Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 19, May–June 2017, Pages 50-60
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Canine Review
The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to review a series of studies (N = 17) regarding the effects of using various methods when training dogs. The reviewed studies examined the differences between training methods (e.g., methods based on positive reinforcement, positive punishment, escape/avoidance, et cetera) on a dog's physiology, welfare, and behavior toward humans and other dogs. The reviewed studies included surveys, observational studies, and interventions. The results show that using aversive training methods (e.g., positive punishment and negative reinforcement) can jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs. In addition, although positive punishment can be effective, there is no evidence that it is more effective than positive reinforcement–based training. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true. A few methodological concerns arose from the reviewed studies. Among them are small sample sizes, missing data on effect size, possible bias when coding behavior in observational studies, and the need to publish case reports of bodily damage caused by aversive training methods. In conclusion, those working with or handling dogs should rely on positive reinforcement methods and avoid using positive punishment and negative reinforcement as much as possible.

Introduction

Domestic dogs are an integral part of human culture, and their welfare is an important concern for owners, caretakers, veterinarians, behavior specialists, and all those working or handling them. Much controversy exists in the veterinary and the dog training community regarding the efficacy and possible negative unintended outcomes of various training methods of dogs. These training methods can range from reward-based to aversive, and individuals who work with dogs choose training methods based on several factors such as their level of education, their previous success with different methods, and their individual set of morals.

Both classical and operant conditioning processes are usually involved in any dog training method. These processes have been researched extensively, and information about them can be found in both academic (e.g., Chance, 2003) and professional (e.g., Reid, 1996) books. For the purpose of this review, it is important to briefly define classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning is the process of pairing a neutral stimulus (e.g., the conditioned stimulus) with an unconditioned stimulus (e.g., food) (Chance, 2003). This process allows an animal to make an association between the 2 stimuli. In contrast, operant conditioning is a procedure in which a behavior becomes stronger or weaker depending on its consequences (Chance, 2003). In general, there are 4 possible consequences in operant conditioning: (1) positive reinforcement—a behavior is strengthened by the presentation of a stimulus (that the animal wants), (2) negative reinforcement—a behavior is strengthened by the removal of an unpleasant stimulus that the animal wants to avoid, (3) positive punishment—presenting an unpleasant stimulus that causes a reduction in the strength of a behavior, and (4) negative punishment—the removal of a stimulus that the animal seeks out, which causes a reduction in the strength of a behavior (Chance, 2003).

Traditional training methods tend to rely on positive punishment and negative reinforcement. Unfortunately, using these operant principles can have negative effects on dogs' health and behavior (Beerda et al., 1998). In his book “Coercion and its Fallout,” Murray Sidman suggests that “…what makes the noncoercive alternatives necessary…is the vast catalog of punishment's side effects—consequences of punishment that cancel out its benefits…” (Sidman, 2000, p. 80). Indeed, using punishment can be accompanied by a number of possible undesirable, negative, and potentially injurious (to the learner) effects, such as escape behavior, aggression, and apathy (Chance, 2003). Importantly, although negative reinforcement uses a removal of an unpleasant stimulus, this stimulus must first be presented. Thus, the presentation of the unpleasant stimulus can be considered positive punishment for the behavior that occurred just before its appearance. As Sidman (2000) suggested, negative reinforcement and punishment involve the same events but which function differently. It is often unappreciated that negative reinforcement involves coercion, which is accompanied by negative unintended outcomes as well (e.g., prevents an animal from relaxing its vigilance, causes fearfulness of novelty, and causes reluctance to explore) (Sidman, 2000). In contrast to training methods that use positive punishment and negative reinforcement, other methods rely mainly on positive reinforcement which, according to Sidman (2000), is not coercive. Positive reinforcement carries less risk of negative unintended outcomes.

The debate among trainers who tend to use positive punishment and negative reinforcement and those who prefer methods that rely on positive reinforcement is ongoing. For example, in 1 editorial, Overall (2007) explained why electronic collars (which deliver electronic shocks to the dogs and are usually used as positive punishers or negative reinforcers) are not and should not be used for behavior modification in dogs, because of their aversive nature and due to the lack of scientific data on their effectiveness. However, others suggest that such collars can be an effective training tool (e.g., Christiansen et al., 2001). Although using positive punishment and negative reinforcement can be effective, the question of whether using them is ethical or not is open to debate. Friedman (2009) suggests that the relative intrusiveness of behavior modification techniques should be examined and that minimally intrusive (but still effective) methods should be used. Friedman (2009) suggests that behavior interventions should not be chosen solely because they are convenient or effective since they may produce detrimental unintended outcomes in the learner.

Because there are contrasting opinions regarding the use of different dog training methods, it is important to provide as much data as possible on this topic. Such data will allow practitioners to choose training methods wisely and thus provide effective and minimally aversive behavior modification tools to dog owners and to those working with or caring for dogs. Hence, the purpose of this review was (1) to review the literature regarding the effects of different training techniques (e.g., positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement vs. positive reinforcement) on dogs' behavior and welfare and (2) to suggest possible implications of the research findings to other researchers and to those working with or caring for domestic dogs.

Section snippets

Methods

A search for articles written in the English language was conducted using 3 computerized databases: Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed. A combination of the following terms was used: punishment in dog training, aversion, punishment, shock collars, electronic collars, choke collars, prong collars, dog training methods. A manual search of the reference lists from the relevant articles was performed as well. The search was completed in October, 2016. Only articles that directly compared the

Results

The results are divided into 4 sections. The first section reviews articles that compared different training methods; the second section examines dog-to-dog aggression; the third section reviews studies on the use of electronic collars or electronic pet containment systems; and the fourth section examines the effects of aversive training techniques on the physical health of dogs.

Discussion

The discussion is divided into 2 sections: (1) Methodological concerns and (2) Implications for practitioners and researchers.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dinah Olswang and Daveena Tauber for their editorial assistance. The idea for the study was conceived by the author. The study was written solely by the author.

References (35)

Cited by (94)

  • The Effects of Fitness Training on Working Dog Behavior: Two Case Studies

    2024, Veterinary Clinics of North America - Small Animal Practice
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text