Publication
Anamarie C. Johnson and Clive D. L. Wynne. Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs. Animals 14:2632 (2024). [24]
Site summary — not the original abstract
Johnson and Wynne compared e-collar training with two food-reward procedures in a five-day lure-chasing study: 19 dogs completed the study days, but two of the eight assigned to the e-collar group were excluded after exceeding the approved shock limit, leaving six e-collar dogs for analysis. [24]
The analyzed e-collar dogs stopped chasing during training and did not chase in the first three tests, unlike the food-reward groups; in the novel-arena test, however, 67% chased, and the results section classified four dogs as successful because two stopped on the cue and two never began chasing. [24]
Yelping occurred during e-collar training, subtle stress-related behaviors could not be reliably coded, and the authors considered the fecal-cortisol sample too small for firm conclusions; longer-term impacts were not investigated. [24]
The result supports greater short-term suppression of chasing under these specific protocols, not universal superiority or absence of welfare costs: the authors noted that the food-reward procedures might benefit from more conditioning and slower progression and cautioned against treating this study as guidance for owners modifying their dogs’ behavior. [24]
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