
Research increasingly shows that the way we train and care for animals influences both their emotional health and behaviour. For example, studies have indicated that using aversive or ‘traditional’ training methods (such as shocking, pinching, and lead corrections, shouting, pushing into position, etc.), as well as social deprivation, such as ‘time outs’ or prolonged isolation, can result in elevated stress, anxiety, and long-term physiological changes in how animals perceive the world around them (Ziv, 2017).
That has long been understood in behavioural work. Still, a neuroscience event I attended recently got me thinking about how similar the effects of social rejection and disconnection might be across species. Does the emotional toll we see in humans help explain behavioural responses in our pets when their social needs are unmet? If humans experience measurable changes in their brains after rejection or social stress, what happens in our pets’ minds when their needs for connection are unmet? And how can we do better for them and for ourselves?
What does science tell us?
Brain imaging studies in humans show that the same regions activated during physical pain, such as the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and anterior insula, also light up during experiences of social rejection (Eisenberger et al., 2003). See image below and Figure 1.

When these systems are repeatedly triggered, especially early in life, they appear to sculpt long-term emotional patterns. This might help explain why aversive training or social neglect in animals may have deeper consequences than we once thought.
For social animals, isolation has always carried risk; dogs, cats, and parrots may not grasp rejection in the human sense, yet they certainly register emotional disconnection (Schöberl et al., 2016). Research indicates that the animals’ cortisol levels rise, and their behaviour shifts. For example, when puppies face early deprivation, inconsistent bonding, or aversive training, the result can be a blueprint for anxiety in adulthood. Yet across the internet and social media platforms, inappropriate advice such as ignoring your dog when you come home or leaving the puppy to ‘cry it out’ is perpetuated. The brain adapts to what it encounters. That adaptability, known as neuroplasticity, is useful yet not always in ways we would want. Scientists have shown in rats that chronic stress shrinks the hippocampus (a part of the brain linked to learning and memory) and disrupts emotional control (McEwen, 2000). In dogs, we often see similar patterns: helplessness, hypervigilance, reactivity, and excitability (Beerda, et al., 1999).

Neuroscientist Gina Rippon’s ‘Outside In’ model (2019) describes the brain as “plastic, predictive, and permeable”. It absorbs the social world, builds expectations from experience, and continually interprets what is likely to come next. Many animals including dogs and cats have nervous systems that are very similar to humans. This is why they are often used as models in human medicine, and this may help explain why pets in chaotic or inconsistent homes frequently exhibit signs of anxiety or withdrawal; their nervous systems are constantly scanning for cues, trying to stay ahead of the next unpredictable event.
This perspective is strengthened by the work of neuroscientist Gregory Berns and colleagues, which supports Rippon’s concept of the predictive brain by showing how emotionally safe, consistent human–animal relationships activate reward circuits in the canine brain, who pioneered the use of functional MRI in awake, unrestrained dogs. By training dogs to remain still in MRI scanners, his team has been able to examine how dogs process social and emotional stimuli (Berns et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2016).
Their research found that dogs’ caudate nuclei (part of the brain’s reward system) activate strongly in response to the scent and sight of familiar humans, sometimes more so than to food. Further studies showed that many dogs exhibit greater neural preference for praise than for treats (Cook et al., 2016; Dilks et a., 2015), reinforcing the idea that social connection is rewarding for dogs and neurobiologically meaningful.
Attachment and the brain
Such biological evidence confirms what many of us experience with our animals: dogs and cats form rich, attachment-like bonds with their human companions. Furthermore, research from Berns, Eisenberger, Rippon and others highlights why routines and consistent, humane, ethical handling methods are so effective. Such interactions help human and non-human animals make sense of their world, providing predictability and, with it, emotional safety.
Data shows that when dog-owner relationships reflect a secure attachment style, characterised by attentive care, quality interactions, and dependable fulfilment of the dog’s needs, the animal tends to show lower cortisol levels and more relaxed behaviour (Schöberl et al., 2016). This bond provides a social buffer, helping the animal feel safe, less hypervigilant, and more capable of coping with novelty. The animal’s nervous system learns that it does not need to remain on constant alert, which reduces the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis responsible for cortisol release. Consequently, the quality of the dog–owner relationship seems to influence the dog’s long-term stress regulation (Somppi et al., 2022).
This closely parallels a large body of research on human attachment. Children raised in unpredictable environments, where caregivers are inconsistent, emotionally unavailable or intrusive, often develop insecure or anxious-avoidant attachment styles (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main and Solomon, 1990). These children are at increased risk for emotional dysregulation, anxiety disorders, and behavioural problems later in life (Groh et al., 2012). As in dogs, the lack of a reliable attachment figure can lead to chronic activation of the stress response system and reduced resilience when facing new or challenging situations (Gunnar and Donzella, 2002).
These parallels point to shared evolutionary mechanisms that govern social learning and emotional safety, and highlight how human and animal wellbeing depend on stable, predictable relationships. Just as children need emotionally consistent caregivers to develop healthy coping mechanisms, our animals rely on us to provide similar security.
Predictable, quality interactions helps learning
Recognising this shared biology strengthens the importance of ethical, reliable interactions in supporting behaviour and emotional resilience. Attachment can thrive when emotional safety is present, and habit formation is also affected. When an animal feels safe, the brain is in a better place to learn.

This is why I build relaxation into all my behavioural plans – see my graphic ‘Key ingredients to successful behaviour modification’ .
An animal, whether human or non-human, cannot process or retain information when highly aroused, meaning when in an elevated emotional or physiological state, such as anxiety, fear, or overexcitement. In dogs, this may manifest through behaviours like barking, panting, pacing, or physical restlessness. For example, teaching the dog to be able to settle and relax, and helping the dog guardian shape the environment around that process, is central to making lasting change.
While we are still at the beginning of understanding how much the social brain governs behaviour, the evidence emerging from neuroscience provides a strong foundation for practical welfare strategies. It highlights why training approaches grounded in trust, consistency, and emotional safety are critical. Animals and people thrive in environments built on predictability, connection, stability, and kindness. So, change how we relate and we change the brain!
References
- Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., Wall, S.N. (1978) Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
- Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., Vohs, K.D. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), pp.323-370 https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
- Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B., van Hooff, J.A., de Vries, H.W., Mol, J.A. (1999) Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. I. Behavioral responses. Physiology & Behavior, 66(2), pp.233-42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10336149/
- Berns, G.S., Brooks, A.M., Spivak, M. (2012) Functional MRI in awake unrestrained dogs. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e38027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038027
- Bräuer, J., Call, J., Tomasello, M. (2004) Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(4), pp.379–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.379
- Cook, P.F., Prichard, A., Spivak, M., Berns, G.S. (2016) Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise versus food. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(12), pp.1853–1862. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw085
- Dilks, D.D., Cook, P., Weiller, S.K., Berns, H.P., Spivak, M., Berns, G.S. (2015) Awake fMRI reveals a specialized region in dog temporal cortex for face processing. PeerJ, 3:e1115 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1115
- Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., Williams, K.D. (2003) Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), pp.290-292 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
- Groh, A.M., Roisman, G.I., van IJzendoorn, M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. and Fearon, R.M.P. (2012) The significance of insecure and disorganised attachment for children’s internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 83(2), pp.591-610 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x
- Gunnar, M.R. and Donzella, B. (2002) Social regulation of the cortisol levels in early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27(1-2), pp.199-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(01)00045-2
- Kawamoto, T., Onoda, K., Nakashima, K., Nittono, H., Yamaguchi, S. Ura, M. (2012) Is dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation in response to social exclusion due to expectancy violation? An fMRI study. Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnevo.2012.00011
- Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1990) Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In: Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D. and Cummings, E.M. (eds.) Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.121-160.
- McEwen, B.S. (2000). Allostasis and allostatic load: implications for neuropsychopharmacology. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22(2), pp.108-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(99)00129-3
- Rippon, G. (2020). The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain. London: Vintage. Chapter 6: ‘Your Social Brain.
- Schöberl, I., Beetz, A., Solomon, J., Wedl, M., Gee, N. Kotrschal, K. (2016) Social factors influencing cortisol modulation in dogs during a strange situation procedure. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 11, pp.77-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.09.007
- Somppi, S., Törnqvist, H., Koskela, A., Vehkaoja, A., Tiira, K., Väätäjä, H., Surakka, V., Vainio, O., Kujala, M.V. (2022) Dog–Owner Relationship, Owner Interpretations and Dog Personality Are Connected with the Emotional Reactivity of Dogs. Animals. 12, 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111338
- Ziv, G. (2017) The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs – A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, pp.50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004
Learn more about our classes

Get Hanne's book, clothing and more
Hanne has a number of publications including her book Playing With Your Dog to help owners work out the games that are best suited for their pet to play throughout his life, from puppyhood to old age, available from Amazon. Check out Hanne's range of contemporary casuals The Collection – for pet lovers made from recyclable, organic materials that are sustainably sourced.
