencies of the light spectrum that correspond to colors range from 400–790 THz. (That’s terahertz, where the “tera” prefix means 1012, or one trillion.) I would ask Dr. Leeds:

  • what part of my body has a natural frequency of, for example, 425,000,000,000,000 Hz;
  • how I would feel this unimaginably fast vibration (faster than the human nervous system can capture, I’m pretty sure); and
  • why that (physically impossible) feeling would make me “feel good” about a certain shade of red.

Irrelevant Topics

I know this is a funny heading. But these are topics that often come up in pseudoscientific discussions of resonance and frequency as points of argument

  • Whole body vibration is used as a therapeutic technique for humans (Shantakumari & Ahmed, 2023). This is forced vibration, not resonance.
  • Binaural tones are used to produce an internal oscillation phenomenon in the human brain that could numerically match an electrical frequency put out by the brain (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma waves). This is not the same as resonance, and there is no definative evidence that the practice is beneficial (Ingendoh et al., 2023).

Even if We Could Resonate, Music Is a Terrible Way to Go About It

Even if we could get our bodies or parts of them to resonate in response to an external sound source, music would be an ineffective way to go about it.

Trying for whole-body resonance is a non-starter. The tones that come out of speakers (even most subwoofers) do not go low enough. But let’s say I want to try to feel resonance in my tibia (bone) despite what I’ve learned about damping. So, do I put some loud music on my best speakers while wearing ear protection, focus my attention on my leg bones, and wait to see if I can feel my tibia resonate at some brief moment in the music?

A photo of a tuba (musical instrument)

I could narrow my music choices down a little. This paper (Christensen et al., 1982) concludes that the frequency of a tibia could be between 90 and 110 Hz. Those are low frequencies, but within the range of most types of music. I could make the occurrence of a frequency in that range more likely by picking a YouTube of a tuba concerto, a song by a Russian chorus, or a piece featuring Geoff Castelucci.

Even filtering my music choices to make lower frequencies more likely doesn’t mean they will have enough duration to have an effect. And remember, the target is one frequency. There are thousands of notes in pieces of music, and the combinations of frequencies change over time at fractions of a second.

If you want to try to trigger a resonant frequency in your own body part, not that I recommend it, you would best use a tone generator. Use a speaker system with a subwoofer, put on ear protection, and slowly scan through the frequencies, searching for one that makes some body part feel different. Note that you’ll feel more vibration with the lower frequencies; that’s forced vibration from those big pressure waves. But if you actually hit a resonant frequency for a body part, you will likely never know. Remember the peanut butter. And don’t do this to your dog.

Please, please think about this when you read about the magic music for dogs that “helps” them via resonant frequencies. There’s no evidence for that.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

References

Brownjohn, J. M., & Zheng, X. (2001, June). Discussion of human resonant frequency. In Second international conference on experimental mechanics (Vol. 4317, pp. 469-474). SPIE.

Christensen, A. B., Tougaard, L., Dyrbye, C., & Vibe-Hansen, H. (1982). Resonance of the human tibia: method, reproducibility and effect of transection. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica53(6), 867-874.

Duarte, M. L. M., & de Brito Pereira, M. (2006). Vision influence on whole‐body human vibration comfort levels. Shock and Vibration13(4-5), 367-377.

Fonville, T. R., Scarola, S. J., Hammi, Y., Prabhu, R. K., & Horstemeyer, M. F. (2022). Resonant frequencies of a human brain, skull, and head. In Multiscale biomechanical modeling of the brain (pp. 239-254). Academic Press.

Gautam, D., & Rao, V. K. (2021). Nondestructive evaluation of mechanical properties of femur bone. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation40(1), 22.

Ingendoh, R. M., Posny, E. S., & Heine, A. (2023). Binaural beats to entrain the brain? A systematic review of the effects of binaural beat stimulation on brain oscillatory activity, and the implications for psychological research and intervention. PloS one18(5), e0286023.

Law, J., & Rennie, R. (Eds.). (2019). A dictionary of physics (8th ed.). OUP Oxford.

Leeds, J. (2010). The power of sound: How to be healthy and productive using music and sound. Healing Arts Press.

Puerto-Belda, V., Ruz, J. J., Millá, C., Cano, Á., Yubero, M. L., García, S., … & Tamayo, J. (2024). Measuring vibrational modes in living human cells. PRX Life2(1), 013003.

Randall, J. M., Matthews, R. T., & Stiles, M. A. (1997). Resonant frequencies of standing humans. Ergonomics40(9), 879-886.

Seto, W. W. (1971). Schaum’s outline of theory and problems of acoustics. McGraw-Hill.

Shantakumari, N., & Ahmed, M. (2023). Whole body vibration therapy and cognitive functions: a systematic review. AIMS neuroscience10(2), 130.

Wagenaar, R. C., & Van Emmerik, R. E. A. (2000). Resonant frequencies of arms and legs identify different walking patterns. Journal of biomechanics33(7), 853-861. (I didn’t cite this study above; it’s just cool.)

Images

  • The image of human body with lines of “energy” is from Rolffimages via iStock and involved no use of AI.
  • The peanut butter graphic was created by me in Canva.
  • The tibia illustration from Wikimedia Commons is used under this license and created by Anatomography.
  • The two photos of gongs are from Wikimedia Commons. The one on the frame is used under this license and created by Ermell. The one propped against a backgrop is used under this license and created by Serg Childed. I cropped them both square.
  • The image of Jabba the Hutt from Wikimedia Commons is used under this license and was created by Toby Philpott (the puppeteer).
  • The photo of the tuba from Wikimedia Commons is used under this license and created by Buffet Crampon.

“Cures” for Dog Anxiety: Why Is Lying Down the Goal?

“Cures” for Dog Anxiety: Why Is Lying Down the Goal?

A tan dog with a black tail stands over a small, black and rust hound mix who is doing a play bow
Zani, the black dog, was taking fluoxetine and diazepam at the time of this photo and all photos in this post

Products that purport to help dogs with fear and anxiety have an interesting thing in common. Their marketing almost always portrays dogs lying down. Just check out their featured images: snoozing pups. It seems that lying down, looking drowsy and relaxed, is the goal. But the opposite of fear or anxiety is not sleep.

A black and rust hound mix on a leash and collar steps on a concrete block and gazes up at a bush
Zani, on behavioral medication, was on leash in the yard because she wanted to raid a robin’s nest

You know what dogs free from fear or anxiety do? Well, lots of things!

They may:

  • play with their human or dog friends
  • sniff
  • chase varmints
  • chew
  • dig
  • solicit petting from their humans
  • countersurf
  • learn tricks
  • hang around humans who are eating, making googly eyes
  • enjoy a walk
  • play agility

But we don’t usually see photos of these activities. We see dogs lying down with implied ZZZs floating above their heads.

As a person who has had two dogs with phobias, I understand. It is far better to see them resting than shivering and drooling miserably. It’s a way for companies to portray (usually untruthfully) that their product “cures” anxiety. But you know what’s even better: dogs going about their normal life without fear.

Many of these products exploit owners’ nervousness about behavioral medications and vilify meds. But thoughtfully chosen and carefully administered medications are one of the interventions for dogs with extreme fear that is most likely to help (Riemer, 2023). These sellers imply or claim outright that such meds create zombie dogs. Then, ironically, many post images of dogs that look sedated to sell their own products.

A black and rust hound mix lies on a rug in front of a woman. The dog is crossing her paws in front of her.
Zani learning a trick (cross your paws) while on behavioral meds

Zani was on behavioral meds at the time I filmed this agility video. Sound on for the full effect.

Zani’s not the only one. Check out this thread from the Fearful Dogs group on Facebook: This is my dog on drugs. Note how many dogs in the 92 comments are not sleeping.

Relief for the Human

If my dog is anxiously pacing, even trembling or drooling, then starts to calm and lies down, what do I feel? As a person who loves my dog and wants her to be happy and comfortable, I feel relief. Whew! She is lying down; she must feel better.

A tan dog with a black tail and a smaller black and rust hound mix dig in an empty garden bed, both of them with their heads in holes in the ground
Zani digging with her pal while on behavioral meds

This relief can also happen when an animal hides. I’ve written a post about the myth that hiding animals are comfortable and their needs taken care of. Something I didn’t mention is that when an animal hides, we can’t see their distress. Out of sight, out of mind. If we can’t see their suffering, we feel relief. And the corollary with product marketing is that if a dog is lying down being quiet, we can believe they feel fine.

I am not condemning this response of relief. When our beloved pet is distressed and we can’t help them, it can be agonizing. The weeks before Zani got medical help for her generalized anxiety and panic disorder in 2016 were among the saddest of my life.

But there is a grim side. This advertising has a secondary purpose. Again, sleep is not the opposite of fear. But you could fairly call sleep the opposite of overarousal or hyperactivity. Countless images of sleeping dogs may serve to persuade owners that they won’t be bothered by their dogs if they buy the product.

I believe most people who buy products to help their fearful or phobic dogs do it out of love. They want their dogs to be happy and free of fear. But a person can have more than one motivation. Someone who is threatened by their landlord about their barking dog needs a solution, quick. Someone who is sleep deprived because their dog paces and whimpers all night needs desperately for the dog to calm down. Someone who didn’t plan for their life with their dog to be like this and is out of patience just wants their dog to stop already.

Marketers for bogus products prey on these people. Their goal is to to convince potential customers that the product will solve their problems (and that they should buy it right now!). Pictures of sleeping dogs are potent. It would be one thing if the products worked to trigger that response. But the sound, music, and many other products have no evidential support for their claims.

For comparison: commercials for psychiatric meds for humans don’t show them lying down and sleeping. They walk around parks, play tennis, visit with their children or grandchildren, blow out candles at their birthday parties. They look (rather obnoxiously) happy and engaged. So why do we want our dogs asleep, again?

A black and rust hound mix lies on a purple mat and bites a Kong Wubba squeaker toy
Zani squeaking a Kong Wubba while on behavioral meds

Sedation

With all my photos of an active dog on behavior meds, and my complaints about “sleeping dog” marketing, you may get the impression that I am against sedation. I am not. Here is my own real-life “sleeping dog” photo. This was Lewis’ first Independence Day after he started to suffer from sound phobia. He had been on maintenance medications for six months and I had continued to countercondition to sudden noises. He was doing very well with day-to-day sounds. But I knew my neighborhood’s “hours o’ fireworks” would be too much for him. I gave him, per my vet’s recommendation, a medication that helped him relax and sleep. I was also employing sound masking: a dryer recording, a fan, and some “busy” music without changes in volume. He could still function. He was happy to get up and interact with his people or go outside for a bathroom break. But after that, he would go back to sleep. It was a mercy for him.

A white dog with brown ears is curled up in a dog crate. Text on the photo reads, "July 4, 2025, 10 pm"
Lewis after taking a sedating medication on U.S. Independence Day

But sedation is not my ultimate goal. I believe it’s far better for a dog’s fear to be addressed in ways that allow them to live their normal life, as you can see in the images and the movie of Zani above.

It would be better still if these phony products that claim to cure anxiety and phobias in dogs would knock it off with their manipulative and exploitative practices. Countless dogs suffer because of delays in reaching evidence-based interventions as their people go down the ratholes of internet marketing.

Related Resources and Posts

References

Riemer, S. (2020). Effectiveness of treatments for firework fears in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior37, 61-70.

Riemer, S. (2023). Therapy and Prevention of Noise Fears in Dogs—A Review of the Current Evidence for PractitionersAnimals13(23), 3664.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

Nosework Revisited: Learning to Keep My Dog Safe

Nosework Revisited: Learning to Keep My Dog Safe

A white dog with brown ears eats kibble off the seat of a low camping chair. He is standing on colorful yoga mats and surrounded by other items that might have food on or in them.
Lewis finding an elevated hide in a setup with decent traction (more mats would be better)

This post is in the “I was wrong” category because the embedded video includes practices that were unsafe for the dog. I didn’t know better at the time. I know better now, and I believe in being transparent about the learning process.

I looked at an old video of mine on YouTube with new eyes, and even though I love it, I feel it’s irresponsible to leave it publicly accessible without annotations. My practices were unsafe. I can’t find the original anymore, so I can’t upload an annotated version.

The old video features Cricket at 15 years old when I first introduced her to searching for food in boxes. I can’t bear to delete it, so I am changing it to Unlisted and featuring it in this post. Hopefully, my mistake can help others and their dogs.

Learning about Nosework

A small hound, mostly black with rust on her face, ears, and front legs. She is sniffing in the grass, and her tail is held very high.
Zani was about 70% beagle and 30% Russell terrier

I went to a two-day seminar in 2011 with the founding members of NACSW and took my sniffy dog Zani. I loved the seminar and was thrilled to see what our dogs could do. I started setting up box searches at home for all my dogs. That’s when I made the video in this post.

A year or two later, I took a weeks-long course on nosework from some well-known instructors, and worked with non-food odor, adding another layer to my education. I didn’t pursue training with odor much beyond that course, other than teaching Clara to find a lost item with my hand scent on it. But my interest, and especially my dogs’ interest, remained, so I did nosework games at home.

Recently, I signed up for Kate Woods’ Scent Skills 101 online course. I wanted something fun to do with Lewis. My energy for training has decreased over the last couple of years, and I do well with some structure, like a lot of us. I knew I would love the course because I love anything Kate does, but I was blown away. First, the way they structure the course is a big-picture view of scentwork and centers on concepts (see the course page), but with exercises and very concrete, specific advice on each one. It’s appropriate for someone who is preparing to compete as well as for someone like me, who plans activities at home and wants to branch out from the ones we already do.

Second, Kate’s focus on safety, both physical and psychological, for the dogs, is front and center. Kate works with a lot of dogs with physical limitations, illnesses, and, of course, fears. They describe how to create safe setups. They remind us in every lesson to “Take care of your dog’s feelings!” and go over the various needs individual dogs might have.

Non-Slip Surfaces

Kate’s instructions include, in every lesson, the use of a non-slip surface. In my home, I have mostly hardwood floors and some tile. For years now, I have done any strenuous, active training on a yoga mat or in the yard. The latter is a good choice for a lot of the year, but not right now.

For the scentwork exercises, I brought in another yoga mat and sometimes added a carpet runner as a station for Lewis. I get the mats and runner out and put them back for each session. This is because carpets, throw rugs, and dog mats are statistically a huge risk of causing falls for people my age. On the other hand, secure footing for dogs in their activities is a must.

I can see the benefits of the non-slip surface in Lewis’ posture and movement.

Show and Tell Becomes Stop in My Tracks

I got it in my mind to show Kate the old video below. They have a coated American Hairless Terrier and my dog Cricket was a rat terrier, two breeds that are closer than cousins. As far as I’m concerned, Rory inherited Cricket’s title of Cutest Dog in the World.

A tri-color rat terrier with large ears is curled up on a pillow and staring directly at the camera person.
Cricket’s direct gaze

So, I recently found my video on YouTube and watched it, anticipating my delight in seeing feisty little Cricket. I filmed the video shortly after returning from the nosework seminar, and at the time was delighted that even my 15-year-old dog could do this thing. (She was already showing early signs of dementia, although I didn’t know it at the time.) But my delight upon revisiting it was mixed with deep concern and chagrin. I thought about what I was seeing, in view of what I have learned in the years since, especially from Lori Stevens, who helped me with appropriate exercise and care after Zani’s injury, and now in Kate’s class.

The activity I set up for Cricket was not safe for her. The floor was slick concrete (my den was a converted garage). The boxes were too tall. From the beginning, she stepped into the boxes with her front feet, which improved the footing for those feet in one way, but left her back legs behind to slide and splay on the concrete. In the video, I refer to her walking into the boxes as a superstitious behavior. But I think she did it at first because of the high walls of the boxes and continued because at least two of her feet were on a better surface. You can watch her back legs throughout the video and see how often they are slipping and sliding. She was on daily carprofen for arthritis.

At the end of the last session shown in the video, Cricket was panting. I acknowledge in the voiceover that this was a hard workout for a senior. But it shouldn’t have been. I wish I had stopped before she got to that point. This was way too much for her. Not to mention that panting can also be a sign of pain or stress.

By following the steps I learned at the seminar, which was compressed for time, I went way too fast with the process. I changed in one session from all boxes having food to only one, then in the next session, scattering the boxes. I have learned better since then, not only from my teacher years ago, who emphasized that the goal was to build behavior, not to “challenge” the dogs, but also in Kate’s course, where they emphasize many easy wins for similar reasons.

I still love seeing Cricket. She was a tiny, bold bulldozer pushing into those boxes for food. And the hell with criteria; I wish I had given her a treat when she got in a box, sat, and looked up at me.

This video is now unlisted. Although the link is accessible, I’d prefer that you link to this post instead, so all viewers will get the context.

Dog Body Language

Dog body language is one of my passions. In the Puppy Socialization book I co-wrote with Marge Rogers, it is a theme throughout the book, and we have an entire chapter full of examples. It is one of the largest categories in this blog, and I also have a curated page dedicated to it. I also have a section in my book on dog dementia about identifying pain in dogs. It will be expanded in the second edition with some new resources.

But even with all that, I seem to classify signs of pain differently in my mind. I have not learned enough about the subtle behaviors linked to pain, even though several times in my life with dogs I have been in the position of trying to figure out whether a dog was hurting, afraid, or both.

I think we don’t see it discussed as much partly because people whose first value is to be kind to their dogs are reasonably averse to posting videos of their dogs in pain on websites or social media. Even if they are seeking information, they risk nasty comments in response to their attempt to help their dogs.

I posted a video of Clara’s progression with Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, in which she was in so much pain that it’s hard for me to watch. I did this in the hope that it could bring about awareness of this deadly disease.

So, I’m keeping Cricket’s video up on YouTube, but unlisted. People don’t always read introductions, and I don’t want my bad practices seen as some sort of model, some sort of win, even though that was my feeling back then.

Live and learn.

Copyright 2026 Eileen Anderson

Zoomie Contest Results: Lewis Was Running Away from Poop

Zoomie Contest Results: Lewis Was Running Away from Poop

A white dog is running in grass. All four feet are in suspension. His mouth is open and ears are flying back
This is an old still of Lewis running, unrelated to the contest

The results are tabulated! I don’t do clickbait, so I’ll tell you here at the beginning that Clip A was the escape clip (see the post title), and Clip B was the “automatic reinforcement” (and possible social reinforcement) clip. Most people picked B as the escape clip, for excellent reasons/observations.

Observations and Interpretations

I was super pleased and impressed that every single person who entered the contest included an astute observation. Every entrant took the question seriously and wrote down something they noticed. And people noticed all sorts of things that I hadn’t. For instance, that the ground looked wet in one clip and not in the other.

Two of the people who chose Clip A noted his lowered tail carriage. That was a good tell for him, but it’s so dog-dependent! Because I know him, I can recognize that as possibly meaning, “Something’s wrong with my butt!” Good catch, you two!

Many people found it significant that Lewis headed toward me at the end of Clip A and drew various conclusions from that. That was my bad. I tried to make the clips of similar lengths and had to edit Clip B a lot since it was longer and had some pretty obvious “tells” in it. I didn’t want to edit down Clip A much. But leaving in that approach was a mistake, since Lewis approached me at the true end of Clip B as well.

The other thing I regret relating to Clip B was using the words joy and eustress vs. distress. I should have stuck with “automatically reinforced.” Lewis was certainly having some kind of fun in the non-escape clip, but if I’m going to draw conclusions about his inner state, I think I would’ve been more accurate to call it “bratty fun” than “joy.” You’ll see that when you look at the whole clip.

Finally, many people noticed the tension in his face in Clip B and named that the escape clip. He did indeed have a lot of tension in his face. That is typical for him in any aroused situation. And if we speculate further, this could also have been a less obvious “escape” clip, in the sense that when running, he might have been seeking relief from social pressure, for instance.

Here’s a photo of Lewis with a tense face.

A white dog with brown ears seen in profile against a black background. His face muscles are tense. His mouth is pulled back in a line with tight commissures.

I could never use it for a contest, because no one could guess what activity was going on. Lewis and I were doing our greeting routine after I got home. He is a frenzied greeter. For greetings, I guide him to the back of the couch, where he can get up to my face level. It’s clear he is very, very glad I am home. But he gets aroused, so his face looks like this some of the time.

I have observed tension in his face in many situations that likely have a positive emotional valence. The question in my mind is why his face is comparatively relaxed in the poop clip.

The Clips

Here are the full clips that the shortened ones for the contest came from. Well, almost full because I didn’t show the poopy butt.

Link to the video for the email subscribers.

Function of Behavior

One reason I chose to make a contest from these two clips is that I could determine, with a fair amount of accuracy, what the function of the running was in one clip, the escape clip. Before he started running, he had pooped, then dragged his butt on the ground and mouthed at his rear with growing agitation. I saw the poop on his butt. So, I felt I could safely state that he was either trying to dislodge the poop (escape) or running from the sensation (escape). He had actually done this same routine a few times in the past. He stopped running when the poop was dislodged. But he didn’t succeed on his own this time. He approached me and let me clean up his butt. I am circumspect about declaring function, but this one was visible.

The clip that I determined was non-escape was more of a reach on my part. I should have stuck with calling it automatic reinforcement, since that can be positive or negative. And I believe it had a strong social aspect. Some people mentioned he was “orbiting” the area where I was. Great observation! Also, two other dogs were with me. In the full clip, you’ll see that he both started there and ended there by the hole in the ground. He didn’t dig this time, but loved to dig in that hole, especially when Clara had been digging, then go tearing around the yard.

The Winners!

Out of 31 entries, 5 guessed the correct clip (A). If nobody had, I would’ve given up contests for good. (I might anyway!) I used the Wheel of Names to pick two winners; they are Amy B. and Bonnie T.

I have emailed you two!

Thanks to everyone who entered. You are all astute observers!

Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

Related Posts

Contest! Escape or Joy—What Do You Think?

Contest! Escape or Joy—What Do You Think?

A Rhodesian Ridgeback with his mouth open in a loose smile dashes past some red flowers in a back yard
Marge Rogers’ dog Rounder was running for joy

The contest deadline has passed; I will publish the results in another post.

It’s been 12 years since I had a contest, and I’ve learned a little since then. Back in 2013, I challenged people to match a ridiculous number of photos to descriptions of the situation by observing my dog Summer’s facial expressions. Some truly good sports gave it a try.

Let’s see if I can do a better job. This contest is different, a comparison of two videos of the same dog with but one question to answer. I have no idea how hard it will be since I have the Curse of Knowledge, but at least it isn’t 31 photos with insufficient context!

Continue reading “Contest! Escape or Joy—What Do You Think?”
What Do We REALLY Mean by Fallout?

What Do We REALLY Mean by Fallout?

A grid of 9 photos of a white and brown dog avoiding getting into a box on the ground. Backing away, skirting it, jumping over, etc.
These are all avoidance behaviors. They may or may not be fallout.

To email subscribers: I have changed my notification service again, which means that you may have to unsubscribe again if you did so from the previous email. I apologize. I hate bothering people. I am now locked into a service for a year so this won’t likely happen again.

I propose that “fallout” may be in the eyes of the beholder. I know that sounds weird, but bear with me and see what you think.

Over 10 years ago, I published a blog page on fallout from the use of aversives in training. It lists definitions and descriptions of the types of fallout that can result from aversive use, all with citations from the literature. It’s a simple page, and a popular one.

But I didn’t define fallout. It wasn’t until recently that I realized I had missed that very important point.

So let’s go!

Definition of Fallout

I couldn’t find a definition in any behavior science textbook, and I think I know why. I’ll get to that later. For now, here is a dictionary definition, which references physics.

Fallout
1. a : the often radioactive particles stirred up by or resulting from a nuclear explosion and descending through the atmosphere
also : other polluting particles (such as volcanic ash) descending likewise
b : descent (as of fallout) through the atmosphere

2 : a secondary and often lingering effect, result, or set of consequences

Murray Sidman

Dr. Murray Sidman popularized the term “fallout” in behavior science in his book, Coercion and Its Fallout (1989). I couldn’t find substantial references to the term in the literature before that. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) He used the term in the sense of the second definition above, but he referenced the first definition. The usage spread across the behavior world.

The following is the closest I could find to an actual definition in Sidman’s book.

A nuclear explosion’s side effects—the extensive radioactive fallout—cause both immediate and long-delayed, but lasting human misery. The suffering that the fallout produces overwhelms any positive benefits of a victory that nuclear warfare accomplishes. The side effects of punishment, too, far from being secondary, often have considerably greater behavioral significance than the hoped for “main effects.” — Sidman, 1989, p. 81

I think it’s accurate to characterize fallout as “side effects.” Sidman emphasized the “long-lasting” part.

Side effect
: a secondary and usually adverse effect (as of a drug)

Note that Dr. Sidman’s book was aimed at lay people. It has few references and no reference list, and although it uses some technical language, it’s conversational and full of examples that apply to everyday life.

I’m going to start with one of my own.

An Example of Behavioral Fallout

This is a hard story to tell.

When I was in a Novice obedience class with my dog Summer many years ago, the instructors set up an exercise based on the training methods of the Volhards. We were to heel our dogs by a man who would wave a treat at them. If the dog turned to go for the food, we were to pop their collar with a jerk of the leash. The goal was to punish moving out of position when faced with a tempting distraction. (I won’t editorialize about the fact that we hadn’t taught our dogs yet not to take available food.)

I did as told. Summer yelped and cringed when I popped her collar. I felt awful and didn’t want to do the exercise a second time, but, to my everlasting shame, I did. The second time, Summer’s body language wilted when she saw the man, and she dodged behind me and moved to my right side to avoid him. I was heartbroken and full of guilt that she trusted me to protect her when I was the one who had hurt her. I walked her away from the man. This experience was a turning point in my training. I could not and would not do that again.

Let’s allow poor Summer’s story to help us with analysis. The intent of the exercise was 1) for the dog to learn to stay in heel position because 2) the behavior of moving toward a distraction was punished. The latter was successful. Summer didn’t go for the food the second time. But Summer did not stay in heel position either, which was the overall goal. The fallout, the “unintended side effects,” were avoidance that took her out of heel position and an enduring fear of the man who had held the treat. Besides the obvious tragedy for my dog, fear of a man standing in a competition ring is not a sought-after situation. This was clearly unintended by the instructors as well.

For an example of more extreme fallout, check out this post.

Murray Sidman's book "Coercion and Its Fallout"
Yes, those are toothmarks on Coercion and Its Fallout

Distinguishing between Sidman’s “Main Effects” and Fallout

Now here’s an odd thing. As positive reinforcement-based trainers, we may conflate the direct, “successful” punishment of a behavior with fallout, because they often look the same. We’re actually not wrong. Often, they are the same—the same behavior. We don’t intend to use positive punishment, but sometimes it happens by accident. We may see, as a result, avoidance behaviors that we did not intend. The difference between an “effect” and a “side effect” is intent.

Let’s say Lucine decides to use an indoor invisible shock barrier to prevent her dog, Jackson, from coming through the kitchen doorway during food prep and human mealtimes. (In case it’s not clear, this is an awful idea.) Jackson quickly learns that going through the doorway results in a shock. His behavior of walking through the doorway decreases. We would see avoidance of the doorway, Sidman’s “main effect” of the punishment.

But Jackson might also stop going through the kitchen doorway even when invited—a side effect. Lucine intended for Jackson to stay away only during human mealtimes, but Jackson won’t go near the door anytime. This could be characterized as fallout. It’s the same avoidance behavior, but it was unintended. I think this is why fallout is not a defined term in behavior science; determining whether a behavior is “intended” or “unintended,” or even whether it is adverse, is subjective. Even Sidman didn’t use “fallout” in his myriad scholarly papers.

Some of the more brutal trainers on social media don’t seem to care at all when a dog is trembling or cowering in fear. We’d call that fallout, but they probably wouldn’t. Someone who values shut-down dogs will find this fallout acceptable, even desirable.

Going further with Jackson: other examples of fallout in this situation could be if he refused to walk through other doorways or walk on flooring that resembled the tile in Lucine’s kitchen. If Lucine was standing near the doorway a few times when Jackson was shocked, then he might avoid her as well. More behaviors than just walking through Lucine’s kitchen doorway were punished.

This fallout is an example of generalization of avoidance, #1 on my list from the fallout from aversives page.

The above is a true story with the names changed. Jackson also developed stress colitis that strongly correlated with the use of the indoor shock—more fallout. This would correlate with #7 on the fallout list: injury. The correlation with the shock was strong: his colitis resolved whenever he was boarded away from home.

Balanced Trainers and Fallout

I looked for discussion online by balanced trainers who might be concerned about fallout from aversive methods. I found one mention, an instruction about how to use aversives without sending dogs into learned helplessness. But instead, I found many trainers claiming there were terrible problems (fallout) caused by positive reinforcement-based training.

We’ve all seen those arguments. I tried to find specifics from them about why a specific training method caused a specific problem behavior. I didn’t find any such specificity. Just general complaints about “permissiveness” and claims that the balanced folks were the saviors of all the dogs the “purely positive” folks had damaged.

So Is There Fallout from Positive Reinforcement?

Is there fallout from positive reinforcement in the sense I talk about above? Behavioral side effects of positive reinforcement training? Maybe even negative ones?

There can be unintended effects. Please read on. If you are like me, they are not what you might have assumed.

There is an interesting article that talks about the “parallel” side effects of aversive and appetitive stimuli/training (Balsam & Bondy, 1983). In the article, they list, with citations, many documented side effects of aversive control. Then they go through these side effects and identify parallels/opposites as side effects of appetitive control.

Before I go on, there is also an excellent rebuttal to this article by Epstein (1985), who points out the authors’ logical fallacy of claiming that the effects of reinforcement and punishment are parallel. According to Epstein, if they were truly parallel, then reinforcement should have positive (as in desirable) side effects, not negative. But I do appreciate their lists of side effects, however we characterize them.

Here’s one example: a classic side effect of aversive use is avoidance. Avoidance of the aversive stimulus itself, the person associated with it, the location, etc. The parallel side effect of appetitive use is approach. Organisms move toward appetitive stimuli (or, if they’re not mobile, have another strategy that brings the stimuli close to them). It’s hard to think of approach as a bad thing. So many of us who own or work with fearful dogs are delighted when we build positive enough associations that the animal will approach.

But approach, especially persistent approach, can be a training challenge.

You see this with trainers who work with zoo animals, equines, or larger dogs. An experienced zoo trainer will teach the big (or prickly, or toothsome) animal in protected contact, maintaining that setup as long as necessary for safety. A skilled positive reinforcement-based equine trainer will teach a horse not to mug and push for the food—first thing. They may also start in protected contact.

You will also see methods by wildlife rehabbers to prevent animals from learning to associate humans with available food. If an animal is to be released, we don’t want it to get attracted to humans. Rehabbers have various mechanisms to prevent the “person predicts food” association. Approach to humans by many wild animals can lead to their quick injury or death.

The images below show a more ordinary problem. This was young Lewis’ first full day in my home. He was desperately needy and trying to figure out how to get positive attention. The Balsam & Bondy article mentions “clinginess” as a problem associated with approach. This was a problem—for about a day. That’s how long it took him to learn how to interact in a way that works better for humans and got him access to the attention and goodies he craved. This is not comparable to the long-term side effects of aversive use discussed by Sidman.

Persistent approach might be good or bad, depending on the trainer’s goals and the stage of the training. This means that I disagree with the title of the Balsam & Bondy article, “The Negative Side Effects of Reward,” (1983) and agree with Epstein’s opinion. But even with those disagreements, the article is worth reading. It has a unique comparison of some effects of appetitive and aversive training. And a bonus: this article, like several others, does not say what the anti-positive reinforcement crowd implies it does because of the title. It’s good to get acquainted with the content.

I said there were “unintended” side effects. That’s true for a lot of us. But the really great trainers know to expect them, and they use them as part of their training plans from the beginning.

Negative, Positive, and Neutral Side Effects

I believe Sidman used the word “fallout” and its intensely negative connotations to communicate with a lay audience. It’s important to keep in mind that avoidance is a functional response. So is generalization of avoidance, which we generally call fallout. But generalization, throwing a wide net of what to avoid, is what allows many wild animals to survive. I would guess that it’s not “fallout” to them.

But wild animals live in a world of many dangers. Our pets and other animals under our care do not (or should not).

I think the main takeaway is that when we are training or interacting with our companion animals, using aversive methods causes suffering—for them. The side effects of positive reinforcement training can be inconvenient at times, generally for us, and they depend on our skill levels. If food is creating unwanted consequences, a skilled trainer can generally use the same food to change the consequences. These side effects need not be long-lasting.

A balanced trainer I met at a trial once complained about my dogs frequently offering behaviors. To me, it’s a good thing; to them it was a negative side effect, a mistake. I wasn’t able to explain then that any positive reinforcement trainer more skilled than I could easily teach their dogs when it’s appropriate to offer behaviors and when it’s not (a.k.a. stimulus control). Again, this is not a long-lasting problem. It’s a training issue that I didn’t choose to address.

Conclusion

So what do you think? I did not expect this outcome when I looked into “fallout.” I thought there would be an operationalizable definition, but I didn’t find one.

Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

Related Posts

References

Balsam, P. D., & Bondy, A. S. (1983). The negative side effects of reward. Journal of applied behavior analysis16(3), 283-296.

Epstein, R. (1985). The positive side effects of reinforcement: A commentary on Balsam and Bondy (1983). Journal of applied behavior analysis18(1), 73.

Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.