Why Stopping the Behaviour Is Not the Same as Treating the Problem

Sagi Denenberg, DVM, MRCVS, Veterinary Psychiatrist

When a dog stops barking, growling, lunging, hiding, or struggling, it is tempting to assume that the problem has been solved. The visible behaviour has disappeared, so the intervention appears successful. However, outward compliance does not necessarily mean that the animal feels safer, calmer, or more comfortable. A behaviour can stop because the underlying fear, anxiety, pain, or frustration has improved. It can also stop because the animal has learned that showing distress leads to punishment, restraint, or further conflict.

This distinction matters because behaviour is communication. Growling, retreating, freezing, hissing, swatting, barking, and lunging may indicate that an animal feels threatened, overwhelmed, uncomfortable, or unable to escape. These responses can create practical and safety concerns, but they also provide information about the animal’s emotional state. Removing the warning without addressing the reason for it may make the situation appear better while leaving the underlying problem unchanged.

Behavioural suppression means stopping a visible response without necessarily changing the emotion producing it. Emotional recovery means that the animal actually becomes less frightened, anxious, frustrated, conflicted, or uncomfortable. The difference becomes clearer when body language, choice, recovery time, and willingness to engage are considered.

Consider a dog who growls when someone approaches while they are eating. Repeated corrections may stop the growling. The owner may conclude that the dog has learned to accept the approach. In reality, the dog may still fear losing the food. The correction may simply teach the dog that growling is unsafe. The next response may be freezing, eating faster, moving away, or biting with less warning. The visible behaviour has changed, but the emotional conflict may remain.

The same principle applies to a cat who hides when visitors arrive. Blocking access to hiding places, carrying the cat into the room, or repeatedly exposing the cat to close interaction may eventually reduce visible escape attempts. This does not prove that the cat has become comfortable. The cat may remain motionless because escape appears impossible. Freezing is not relaxation. Tolerating an interaction is not the same as choosing it, and the absence of resistance is not reliable evidence of emotional recovery.

Methods based on intimidation, correction, restraint, or overwhelming exposure can suppress behaviour quickly, but a rapid result can be misleading. In 2020, Vieira de Castro et al. found that dogs trained with aversive methods displayed more stress-related behaviour, spent more time in tense states, and showed greater increases in cortisol after training than dogs trained primarily with rewards. The dogs exposed to aversive methods also showed evidence of a more negative underlying mood outside the training setting.

In 2021, Casey et al. reported that dogs whose owners used two or more aversive training methods responded more pessimistically to ambiguous situations than dogs trained without those methods. A pessimistic response means that an animal is more likely to interpret uncertainty as predicting something negative. This shows why success cannot be judged only by whether a dog performs a requested behaviour or stops reacting in the moment.

Growling deserves particular attention because it is a warning signal. In 2015, Taylor et al. showed that dogs use overlapping vocal and visual information during aggressive communication. Suppressing a growl does not remove the perceived threat. It may remove information that helps an owner recognize discomfort before the situation escalates.

Treating a behaviour problem therefore begins by asking what is driving it. A dog may bark at visitors because of fear, territorial arousal, frustration, excitement, or several factors at once. A cat may bite during handling because of pain, fear, previous restraint, sensory sensitivity, or limited tolerance for touch. Two animals can show the same visible behaviour for different reasons. A plan focused only on stopping the action may miss the actual problem.

Effective treatment aims to change both behaviour and emotion. Management prevents repeated exposure to situations the animal cannot yet handle. Behaviour modification teaches safer replacement responses. Desensitization introduces the trigger at an intensity low enough that the animal can remain able to learn. Counterconditioning changes what the trigger predicts by pairing it with safety, distance, food, play, or another valued outcome. These methods are slower than punishment in some cases, but they target the reason the behaviour occurs.

For example, a dog who lunges at other dogs should not simply be corrected until the lunging stops. The plan may begin by increasing distance, choosing quieter walking routes, avoiding narrow spaces, and teaching the dog to orient to the owner or move away on cue. At a manageable distance, the appearance of another dog can predict food, calm movement, and relief rather than confrontation. Progress is measured not only by less lunging, but also by softer posture, easier disengagement, faster recovery, and a reduced need to react.

A cat who becomes defensive during grooming should first be assessed for pain, skin disease, arthritis, previous handling experiences, and tolerance for touch. Grooming can then be divided into small steps, with the cat allowed to leave and brief contact paired with a valued reward. Success means greater comfort and voluntary participation, not merely completing the grooming.

Veterinary handling provides another practical example. In 2019, Stellato et al. evaluated a four-week desensitization and counterconditioning programme for dogs with pre-existing fear during veterinary visits. The programme produced a modest reduction in observed fear, and most participating owners reported improvement. The important point is that success was assessed through changes in fear-related behaviour, not simply by whether the examination could be completed.

Emotional recovery is often slower than behavioural suppression. A dog may stop barking within minutes when punished, while changing the response to visitors may require weeks or months. A cat may become motionless immediately when restrained, while voluntary cooperation requires repeated, carefully managed sessions. Speed is not the same as quality.

This does not mean that dangerous or disruptive behaviour should be allowed to continue. Safety and management remain essential. A dog who may bite visitors should be separated behind a secure barrier. A cat who attacks another cat may require physical separation and a structured reintroduction. A muzzle, leash, gate, closed door, or separate room can prevent injury while treatment proceeds. Management is not treatment failure. It creates the conditions in which treatment can occur safely.

Treatment progress should include more than counting incidents. Owners should observe posture, facial tension, willingness to approach, ability to eat, response to touch, recovery time, sleep, avoidance, and reaction intensity. A dog who notices another dog but can turn away and recover is improving. A cat who remains in the room while choosing whether to approach visitors is improving.

The most important question is not whether the animal stopped the behaviour. It is whether the animal’s emotional and physical state improved. A quiet animal may still be frightened. A still animal may still be overwhelmed. A compliant animal may still be in pain. Treatment should reduce distress, improve predictability, preserve communication, and teach safer responses.

If your dog or cat has stopped showing a behaviour but still appears fearful, tense, avoidant, or uncomfortable, we are here to help.

References

Casey, R. A., Naj-Oleari, M., Campbell, S., Mendl, M., and Blackwell, E. J. 2021. Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods. Scientific Reports, 11, 19023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97743-0

Stellato, A. C., Jajou, S., Dewey, C. E., Widowski, T. M., and Niel, L. 2019. Effect of a standardized four-week desensitization and counter-conditioning training program on pre-existing veterinary fear in companion dogs. Animals, 9, 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100767

Taylor, A. M., Reby, D., and McComb, K. 2015. Aggressive bimodal communication in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. PLOS ONE, 10, e0142975. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142975

Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., and Olsson, I. A. S. 2020. Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15, e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023