Introduction: Clicker training is a training technique where a signal (e.g. the ‘click’ of a clicker) is emitted by the trainer immediately after an animal offers a desirable behaviour, before a reward is delivered. Beyond improvements in training time, dog owners report that clicker training can make training more fun and strengthen the relationship between dog and handler; however, it can also be challenging for beginners and can make some dogs overly excited or frighten others. The aim of this study was to evaluate costs and benefits of clicker training pet dogs.
Methodology: Local community members and their dogs volunteered for a 6-week trick training program (N = 45) in a randomized, waitlist-controlled, treatment design with pre- and post-intervention assessments conducted by blinded experimenters for three groups: Clicker+food training, Food-only training (without a deliberate signal), and Waitlist Control. Survey-based and behavioural data were collected, measuring the dog-owner relationship, dog impulsivity, and owner-reported training session experiences. Repeated measures mixed effects models were used to evaluate group differences.
Main Results: The Clicker+food and Food-only groups reported improved performance relative to the Control group on tasks included in the training course (F(20, 68) = 2.960, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.465). No differences were identified between the two training groups in dog-owner relationship or dog impulsivity measures (all p ≥ 0.102, ηp2 ≤ 0.103). The Clicker+food participants found teaching their dogs to nose-target an object significantly less challenging than the Food-only group (t(28) = 2.511, p = 0.018, d = 0.917) with no differences between groups (p ≥ 0.167, d = 0.499) in any other sessions.
Principal Conclusions and Implications: This study provides the first evidence that clicker training may make certain tricks less challenging to train, but also that it may not have the costs or benefits previously reported, at least when taught to community-based dog owners in the context of a six-week, beginners, trick training course. Additional intervention-based follow-up studies are recommended to address some of the questions raised by the unexpected findings of the present study.