Understanding the Role of E-Collars in Dog Training: Insights from a 2024 Study
The use of electronic collars (e-collars) in dog training has been a topic of heated debate, with some advocating for their effectiveness while others raise concerns about animal welfare. Misleading research, often failing to account for proper usage, risks discrediting e-collars altogether. A 2024 study by Anamarie Johnson and Clive Wynne provides a critical perspective on this issue, offering evidence that e-collars can be effective when applied correctly by skilled trainers.
The full study is available for download below, but here we list a summary and the study's significance:
The Study's Objective
The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and welfare outcomes of e-collars versus purely positive reinforcement methods in stopping chasing behavior, a common but dangerous issue in dogs. Chasing behaviors can pose significant risks, such as a dog running into traffic or harming wildlife. This makes the ability to stop these behaviors essential, and the debate about the most efficient and humane methods to do so is particularly relevant.
Johnson and Wynne's study used a controlled environment to examine how well e-collars and food reward methods curbed the chasing of a fast-moving lure. Dogs were divided into three groups:
- Group A used e-collars.
- Group B used food rewards, with the lure moving at full speed.
- Group C also used food rewards, but the lure started slow and increased in speed over time.
The results provide crucial insights into the efficacy and welfare implications of these training methods.
Key Findings: E-Collars Versus Positive Reinforcement
The results were clear: dogs trained with e-collars ceased chasing the lure after just two training sessions, and they refrained from chasing during subsequent tests. In contrast, the dogs trained with food rewards, whether the lure started slow or fast, failed to stop chasing it across all training and test sessions.
What makes this study particularly important is the attention to welfare outcomes. While some dogs in the e-collar group did yelp in response to the shock, these vocalizations were the only immediate signs of distress. Other behavioral indicators of stress, such as tail tucking or avoidance behaviors, were absent. Furthermore, there were no long-term signs of stress, and none of the groups exhibited significant changes in cortisol levels, a key marker of stress.
The Importance of Expertise
The study emphasizes that the effectiveness of e-collars depends largely on the expertise of the trainer. A significant issue in many studies that criticize e-collars is that they often fail to control for variables such as the trainer’s skill level, the shock intensity, and the timing of corrections. In this study, the trainers were experienced and carefully monitored the use of the e-collars, adjusting the intensity as needed. The dogs were never exposed to higher-than-necessary shock levels, minimizing the potential for harm.
This distinction is critical. When poorly handled, e-collars can indeed result in welfare issues. However, as the study illustrates, in the hands of an expert, e-collars can be a humane and highly effective tool for modifying dangerous behaviors like chasing.
Addressing the Broader Debate
This study comes at a time when there is a growing effort to ban e-collars in some countries, fueled by research that often paints these tools in a negative light. However, the findings by Johnson and Wynne highlight the dangers of using poorly designed studies to inform such bans. For instance, some previous studies have criticized e-collars for causing stress but failed to clarify how the tools were used or whether the trainers were adequately skilled.
The 2024 study points out that many of these criticisms lack context and may overlook the practical benefits of e-collars. For example, non-aversive training methods, while excellent for many scenarios, often take significantly more time to achieve results. When dealing with high-risk behaviors like chasing, especially in emergency situations, speed and reliability are critical, e-collars offer trainers the ability to correct behavior from a distance and with immediate results, which can be life-saving for the dog.
A Balanced Approach to Dog Training
The take-home message from this study is that e-collars, when used responsibly and by experienced professionals, are an effective and humane tool for stopping problematic behaviors. While positive reinforcement remains standard for many types of training, e-collars should not be dismissed outright, especially when addressing behaviors that put the dog or others at risk.
Instead, trainers and dog owners should focus on ensuring that whichever method they choose, it is applied correctly and humanely. This study reinforces the importance of expert training in using aversive tools like e-collars and highlights the need for further research to refine best practices in dog training.
By acknowledging the nuances of dog behavior and the role that e-collars can play, trainers can better serve their canine clients and protect them from harm, while still ensuring their welfare is safeguarded.
Conclusion
The 2024 study by Johnson and Wynne provides a balanced, research-backed view of e-collars, illustrating their efficacy in controlling high-risk behaviors such as chasing, without compromising the welfare of the dog. In the ongoing debate surrounding dog training methods, it’s critical that decisions are based on thorough and well-conducted research rather than emotional responses to poorly designed studies. For professional dog trainers, understanding the proper use of all tools, including e-collars, is key to developing a well-rounded approach to canine behavior modification.
Citation: Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs. Animals, 14(2632). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632
Download below:
Hot off the press
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Unfortunately for me, like with the experiments presented as evidence from the purely positive force-free community; this experiment does not show true correlation much less causality for using the e-collar. The lack of scientific method, clear experimental design, statistical data, and analysis presentation, lack of clear sample size and variety, account for or discovery of confounding variables, cumulative record during training sessions, clear methods in precise use each of the tools for each group (I can keep going but won’t} makes it lacking in scientific validity or integrity. The whole point of an experiment is that it can be replicated. Neither one of these can and never will. Unfortunately, until we get trainers who are true scientists or scientists who are knowledgeable trainers this topic will always remain subjective, anecdotal, and lacking in the ability to make valid empirical statements. My dad would always ask me these questions when I said I did or got the dog to do or not do something. He would ask, “Are you sure?” “Can you do it again? 10 more times? Under the same conditions and get the exact same results?” It used to drive me BONKERS! I would scream in frustration. But now, I ask the exact same questions. I am and will forever be my fathers’ daughter and though this is probably not what people want to hear, we can’t accept this as showing a causal relationship between the efficacy of the e-collar vs the other methods. Not if we are to look at this through a truly objective and scientific lens. It’s not about what we know from experience, it’s what we can prove. Proper experimental design, the collection of clear and concise data so that it can be properly analyzed and then the results be replicable, when those exist for either side maybe then one can declare victory. Again, sorry to offend anyone that is not my intent. My brain works differently than most. I am just as critical of myself in everything I do or say.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I like that this study addresses many of its own shortcomings and is quite transparent and even includes a way to gain more access to the data. In reality, it is difficult to have a rock solid study about dog training “methods” unless dogs of pure genetics, raised like lab rats under the same conditions are trained in skinner box-like conditions.
I personally took it at face value and it checks my personal “valid enough” criteria compared to some studies that clearly seem to mislead or do not make sense. It makes sense to me, especially when comparing to more controlled studies with rats, that a high-level shock contingent on a basic avoidance conditioning plan would be more effective than differential reinforcement plan. That is basically what it tried to demonstrate in a way that had far less variables than the UK study.
The discussion about welfare and perspective I also find important especially when the UK studies truly go out in left-field with their claims.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I like it, much better than previous UK attempt.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
https://illis.se/en/shock-collar-critique/
Heavy critic on that study 😞
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
These are statements from Clive Wynne’s Facebook profile regarding criticism:
statement 1
This paper came out rather quicker than I was anticipating so I see it has generated a lot of discussion without my voice in the mix. I also don’t have the bandwidth right now for back and forth with everyone who has an opinion (and no desire to engage with some of the intemperate tones out there). We are working on a major review of the ethics of dog training and I’ll be in a better position to talk about this when that is done. But, for now, a few quick points:
People have questioned my motivation to do this study. My motivation doesn’t change from study to study: I am always trying to find ways to help dogs and their people lead the best possible lives together.
In a world where the prevalence of injury in traffic accidents is estimated at over 0.4% and more than 20% of dogs hit by cars die of their injuries (Harris et al., 2018)—aside from all the other bad things that can happen to a dog who runs away besides being hit by a car—a solid recall is a life and death measure. A lot of dog trainers on social media are saying they have successful positive-reinforcement-only methods of instilling rock-solid recalls. Good for you. I’ve never shocked a dog and I don’t plan on doing so, but we need to recognized that most people do not seek professional help in training their dogs (Johnson & Wynne, 2024), and, in any case half of even the most popular dog trainers do not have any relevant qualifications (Johnson & Wynne, 2022). Consequently, meeting people where they are, finding out what methods they use, and testing the effectiveness of those methods is, I feel, an ethical obligation.
It’s wonderful to see how our study has prompted critical thinking in so many people. I think it was Nobel prize winner, Daniel Kahneman, who pointed out how nothing engages people’s critical acumen like results that they don’t agree with. I haven’t seen anyone raise a criticism of the study that we didn’t bring up ourselves, but it’s great to see people trying. (It is, however, disappointing to see so many people forcefully expressing opinions when they obviously haven’t read the study) Now please take that critical frame of mind and apply it to the studies you do like the results of. Did they assign dogs to conditions at random? Do they describe in detail the contingencies to which the dogs were exposed? I know our study is far from perfect but I think it’s as good as any prior study on this topic (it ought to be, we read all the existing studies before we started). Once you get into the nitty gritty of designing a study like this, it turns out to be much more difficult than you’d expect. I wouldn’t recommend it to the faint of heart nor to colleagues early in their career. That’s part of why I took it on. I am convinced work like this needs doing and if an old fart like me doesn’t do it, it probably won’t get done.
Give your dog a hug from me,
Clive.
Harris, G. L., Brodbelt, D., Church, D., Humm, K., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C., & O’Neill, D. (2018). Epidemiology, clinical management, and outcomes of dogs involved in road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom (2009-2014). Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care (San Antonio, Tex.: 2001), 28(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12704
Johnson, A. C., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2022). Training Dogs with Science or with Nature? An Exploration of Trainers’ Word Use, Gender, and Certification Across Dog-Training Methods. Anthrozoös, 36(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2062869
Johnson, A. C., & Wynne, C. D. (2024). Training Methods Used by Dog Guardians in the United States: Prevalence, Sources of Information, and Reasons for Use. Animals, 14(9), 1310.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/18/2632
statement 2
Five more points stemming from our study, “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.”
1. Trainers who claim to believe that positive reinforcement is the best way to effect behavior change completely undermine their case when their first reaction when anyone disagrees with them is to come after that person in the most punitive way possible.
2. Trainers who are members of professional associations like the IAABC, CCPDT and the APDT, have an obligation, outlined in the ethical principles they signed, to be respectful of colleagues and other professionals.
3. If you really have to offer criticism, please email me at [email protected]. Leave Anamarie Johnson out of this. I can’t believe the kind of puerile drivel she is being subjected to. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are bringing your profession into disrepute.
4. So many of you feel you could easily have done a much better study. That’s wonderful! I look forward to reading those studies in the near future.
5. Two points have been raised in discussion that are worth answering:
a. People are very interested in the identities of the trainers we worked with. I am not aware of any prior study that named the trainers they engaged. Our ambition was to publish a study that was more thorough and complete than those that had gone before and so we named our trainers. We are very grateful to them for their time and expertise, but at no point did they contribute to the design (or analysis, or write-up) of the study. That is solely the responsibility of the two named authors.
b. There is also a lot of concern about the two dogs whose data were not reported because they received more than 20 shocks. When we sought ethical approval for the study we had to specify how many shocks a dog might receive. We could find no prior studies that indicated how many shocks might be appropriate or defensible so we plucked a number more or less out of thin air. The process of training – as you presumably know – is a fast moving and very fluid one. Our trainers were instructed not to give more shocks than we had approval for, but, as we analyzed the videos at lower speeds after the event, it became apparent that two dogs had received more shocks than were approved. By then the study was complete. We weren’t sure how to proceed. These dogs were entirely typical of the others in their group. They yelped to the shocks; they learned very quickly and they had similar test performance and no signs of stress/distress beyond the initial yelping. One option would have been to silently drop them, but, again, we wanted our study to be more complete than those that had gone before, so we included mention that these dogs existed, but we couldn’t include their data because their experience was outside our approvals. So we ended up with the situation you see now. Perhaps this level of openness was not helpful, but it’s how we felt this kind of study should be done.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here