Hi Shibashake.

I really enjoyed reading this, including all the comments. I also appreciate very much your inclusion of the Polski and Schalke studies. It is refreshing to see legitimate citations of actual controlled studies regarding a topic so incendiary as this one. I’m very curious as to why you didn’t find other studies, particularly the 1983 Tortora study, worth mentioning?

My 7yr old Bull Terrier has been my companion and my pride&joy for the past year. She is deaf, and she has some “instrumental” dog-aggression issues, as well as a prey-drive that can only be described as cartoonishly over-the-top. She doesn’t know the difference between a goat vs a cat vs a running valet vs a child on a tricycle vs a piece of trash blowing in the wind: if it looks like its running from her, she MUST get it… even straight into traffic. Deafness completely aside–there is no communicating with her when she goes into this “zone”. You may as well try to communicate with a cannonball en route.

I am concerned about her stress levels, and after reading your blog I am keenly aware of how difficult it must be to apply shock-training competently. I am also keenly aware of the unnecessary stress created by these behaviors (it is nerve-racking for her AND me). I’m trying to decide which outweighs the other. Her aggression issues seem to be diminishing over time as I learn more about pack-dynamics, but the intensity of the prey drive and tunnel-vision focus that accompany it remain overpowering.

After a year of deliberating, reading, and weeding out the namby-pamby appeals to emotion (“poor, poor dogs, evil, evil humans”) as well as the neanderthalic appeals to cowboy-complexes (“gotta show the dog who’s boss!”) I have decided that the vibration-signal feature is a must for us, but I’m still open to rational discourse regarding the shock feature. I would love to hear your thoughts on the Tortora study 🙂
~~[RUFTY]

Tortora’s 1983 Study

Tortora’s 1983 study consists of 3 experiments. The one most talked about in shock collar discussions is the “safety training” experiment (Exp 2). Some proponents of shock collars use Tortora’s study to claim that electronic collars are effective at reducing general aggression in dogs.

Based on my reading of Tortora’s paper, these claims are false. I will explain why below.

Tortora’s “safety training” experiment (Exp 2) consists of three phases:

Phase 1 – Pre-testing and Pre-training

36 dogs with avoidance motivated aggression were trained to perform 15 basic obedience commands using regular techniques. Training started with a continuous schedule of reinforcement, then moved on to variable. Both play and choke collars were used. No shocks.

Phase 2 – Conditioning

After a command was given, a warning buzz is presented, then the electrical stimulus is delivered. When a dog performs the command (correct escape behavior), a safety signal or tone was used right before the electrical stimulus was turned off.

Training of commands was conducted in progressively more challenging conditions, and the level of electrical stimulus was also increased during the training process. Ultimately, the dogs were trained to tolerate and perform under high levels of electrical stimulus. Once that was achieved, the dogs were trained without the shocks.

Phase 3 – Normalization

Subjects were tested for the absence of aggression under maximally stressful and aggression-inducing circumstances, for example, while the animal was roughly handled and beaten about the body with a rolled-up newspaper or switch.

If the dog failed to perform the command or responded with aggression then a full intensity electrical stimulus was delivered. Finally, the electrical stimulus was slowly phased out and training was transferred to the owner’s home.

Tortora reported that this procedure “resulted in complete and permanent elimination of aggression in all of the 36 dogs tested”. Note that this study specifically addresses cases of avoidance-motivated-aggression, which is different from pain elicited aggression and fear motivated aggression.

Tortora also showed (in Exp 1) that these other types of aggression and problem behaviors can be effectively addressed with established counter-conditioning techniques, and does not require such extreme measures.

Other types of aggression and problem behaviors can be effectively addressed with established counter-conditioning techniques, and does not require such extreme measures.

What Is Avoidance Motivated Aggression?

It is important to note that Tortora’s experiment 2 deals specifically with avoidance motivated aggression. Therefore, we should understand exactly what avoidance motivated aggression is, and how it differs from other types of aggression.

Avoidance motivated aggression is an aversively motivated aggression in dogs. I.e. the dog is using aggression as a means to avoid an anticipated aversive event (e.g. expectation of pain).

Avoidance-motivated aggression in dogs involves biting attacks or threats of attack directed toward one or more of the dog’s human caretakers. As the name implies, these threats and bites are assumed to be avoidance responses that are acquired and maintained by the prevention of anticipated aversive events.
~~[Tortora 1983, pp176]

Some properties of avoidance motivated aggression that differentiate it from other aversively motivated aggression:

1. It can appear to be unpredictable.
   

   Through higher order conditioning and generalization, a variety of apparently neutral and unrelated stimuli come to elicit the avoidance response of aggression.

2. The dog does not produce any signals that may indicate the onset of aggression.
3. It produces a much more serious attack than the other forms of aggression.
   

   Avoidance-motivated aggression usually involves multiple bites, a sustained attack, and is not self-terminating.

4. Avoidance-motivated aggression develops over time and there is a clear escalation in the level of aggression as it develops. The aggressive episodes increase in duration, frequency, force/damage, and occur over a larger range of stimuli. I.e., there are many chances to fix the issue before it develops into an “instrumental avoidance response”.
5. Counter conditioning techniques that are effective with other forms of aversively motivated aggression, have little effect on avoidance motivated aggression.

Tortora’s safety training is a complex 9 stage process that specifically addresses avoidance motivated aggression. Safety training using shock collars is very different from aversion therapy or aversive training using shock collars. Aversive training is how shock collars are commonly used today, i.e. shock the dog when he is performs an undesirable behavior. Continue delivering the shock until he stops that behavior.

In Exp 3, Tortora showed that when only “full-intensity signaled shock was used to punish aggression”, there was only a slight decrease in aggression. I.e., shock aversion therapy or simple shock aversive training is not an effective way to suppress aggression in our dogs.

Resource control training methods are much more effective in the long-term, a lot less risky, and strengthens the dog-human bond.

Key Points from Tortora’s 1983 Study

Some salient points I derived from Tortora’s paper:

1. Timing and clear communication

Timing and clear communication are very important, especially in pain based aversive training. This was shown in Phase 2 where Tortora used a warning buzz and conditioned the dog to a safety signal. Using a unique tone also allows us to more consistently and accurately mark a behavior in time (the same type of thing is used in clicker training).

Accurate timing and clear communication is important because it lets the dog know how to stop or avoid the pain from an electrical stimulus. This was also shown in Schalke’s study, where the dogs that could make a clear association, i.e. knew how to stop the pain, did not experience elevated stress levels. This only occurred in the very simple aversion case and not on recall.

This is also why aversive techniques are risky because most of us, especially novice trainers, have far from perfect timing, and may not always communicate with our dogs in a precise and clear manner.

2. Pain is a strong but risky motivator

Using pain can produce more reliable compliance in our dogs, because pain is a strong motivator. However, pain and stress can elicit an aggressive reaction from our dogs. This was also present in Tortora’s study. In fact, in Exp 1, Tortora reports that of the 92 avoidance motivated aggression cases, 90% had prior pain based aversive experiences.

The dogs in this study initially behaved as if they “expected” aversive events and that the only way to prevent these events was through aggression.

3. Tortora’s experiment 2 is a very extreme and specialized process

Dogs can also get habituated to the pain, and subsequently require a stronger and stronger stimulus. For example, Tortora reported increasing the electrical stimulus to high and ultimately maximum levels during the study.

Avoidance motivated aggression can be suppressed with avoidance training and the use of full intensity shocks.

Best to prevent avoidance motivated aggression altogether by staying away from pain and stress based training methods.

Conclusion

I am not sure why Tortora’s study is used to make the case for electronic collars or shock collars. As I understand it, his work is targeted at “dangerously aggressive dogs”, in particular those that did not respond to “established counter-conditioning treatments”, i.e., only cases of avoidance motivated aggression. It is clear that his procedure is very extreme, requires a lot of precision and knowledge, and is only meant for very limited situations. If anything, it is a cautionary tale of what could happen if we fail our dog in his management, care, and training.

Tortora shows that pain and stress can cause aggression (which is consistent with other studies), and that avoidance motivated aggression can be suppressed with avoidance training and full intensity shocks. To me, this underscores the risks of using pain based aversive techniques, and inadvertently creating a “dangerously aggressive dog”, who then has to undergo even more extreme treatment or face euthanasia. Tortora states

Behavior therapy for such dogs has always been the last step before euthanasia.
…
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that safety training for dogs is not being recommended literally as a behavior therapy program for avoidance-motivated human psychopathologies. A substitute for electrical stimulation may have to be found.

If you are considering using shock collars because of Tortora’s study, please read it carefully and in full first. Unfortunately, inaccurate claims abound on the internet.

Unfortunately, inaccurate claims abound on the internet.

1. Keep dogs inside our property. Our dog is corrected every time he nears the fence-line. This is also known as an invisible fence or underground fence.
2. Stop dogs from barking. The collar automatically delivers a correction whenever our dog starts to bark. If he continues to bark, the force, duration, and frequency of the shocks may be automatically increased.
3. Train dogs and stop problem dog behaviors. Shock collars are most commonly used for off-leash training. However, some dog trainers and pet owners also use it for behavioral issues such as food aggression, and dog aggression.
4. Teach dogs to stay away from dangerous animals and objects. A common use is in rattlesnake aversion training. A dog is shocked hard, but a very small number of times, when he nears a caged rattlesnake. This teaches him not to approach rattlesnakes in the future.

Dog Shock Collar – The Good and The Bad.

The use of shock collars on dogs is a very emotional topic. Discussions will often degrade into personal attacks, accusations of dog cruelty, and other types of name calling.

In this article, I will try to stick to the facts, and consider whether it is something I would use on my dogs. Note however, that facts are not always convenient, and facts are not always balanced between the two sides.

If you have already made up your mind about using electronic collars and are looking for validation, this article is not for you.

This is Siberian Husky Shania. After doing a lot of reading on these collars, I decided not to use them in training my dogs.

Electronic Collars vs. Shock Collars

Not all electronic collars are used as shock collars. There are three main modes – 1. Beep mode, 2. Vibrate mode, and 3. Shock mode.

All electronic collars have the shock functionality, but the beep or vibrate functions are optional.

1. Beep mode

In this mode, a beep is emitted whenever the collar controller is pressed. This beep can be used as a marker, in the same way that clickers are used in clicker training.

For the beep to be an effective marker, a dog needs prior training for associating the sound with a positive or negative consequence. For example, if the beep always precedes a sought after reward, then our dog may stop and wait, because he knows that something good is coming. Similarly, a dog may freeze or submit when he hears a beep, because he knows that failure to comply, will be followed by a painful shock.

The beep can also cause a startle response, similarly to blowing a whistle. This can be used to get our dog’s attention or to interrupt his current action. However, for this to work, we must only use the interrupt signal on very rare occasions. If applied too frequently, our dog will become accustomed to it, and just ignore it.

2. Vibrate mode

In this mode, the collar vibrates, similar to how our pager or phone vibrates to get our attention. Like the beep mode, this vibration can be used as a marker or as an interrupt.

Both the beep and vibrate modes do not deliver an electric shock to the dog.

Control of resources, together with management and structured exercise, has worked best for Sephy, Shania, and Lara.

What is shock mode?

The amount of pain that the dog actually feels will also depend on the physical characteristics of the dog.

3. Shock mode.

In shock mode, the electronic collar will deliver an electric current to the dog through two contact points at the dog’s neck.

This electric current will cause pain and physical discomfort to the dog, otherwise it would not be effective in conditioning him.

The amount of pain delivered to the dog will depend on three key factors –

• The power/voltage of the electric current,
• The duration of the current, and
• The frequency of the current.

The amount of pain that the dog actually feels, will also depend on the physical characteristics of the dog (e.g. size, skin, and fur), as well as the temperament of the dog. Some dogs are more sensitive to pain than others.

Sometimes, words like stimulation are used to describe shock collars. I even saw them described as gentle training collars.

Beware of these sales gimmicks. Accept an electronic collar for what it is. If you choose to use it, make an informed decision that is based on the actual pros and cons of the system, which I will discuss below. Note that the subsequent discussion is solely based on the shock functionality of remote training collars (not on the beep and vibrate modes).

Beware of sales gimmicks!

The Good

1. Allows us to control the amount of pain delivered to our dog, and administer that pain from a distance.

One of the great challenges of implementing pain based aversive techniques such as leash jerks, muzzle slaps, and finger pokes, is in controlling the amount of force delivered to the dog.

• Too much force and our dog may break down, and become extremely stressed or fearful.
• Too little force and our dog will get habituated to the corrections, and just ignore them.

Master aversive trainers are able to deliver just the right amount of force, so that the dog will not repeat a bad behavior, but at the same time, he will also not become unbalanced and fearful.

Unlike other aversive methods, remote training collars allows us to easily adjust the amount of pain delivered to a dog, and to keep that level of pain consistent in subsequent corrections. We can also administer the pain from a distance.

However, it should also be mentioned that the amount of pain actually ‘felt’ by the dog as well as the resulting response, depends on many different factors, not just the level of shock applied.

Although these devices are presented as a highly controllable method of modifying behaviour, via the controlled administering of pain/discomfort (the collars are designed to allow operator to set the duration and intensity of shock), an individual animal’s experience when a shock is applied will be influenced by numerous factors. In addition to individual temperament, the experience will be affected by the dog’s previous experiences, frequency of application, location of shock, thickness of hair and level of moisture on skin (Lindsay, 2005). Given that many of these factors are not easily determinable by the operator, this makes the device far less precise than suggested.
~~[RSPCA]

2. Can automatically deliver a shock correction to the dog, even when we are not there.

Another challenge of implementing proper aversive corrections, is using the right timing. We want to correct our dog as soon as he performs an unacceptable behavior, and stop correcting him as soon as he stops that behavior.

Electronic collars can be tied to a particular trigger event, such as barking or proximity to our fence-line. In this way, a shock is automatically and consistently delivered to the dog, as soon as he starts to bark or tries to escape. In fact, the invisible fence or shock anti-bark systems are convenient, because we do not even have to be there to deliver the corrections.

Shock collars such as these may sound tempting and easy to use, but unfortunately, consistent and automatic timing does not necessarily mean correct timing.

Studies show that automatic collars are risky, because tying a shock correction to a single trigger event, such as barking or proximity, is too simplistic and will frequently result in bad timing. This can subsequently lead to aggression and other dog behavioral issues.

There are some anti-bark collars that use sound aversion to stop dog barking, for example the Ultrasonic Anti-bark Collar. However, customer reviews have been poor because the sound stimulus is often insufficient to prevent the barking behavior.

In dog training, timing is very important. One of the dangers of electronic collars, is that they may deliver pain at the wrong time, or too frequently.

3. The source of the aversive stimulus is less clear.

Aversive training has a high risk of losing our dog’s trust, and weakening our bond with him.

Resource management and reward training has worked best on Sephy.

When we use other pain-based aversive techniques, it is usually obvious that the pain comes from us. This may teach our dogs to associate people with physical distress, which can also lead to fear. If this happens, we may lose some of our dog’s trust, and jeopardize our bond with him.

For example, when we apply a leash correction, it is apparent that the pain originates from the leash, and sometimes (if not redirected), from us. Therefore, the dog may decide to fight with the leash, or worse, with us.

This is less of a problem with electronic collars because the source of the pain is obscured, and there is no leash to fight with. However, because the pain comes from seemingly nowhere, our dog may mistakenly associate it with something he sees in the environment (e.g. another dog), the environment itself, or to multiple unrelated objects and events. This may cause misplaced stress, fear, and aggression, toward those objects.

Automatic shock collars also have a high risk of over-correcting a dog.

While training a dog, it is important not to over-correct him. Over-correction can erode trust, cause fear issues, and teach a dog to associate people with negative events.

The Bad

1. May increase aggression in dogs.

According to Polsky’s study, dogs kept in shock containment systems (i.e. invisible fence or underground fence), can show extreme aggression towards humans, over and beyond their normal behavior.

Polsky’s results show that a big danger with electronic collars, especially automatic e-collars, is that they may cause dogs to make the wrong associations, and learn the wrong things.

Dogs may associate the pain from the shock with the environment or with objects in the environment (including humans , dogs, or cats), rather than with their escaping or barking behaviors. This may lead to anxiety or negative associations with those objects, which can ultimately result in aggression.

Some dogs that have been conditioned in this manner, may not want to set foot in the yard, for worry of pain. They may also start to attack humans and other animals, that wander too close to the fence perimeter.

Some dogs may get habituated to the shocks, and learn that if they can tolerate the pain close to the fence-line, they can escape. Once they escape, they are rewarded with no more shocks. In this way, the dog learns that escaping is a good thing, whereas staying in the backyard is not.

Dogs may associate the pain from the shock with the environment or with objects in the environment (including humans , dogs, or cats), rather than with their escaping or barking behaviors.

2. May increase stress in dogs and reduce their quality of life.

Remote training collars can increase stress in dogs and reduce their quality of life.

Schalke et al. conducted an electronic collar training study on fourteen laboratory-bred Beagles. Shock collar training was conducted over 7 days, for 1.5 hours per day. Then the dogs were released to freely hunt for 5 days, and to hunt on leash for another 5 days. Schalke’s study showed that the dogs who

… were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators.

~~[ Excerpt from ScienceDirect.com ]

However, the two other groups of dogs that were not able to so clearly predict and control the delivery of the shocks, showed elevated stress levels, with the highest levels present in the dogs that were arbitrarily shocked.

Most importantly, the group of dogs that received a shock for not abiding by a recall (Here) command, were also significantly elevated.

Even more distressing, is that the results remained the same when the dogs were reintroduced to the testing area after four weeks. Their stress levels remained high, even though they did not receive any shocks during this reintroduction period.

The results from Schalke’s study indicate that electronic collars are extremely risky to use even for the short term. Stress levels of the dogs were high after just 7 days, and were elevated as soon as they returned to the shock treatment environment. This is consistent with Polsky’s study, which show that dogs may associate the shock and stress they receive, with the environment itself.

This study provides strong evidence that shock collars are inappropriate for most kinds of dog training, as even common recall training will result in elevated stress levels, and a lower quality of life.

Shock corrections can weaken our bond with our dog.

3. May weaken our bond with our dog.

Polsky and Schalke’s studies show that dogs often associate the pain from electronic collars with their environment, as well as with people, animals, and other objects in that environment. Even after shocks are no longer administered, the dogs still attach the environment to something stressful and negative.

Therefore, using a remote training collar on our dog may cause him to associate our home or backyard, with stress and pain. Or worse yet, it may cause him to associate the stress with other dogs, other people, or with us.

Remember that Schalke’s results show this negative attachment forming in a matter of 7 days.

Alternative to Shock Corrections

Alternative to Shock Corrections

When I first got my Shiba Inu, I had a lot of problems with him. At the time, I was under the false impression that reward methods would not work on my dominant, stubborn, and aggressive Shiba Inu. Therefore, I was using aversive training and briefly considered the use of electronic collars, because the other aversive-based methods were not working well.

However, after doing a lot of reading, I decided to give reward dog training a chance.

Reward training is not a miracle cure, and it will still take a lot of work, consistency, and patience, to train our dog. However, reward techniques can work on dominant, stubborn, and aggressive dogs. It has worked well for training my Shiba. In fact, he stopped showing aggression toward me and others, after I stopped using pain-based methods.

Common Justifications for Shock Collars

1. Save a dog’s life.

Proponents of electronic collars sometimes argue that they are used to save a dog’s life, by preventing him from running into traffic.

It is important to note that off-leash recall is never 100% reliable, whatever equipment or training methods we may choose to use.

This is why there are leash laws in most neighborhoods. This is also why off-leash parks require dogs to be on-leash when they are in the parking lot area, or in areas that are close to roads and traffic.

I use a no-slip collar and secure leash to walk my dogs in the neighborhood. I also regularly check the collar and leash to ensure that they in good working order. Off-leash exercise can be had in fully enclosed spaces or large parks, where we are far enough away from traffic that a failed recall, will not result in an accident. Do not play Russian Roulette with our dog’s life.

2. Do not cause much pain, just a tingle.

Some people try remote training collars on themselves, and report that it only causes a tingle, so it really does not apply much pain to our dog.

However, to closely experience shock collar conditioning from my dog’s perspective, I would have to put the collar on my neck and surrender the controller to a handler. I will not know why, when, or where the shocks will be administered.

As I carry on with my day, I may feel the need for a smoke. I reach for it, and feel a tingle on my neck. It is just a tingle, so I continue.

At this point, the tingle not only persists, but increases in intensity. I am strong willed though, so I keep going. After all, that is exactly why I needed the shock collar in the first place.

The intensity keeps increasing until finally, I drop the bad object. My hand shakes. The experience was unpleasant, and now I want relief more than ever. Unfortunately, I do not even have a patch, all I have is this locked-on collar that I cannot remove. My eyes stray and my hands start to reach again …

Electronic collars are NOT harmless, nor are they just a little tingly. If they were so, they would not work. Their use is illegal for children and non-consenting adults. Here is another case in Utah. Trying the collar on ourselves, and doing a single, short, expected shock, at low intensity, is *not* how the collar will be used on our dogs. It is merely a gimmick to convince us that the collars are innocuous. If they were truly so harmless –

• Why is their use banned for children and non-consenting adults.
• Why is there so much scientific data showing how risky they can be.
• Why are they on the “do not use” list of so many well-respected dog advocate organizations.
• Why would they “work” on our stubborn dog, when other pain based aversive collars such as prong collars or choke collars have stopped working.

Logic tells us that this is a false claim.

3. Everybody else is biased and dishonest.

Another common argument, is that those who point out the risks of remote training collars are biased and dishonest. Personal attacks or ad hominem arguments such as these are not only pointless, but they also discourage rational discourse and the exchange of ideas. More on bias.

In this article, I describe what attracted me to look into electronic collars as a possible training tool for my Shiba Inu, as well as some of the risks that were of concern. Based on the studies and articles that I found, I also include counter-arguments (if present) for each of those points. In general, I found very little scientific evidence to recommend its use, while at the same time, there are many studies that show the risks involved.

After reading the results of Polsky and Schalke, it is difficult for me to come up with cases where the shock collar would be appropriate in dog training. Perhaps the only case would be in animal aversion training, such as teaching our dogs to fear and stay-away from rattlesnakes.

If you know of supporting scientific studies or substantiated data which highlight the good of remote training collars, it would certainly contribute much to the discussion, so please share them with us.

However, based on current reliable data, shock collars are not something I would use on my own dogs or generally recommend to others. It is also worth noting that the ASPCA, AVSAB, RSPCA, Kennel Club, and Blue Cross, are all against the use of shock collars for companion dogs.

Would you still use a shock collar on your dog?