Cues vs. Commands–Why Modern Trainers Refuse to Use ‘Commands’

In the media, traditional dog training has always been sensational. We often see flashy actions and big talk by a celebrity dog trainer showing how they are able to seemingly subdue an ‘unruly’ dog just by a sound or a command. 

A finger point, a strange sound, or even using physical space as pressure can hardly count as proper training techniques backed by science.

It’s not just excitement made for the big screens. This manner of training and treating our companion dogs at home has permeated our collective subconscious too. It’s commonplace to hear people use the word ‘command’ to refer to any word used to elicit a behaviour from a dog.

Perhaps we meet a dog on the streets spinning in a circle to get a treat. Instinctively, we ask the handler, “what command did you give?” or “how long did you train this command?”.

It sounds innocuous enough, that is, most of us understand that the questions are meant to discuss the cue word that was given for the dog to perform that trick. 

I know this from personal experience, as a child growing up loving dogs, and therefore seeing dogs on TV shows and the authoritative ways the trainers in these shows work their ‘magic’ has not only entertained me, but informed the way I talk and think about dogs and behaviour. I, too, used the term ‘command’ for a long time before I even had my first dog. 

It is only when I had to engage a professional for my dog’s reactive behaviours that I realised there’s actually another way to refer to the words we use to ask for a dog’s behaviour–cue. 

For a long time, we all thought that “cue” is synonymous with “command”—that is to say they’re one and the same. 

However, if that was the case, why do we never hear modern and positive reinforcement based trainers use the word “command” when talking about training?

Understanding Nuances & Subtext

As suggested by the definition, ‘command’ implies:

• control & authority

• “do this or else”

• creates fear

• views dogs as mere properties to be controlled

• “how do I make my dog listen?”

• top-down directive

However, a ‘cue’ on the other hand, suggests: 

• a neutral word/phrase that signals a behaviour

• suggests collaboration

• based on mutual trust

• learner has freedom & choice

• builds confidence

• views dogs as sentient beings deserving of compassion

• “how can I better communicate with my dog?”

To some, it sounds like just semantics. Potayto, potahto. 

But how can it be just semantics when we know the power of words & their meaning? Especially so in the field of animal behaviour science. Anyone who has any sort of experience seeing or using traditional ways of dog training knows that a ‘command’ is almost always given before the animal has even learnt the behaviour. It doesn’t matter what the teacher/trainer does with the learner dog. We simply ‘correct’ by applying some sort of physical or verbal punisher every time the learner dog does it ‘wrong. 

The onus is on the dog to figure out what’s correct, by experiencing unpleasantness for everything that s/he has done wrong. Unfair, confusing, and unnecessary, isn’t it? Especially if we have long since developed more effective ways of teaching learner dogs without any deliberate cause for pain, stress or frustration for the learner and teacher alike. 

Clicker training, and other ways of humane training that rejects deliberate use of force, pain, and coercion, understands behaviour, and uses applicable, observable data in order to teach, rather than an arbitrary idea of behaviour that the dog has to somehow figure out by avoiding pain.

We set up the environment for the learner to succeed. We break down behaviours into smaller aspects and approximations that are easy at each step so our learner can build upon without risk or fear of pain. Eventually, when the learner has truly understood the behaviour being taught, it is then that we introduce and pair the behaviour with a ‘cue’. 

Everytime the cue is given, only good things are predicted for the dog, not the countless ‘wrongs’ or unpleasant consequences that have happened before. The cue not only signals a behaviour asked of the dog, but communicates that there’s an opportunity to get something pleasant–a treat, a chance to sniff, a chance to grab a toy etc. after. 

But what if the behaviour isn’t performed when a cue is given?

Cues Over Commands

In the case of modern humane training, the only consequence if the behaviour was performed wrongly or not at all, the dog simply won’t get that treat after. But what happens next is crucial. This then becomes information for the teacher/trainer to review the conditions in which that cue was given, and if the cue or behaviour was strong enough in the first place.

We then devise better plans, get creative, lower criteria, and help that learner dog succeed again, before increasing the difficulty. Funnily enough, although it sounds like a lot of work when we lay it out in this manner, compared to trying to punish the learner for wrong actions and hoping that the learner gets it fast, there’s more certainty in working with information and data based techniques. 

Do we aim to work with or against our dogs?

Frustration is also less keenly felt by both learner dog and trainer in this way because there’s always a clear goal in mind. Training becomes information driven, rather than emotionally charged. The behaviour is either there, or not. The environment set up is either helpful for that stage or not. Every repetition and chance to get the behaviour tells us something that helps with the next repetition. Learning becomes much more enjoyable this way, with very objective means of moving forward. 

You never have to think about whether your dog is being spiteful or stubborn, a very hurtful thought from a furbaby we cherish so much. They’re not trying to ‘dominate’ you (dominance and alpha theory is long debunked and we will talk about that another day), they just want to feel nice. 

Perhaps the best part of it all is seeing how your learner dog grow more confident, more bonded, and happier overall. When there is no sudden threat of unpleasant experiences, the learner is less fearful to try new things. You, the handler or trainer, no longer frequently predict pain or loud scolding or your dog. You now predict pleasant things more often. Can you guess what now happens to your relationship with your dog? 

A Newer, Kinder Way Forward for Both Ends of the Leash

Many generations of people have normalised a punishment or punitive mindset when it comes to treatment of our companion pets. It is up to us to choose better, choose compassion, and move forward with grace now that we know better.

As we are now aware of the far reaching effects of a “dominant” based training style, prioritising dog welfare means changing our perspective in the way we view our dogs, and how we communicate with them. 

When the training process becomes information driven, and thus objective, rather than subjective, there’s less inclination on our part as teachers/trainers to feel like we have ‘failed’ in any way. Sometimes, that feeling of failure in our subconscious can lead to unnecessary projection of frustration on our dog, simply because we don’t know any better, and haven’t learnt the skill of training errorlessly and kindly.

To better reflect & encourage a kinder, positive approach to dog training & behaviours, we use “cue” instead of “command”.

The words we use not only show but also influence our mindsets when it comes to our companion pets. Switching out a word seems simple & straightforward but really it has a powerful effect on our subconscious, and ability to stay curious & motivated in teaching our learner dogs, rather than playing a blame game.