Published by Unseen Progress, an independent publisher of caregiver research. Last reviewed 2026-05-10. Part of the reactive dog research overview.
Short answer. Counter-conditioning + desensitization (DS+CC), Behavior Adjustment Training 2.0 (BAT), Constructional Aggression Treatment (CAT), and Look at That (LAT) are all reward-based protocols that share the same underlying mechanism — keep the dog under threshold and change the emotional response to triggers — but differ in what reinforces the calm behaviour. AVSAB (2021) and the major clinical sources (Overall, 2013; Stewart, 2016) treat them as compatible tools rather than rival schools. The choice depends less on which is "best" in the abstract and more on what motivates your specific dog and what your handler skill level is.
All four protocols rest on the same threshold principle: a dog under threshold can learn, a dog over threshold cannot (Overall, 2013). All four are aligned with the AVSAB (2021) position that reward-based, positive-reinforcement training is the evidence-based standard of care for fear and reactivity. None of them use aversive corrections. The differences are in the structure of each rep and the reinforcer used to mark calm behaviour.
The oldest and most heavily cited protocol in the veterinary behaviour literature (Overall, 2013; Mills et al., 2013). The mechanics:
In practice they are run together. Trigger appears at distance → food rains down → trigger disappears → food stops. Repeated dozens of times, in many contexts, over weeks. The classical-conditioning model is what does the work; the dog does not have to perform a specific behaviour. This is its strength: it is forgiving of handler error and works on dogs whose anxiety is too high for operant protocols.
Best fit: generalised fear, severe reactivity, dogs who are too aroused to perform cued behaviours, novice handlers.
Developed by Leslie McDevitt (Control Unleashed, 2007). Mechanics:
LAT is operant where DS+CC is classical — the dog performs a specific behaviour (look, then re-orient) and is reinforced for it. Over time, this builds a chain in which the trigger predicts a check-in rather than a reaction. It is widely used as a defusing tool during walks, layered on top of an underlying DS+CC program.
Best fit: dogs who are slightly above threshold but still able to take food, dogs whose reactivity has a frustration component, walks in environments where novel triggers appear unpredictably.
Developed by Grisha Stewart (BAT 2.0, 2016). Mechanics:
BAT differs from DS+CC in that the reinforcer is environmental — the dog learns that calm engagement produces space, which is what most reactive dogs actually want. It also differs in handler role: the handler follows the dog rather than directing each rep. The agency built into BAT 2.0 is one of its distinctive features and is supported by emerging work on choice and welfare in canine training (Stewart, 2016; Mills et al., 2013).
Best fit: dogs whose reactivity is fundamentally about wanting space, handlers who can read body language well, environments that allow long-line work and structured set-ups.
Developed by Snider and Rosales-Ruiz from operant-conditioning principles. Mechanics:
CAT is the most operant of the four and the most demanding of handler precision and trigger-helper coordination. It works most reliably in set-ups (with a stooge dog or person), less in real-world walks. It is closely related to BAT in using distance as the reinforcer; the difference is structural — CAT shapes calm behaviour in tight reps, BAT supports it in unstructured choice-based encounters.
Best fit: dogs in formal training programs with access to set-ups, cases where DS+CC has plateaued, handlers working with a behaviourist or trainer.
The honest answer in the practitioner literature (IAABC, Fear Free, Karen Pryor Academy) is that most reactive-dog protocols layer these. A typical structure:
The biggest predictor of success across all four protocols is not which one you pick but how strictly you protect threshold (AVSAB, 2021). A poorly-run DS+CC protocol kept under threshold beats a perfectly-designed BAT set-up that goes over threshold every session.
Aversive variants of any of these protocols — leash pops at the moment of trigger, e-collar corrections layered on LAT, "balanced" hybrids that punish above-threshold reactions — are explicitly contraindicated for fear and reactivity work (AVSAB, 2021; Ziv, 2017). The systematic review by Ziv (2017) found that aversive methods are associated with increased fear, stress, and aggression even when they appear to suppress visible behaviour. In fear-driven cases, they can worsen the underlying state.
The IAABC and ACVB guidance is consistent: any protocol design for a moderate-to-severe reactive case should involve a qualified force-free trainer or veterinary behaviourist. The protocols above are not trivial to implement well, and the cost of misapplication — particularly in BAT and CAT, where threshold misjudgment is high-stakes — is months of practiced reactivity. A behaviourist can design the protocol; a trainer can coach the implementation; the data you collect between sessions is what tells both of you whether it is working.
---
Unseen Progress publishes long-form caregiver research and builds research-backed daily trackers for the families covered. See the full reactive dog research overview for the complete framework.