Regulatory Capacity in Dogs

By Anders H. Davidsen
SAHD – Centre for Behaviour and Mentality
Date: 3 December 2025

Introduction

With the growing number of dog schools and dog trainers, one might expect dogs’ behavioural challenges to become less common. The opposite has happened. Over several decades, I have watched this development gradually move in the wrong direction.

Why? Because problems that are biological, regulatory or relational in nature are treated as training tasks. This is not a criticism of individuals, but of a system: trainer education produces trainers—and trainers train dogs.

It sounds logical. But when a dog does not function in everyday life and the solution is always “more training”, a mismatch arises. Training addresses skills. Behavioural challenges often come from something else entirely.

Here lies the core of the imbalance shaping modern dog ownership. Much of what is described as “problem behaviour” does not stem from a lack of learning, but from a nervous system that cannot maintain stability over time. Regulation—the dog’s ability to maintain physiological, social and emotional balance—is absent from the training discussion.

Instead, we talk about techniques, exercises, treats, distraction and strategies for managing the symptom. We less often ask the question that actually matters:
Why is the dog doing this, and what conditions must change for the dog to feel better?

The industry’s focus on performance, methods, equipment and quick fixes makes the problem bigger. It creates expectations that dogs can be “fixed” with the right techniques, rather than understood as biological systems that regulate themselves through security, rhythm, relationships and capacity.

In reality, the cause of a dog’s challenges is not about training, which exercises it knows, how many repetitions are done, or how far away one can go. A dog’s abilities—or lack of them—are entirely about regulation.

This article discusses regulatory capacity as a biological mechanism, a social process and a practical necessity.

Regulation as a system—not a strategy

Regulation is not something a dog performs. It is something the body maintains.

The autonomic nervous system governs transitions between rest, readiness, orientation and social contact. These changes happen continuously and unconsciously, long before the dog displays visible behaviour.

Regulation therefore belongs not at the level of behaviour, but at the level of state. This is a distinction that must not be overlooked. When working with a dog, one must not only look at what the dog does, but understand why it does it—including the biological reasons.

A dog may appear calm while physiologically highly activated (for example, a dog that is sleeping). A dog may be active while remaining within a stable regulatory window. This distance between internal state and outward expression makes traditional training explanations inadequate in this context.

When regulation is functioning, we see a steady rhythm, clear transitions and a dog that engages without tipping into excessive intensity. When regulation fails, what we see is not “bad behaviour” but a lack of capacity. This shift in understanding is crucial: behaviour is the result of what the dog chooses within the limits of what its nervous system can tolerate.

Misinterpreting reactivity and restlessness

Before considering the difference between these two, it may help to clarify what the terms mean here.

Reactivity:
A rapid and intense response to stimuli. It is described as undesirable because the dog often reacts before it has time to assess the situation, and the response is stronger than the environment would seem to warrant.

Restlessness:
A mild inner state of being “switched on” that hums in the body. When a dog carries this restlessness over time, it reacts more quickly and intensely when something happens.

Working with this is not about training a specific behaviour. It is about creating regulation, which in turn gives the dog capacity.

Capacity does not mean obedience. It means that the dog has enough neurobiological room to handle a situation without tipping into impulse, fear or hunting mode.

In practice, regulatory failure is often explained as reactivity, stress, poor impulse control, insufficient training or incorrect methods. This is wrong. These terms describe symptoms, not causes. A dog that reacts quickly to other dogs may be socially insecure, but it may also be functioning within a far too narrow physiological window of regulation.

Many owners try to solve this with exercises that reinforce the dog’s focus (for example, even better eye contact), but such exercises do not affect the capacity of the nervous system—that is, how much strain the dog can actually tolerate before losing regulation.

This creates misunderstandings. The owner thinks the dog “knows how to do it” because the behaviour was visible in calm environments. In reality, it was regulation that failed, not learning. A pattern then emerges: the dog functions “beautifully at home” but not outdoors, “well in training” but not in everyday life or on a walk. The explanation is not disobedience. The explanation is capacity.

Social regulation—the dog’s primary stabilising system

A central aspect of regulation in social species is that stability does not arise individually. Dogs regulate themselves through others. This applies to rhythm, pace, bodily orientation, micro-pauses and transitions. The human therefore becomes, knowingly or unknowingly, a regulatory factor.

A dog living with a person who changes rhythm, reacts impulsively, shuts down communication or alternates between closeness and absence—in short, behaves unpredictably—will show corresponding variation in its regulation. This is not about “leadership”, but coherence (when what one says, does and communicates fits together).

When a person is stable, predictable and clear in their patterns, the dog’s regulatory capacity increases. When the person becomes fragmented, the dog’s window of tolerance narrows.

This also means that traditional contact and obedience exercises have limited or no effect on regulation. Contact is not about eye contact. Contact is the dog’s ability to tune into the person’s rhythm and use it as an orientation point when things change or circumstances shift. This ability is not shaped in training sessions, but through everyday rhythm and how we behave in daily life.

To understand why this form of contact is genuinely regulating, we need to look at what it rests on: security. Without security, both social regulation and the ability to make contact collapse, no matter how much one trains.

A secure dog is not passive. A secure dog is regulated.

The difference is clear: a cowed and insecure dog is quiet because it dares not do anything else. A secure dog is quiet because its nervous system is calm. The first shows signs of stress, avoidance and low body carriage. The second shows normal breathing, soft muscles and social orientation.

It is this security that makes regulation possible—not pressure, not performance and not exercises intended to make the dog “get its act together”. This ability is not shaped in training sessions, but, as noted, in everyday life.

The environment as a regulatory factor

The environment affects regulation far more than methods and techniques do. A dog with low regulatory capacity will struggle in environments with high variation, frequent changes, many people, sudden movements, noise and inconsistent social contact. Such conditions lead to persistent micro-activation. Over time, this activation is interpreted as a “need for energy”—in other words, people think they must give the dog more to do, more tasks, more mental stimulation, and so on.

In reality, the dog is overloaded (far too stressed and needs to do less and learn to relax more).

The opposite also happens. When dogs have room for monotonous movement, stable patterns and slow transitions, their ability to regulate INCREASES. This is called biological rhythm, not passivity.

Regulation and learning—different systems

An important premise for understanding the significance of regulation is that learning cannot override physiology. A dog outside its window of tolerance does not learn, regardless of method or technique.

This is a foundation in ethology, stress physiology and neuroregulation. A nervous system over its threshold will prioritise safety, not learning. Many training-based solutions are therefore logically flawed: they try to build skills on a system that is not stable enough to support them.

Stability must exist before behaviour can be consistent. This is what makes the regulatory perspective so essential in practical work with dogs. It explains why good exercises can work in controlled situations but fall apart in real life. Many people experience this.

Implications for practice and everyday life

When regulatory capacity becomes the foundation, the entire understanding of working with dogs changes. The focus shifts from “How do I get the dog to do it?” to “What can the nervous system manage?” This gives a more precise assessment of what is possible, which situations are beyond threshold, and why some dogs function inconsistently.

In practice, regulation is strengthened through rhythm, calm, stable transitions and clear micro-situations in which the dog can settle. Social support from the person is not an emotional idea or a comforting manoeuvre (it is not about “supporting” the dog in the situation itself); it is about how the person’s stability and bodily signals regulate the dog’s nervous system.

Behaviour previously interpreted as stubbornness or defiance is in reality most often an expression of low capacity—not a lack of willingness to make an effort.

Regulatory capacity is therefore not an additional phenomenon, but a foundation. It determines how much the dog can tolerate before it becomes activated, how quickly it settles again and how consistently it can function in a modern, complex environment. If this system is not taken seriously, work with dogs will continue to be symptom management, and behavioural challenges will continue to escalate. When regulation is integrated into our understanding of a dog’s behaviour, both challenges and solutions become much clearer.

The result is a dog that can manage different situations because the foundation—appropriate regulation—is in place.

References

Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Henry Holt.
McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation. Physiological Reviews.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory. Norton.
Cozolino, L. (2014). The Neuroscience of Human Relationships. Norton.
Miklósi, Á. (2015). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford University Press.
Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2015). Social cognition and learning in dogs. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.
Beerda, B. et al. (1998). Chronic stress in dogs measured by behavioural and physiological variables. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.