Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2007) 2, 1-4

EDITORIAL

Why electric shock is not behavior modification
In doing the Web research for my earlier survey of
nonveterinary programs for those who work with troubled
dogs (Editorial: How do we obtain and disseminate accurate
information? Vol. 1, Issue 3:89 –93), I encountered a number of Web sites that either supported or reviled training
using electric shock. This is a perennial issue, and although
I loathe starting the new year with yet another revisit,
perhaps the time has come to ask—not what people think
about shock— but whether it “works,” what we mean by
“works,” and what would be necessary to evaluate this or
any other technique using the scientific method. If we can
start the new year by promoting a rational, scientific approach to this issue, we will have set a tone for discussion
that is much needed.
For the purposes of ensuring that we are all talking about
the same thing, I have repeated the Table found in the earlier
editorial, “Steps for any scientific effort.” For the purposes
of this discussion, I limited myself to sites readily found on
the internet (with thanks to Donna Dyer, LVT, for locating
these sites), to germane discussions in veterinary publications, and to the peer-reviewed literature focusing on pet
dogs.
In 1999 I wrote a letter, published in the Australian
Veterinary Journal (Overall, 1999), deploring shock and
continued the discussion in 2003 (Overall, 2003), when I
learned that I had been cited as supporting shock (Perkins,
2003a). In response to my letter stating that I did not and
never had supported shock for teaching or helping animals
learn, I was labeled a Luddite (Perkins, 2003b). I was also
labeled as biased because I recommended that we approach
this issue by collecting the data. But what does it mean to
collect data?
By definition, when you collect data in a systematic way
with a discrete question in mind, you are abandoning the
approaches of self-report, personal testimonials, and argumentum ad hominem that are so prevalent in discussions
supporting shock, regardless of the source. The scientific
method gives us a way to test our beliefs. Unfortunately,
studies on the effects of shock are not numerous, despite the
claim that “Major veterinary universities have tested E-collars since the mid 60s, when they were invented. No evidence of any such [nerve – sic] damage has ever been
found” (Castle, n.d.). The studies that have been published
1558-7878/$ -see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2006.12.006

are valid and important to understand. I am going to review
some of the ground I covered in previous letters, and add
information from data relatively recently published in hopes
of allowing anyone who is interested to understand that:
(1) the use of shock is not treatment for pets with behavioral concerns;
(2) the use of shock is not a way forward;
(3) the use of shock does not bring dogs back from the
brink of euthanasia; instead, it may send them there; and
(4) such adversarial techniques have negative consequences that those promoting these techniques either
dismiss or ignore.
We have known for decades that shock works to teach
avoidance and cessation of behavior, which in the extreme
form, as often examined in the psychological literature, is
called “immobility.” It is this criterion of “immobility” by
which learned helplessness is accessed (Seligman, 1971).
Given this definition, I have been surprised at how often
those who support shock ignore the fact that cessation may
not be a hallmark of “improved behavior,” especially when
the welfare of the animal is considered. It is also surprising
that no one who is recommending shock for treatment of
behavioral problems has evaluated the extent to which they
may be inducing learned helplessness in the dogs they seek
to treat.
This lack of follow-through is problematic and, of
course, violates the tenets of the scientific method (see steps
1–3 in the Table).
Whether the discussion is about electric shock (Castle,
n.d.; Perkins, 2005) or low-level electronic stimulation
(Courtney, E collar Focus and Control, 2005; Hassen, n.d.),
the use of an electric impulse is intended to stop a specific
behavior that is deemed undesirable. In none of the sources
I read did anyone pause to ask what information the dog was
conveying by the behavior that people found worrisome or
undesirable. In none of the sources did any of the authors
realize that cessation of one behavior did not mean that the
dog was normal, or that he or she was rationally complying
with a program designed to eliminate the reason for the
behavior. In fact, Courtney (2005) states that the client
found the dog to have become “obedient.” Obedient dogs
can be quite distressed and can suffer from profound anxiety

2

Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 1, January/February 2007
Table Steps for any scientific effort. These steps form the
necessary and sufficient conditions for when an approach is
scientific:
1. Ask a question;
2. Make preliminary observations and formulate hypotheses.
Hypotheses are specific questions—usually these
hypotheses are best formulated after an extensive period
of observation so that apparent patterns emerge.
3. Make predictions from the hypotheses.
4. Identify which variables need to be measured in order to
test these predictions;
5. Choose suitable methods for measuring the variables.
6. Collect sufficient data. Stop collecting the data when,
but only when, you have enough to provide clear
answers.
7. Use the right statistical tools for testing the hypotheses.
These tools will be determined largely by the pattern and
type of data that you collected.
Data from Martin and Bateson, 1986.

while complying with a request. These issues were only
discussed in papers and on sites whose focus was concern
for what the animal experienced during training (Flint,
2005; IPDTA Laurette, n.d.). So, does using shock “work”?
If we consider this question, we can now see how important
criteria for evaluation have become (steps 4 and 5 in the
Table).
If those recommending electric shock do not understand
normal canine behavior and signaling and have little respect
for the welfare and cognitive needs of dogs, how can they
evaluate any “data” they purport to collect in a scientific
context? They cannot. They have not complied with step 1
in the Table and cannot comply with step 2 in the Table
because they have not made the needed range of observations.
Yet all of the sources supporting electric shock state that
the dogs stop the targeted behavior when shocked (Castle,
n.d.; Courtney, 2005; Deeley, n.d.; Goldberg, online; Hassen, n.d.; NAIA, n.d., Perkins, 2005; RadioFence, online).
In fact, in one of the many “articles” published online
(Castle, The Electronic Collar, 2002, online), Castle states
that he prevents dogs from leaving their people’s sides by
proofing. “I have the dog recall to me and then transfer to
the owner. This is done quite simply by putting the dog on
a Flexi leash and when he gets to the end of it, pressing the
button (after first having found his level of stimulation).
Dogs are liable to do many things when they first feel the
stimulation and I ignore all of them. While still holding the
button of the Ecollar unit down I gently guide the dog to
come towards me and as soon as he takes a few steps in that
direction, I release the button. This is continued until the
dog figures out that if he comes towards me, the discomfort
stops. I then walk away from the dog and press the button.
If he moves to go with me I release the button. . . . I then
proof the dog by throwing toys. If the dog leaves the
owner’s side, I have him say ‘here’ and stim [sic shock] the

dog. This proofing continues until the dog doesn’t leave the
owner’s side no matter what distraction I supply.”
There are many things wrong with this approach, and
although they have been discussed in texts on veterinary
behavioral medicine, I shall quickly review the shortcomings here.
First, Flexi leads are formulae for teaching unschooled or
unmannered dogs to fail on a lead. The dogs can only be
jerked back when they hit the end of the lead, and because
all dogs push against pressure, their response is worse.
Second, the dog is punished for actually doing nothing in
the described scenario.
Third, all of the data and observations about canine
responses to electric shock are deliberately ignored here.
This is a formula for not understanding what you observe.
Fourth, I never throw a toy I don’t want a pet dog to
chase. Why would I devalue the toy? If you are teaching a
working dog to ignore food or toys, there are easier and
better ways to do this.
Finally, any dog who stops reacting to any stimuli in
such a conditioned situation is experiencing learned helplessness, not obedience.
Somewhere in this discussion, rational thought must suggest that different strengths and durations of shock may
cause different experiences, and what the human being
experiences may not be what the dog experiences. I’ve yet
to have someone hand me an adjustable-level collar and ask
me to prove that it doesn’t hurt by shocking them at any
level I chose.
That said, carrying out steps 4 and 5 in the Table is
difficult. There is little information available, and what there
is does not appear to be collected in a consistent manner.
Most of these collars have stimulation “levels,” and knowing that the author cannot feel anything below a 5 on a
particular collar (Courtney, 2005) in no way allows us to
perform steps 4 and 5. There are no data to support someone’s assertion that a model that “taps” as fast as 1/1000th of
a second is over “as quick as the static shock you get from
a doorknob. And by the way, the intensities I use are usually
quite a bit less than what you typically feel from the doorknob.” (Goldberg, 2004). The assertions are that modern
E-collars offer up to 50,000 random frequencies and so
cannot experience random discharge, or that there are between 6 and 18 levels of “stim” offered without supportive
data, but there are long lists of model numbers the author
recommends (Castle, n.d.). It is not helpful to note that the
collars automatically shut off after 10 –12 seconds (Castle,
n.d.), without knowing what the dog received and perceived
in those 10 –12 seconds. RadioFence (online) states that
“The brand that has the UL mark of approval on its receiver
features a correction that lasts only 1/40th of a second—less
time than it takes the average person to snap their fingers.”
What else does this device feature? Whatever it is, it is not
discussed here, but you do get to learn that the training
shock is 1⁄4 the level of a cattle fence and 1/20th the level of
a stun gun, which delivers a shock of 100 Kv (RadioFence,

Overall

Is shock treatment?

online). Unfortunately, the study cited in this discussion is
presented without statistical analysis, or any data on the
range of voltage found in each situation (I doubt they are all
exactly the same). A review of the numbers involved (5
training collars v. 100 stun guns) strongly suggests that
steps 5–7 in the Table were violated here. In fact, all of the
writing cited in this paragraph is of concern, because it
implies a reliability that is simply not proven.
We must ask ourselves 2 questions with respect to cessation of a behavior and the potential for subsequent immobility: (1) is immobility what we want, and is cessation of
one behavior about which a client has a complaint sufficient? and (2) what other behaviors or behavioral processes
are being affected when one is exposed to shock?
Cessation is insufficient for 2 reasons.
First, if the behavior stops, we must realize that a “stop”
here is only a halt in the process or signal and that the dog
must then be directed toward and rewarded for an appropriate behavior if we wish for him to be able to make such
a decision himself as a result of learning. This subsequent
step is not discussed in the literature on shock.
Second, and more important, the canine behavior for
which the animal is receiving a shock is not analogous to the
lever-pressing behaviors so often cited in the rodent literature for which shock has been used as an assay for “motivation.” The behaviors for which people wish to use shock
in dogs are those that annoy humans. These behaviors are
either signals or nonspecific signs of underlying distress. It
is clear from the above example that such distress is neither
considered nor addressed.
The question should be, are we doing harm when we use
shock to extinguish behaviors, some of which may be normal? If one is considering the mechanism of cellular learning, the answer must be yes.
If shock and pain are profound, it is possible to induce
almost immediate long-term potentiation (LTP), the molecular changes associated with hippocampal memory that will
lead to a strong aversion or phobia. The hippocampus is the
primary region where fears and anxieties associated with
fearful stimuli are thought to originate, so a logical sequela
to a stressful, painful stimulus may be fear, phobia, or
withdrawal. At the cellular level, any kind of repeated
reinforcement ensures better, more numerous, and more
efficient connections between neurons (Wittenberg and
Tsien, 2002). When stimulation continues, we know that
activity-dependent plasticity at synapses (e.g., learning) occurs in the lateral amygdala. This is one modality postulated
to be involved in learning of contextual fear (Schafe et al.,
2001).
Another issue to consider is that we may also be changing other behaviors or processes when we expose an animal
to shock.
It is important to realize that the discussions of LTP
above are based on rodent models of learning that often
involve knock-out genes. One of the criteria for evaluating
the validity of these mouse models includes a demonstration

3
that other normal behaviors have not been changed. This is
a clear application of validation involved in the scientific
method, and it has actually been used in dogs subjected to
shock collars.
In a landmark paper published in 2004, Schilder and van
der Borg demonstrated, using guard dog-trained German
shepherd dogs, that there were untoward, negative, longterm effects of training with shock. Dogs that were shocked
in training, but not when the evaluations were made,
showed a lower ear posture in free-walking, and more
stress-related behaviors than did dogs who had not been
shocked in training. These differences were also found
when these dogs participated in obedience training and
manwork. In addition to the noted behavioral responses
associated with stress and distress found in dogs that had
been trained with shock, the researchers also found behavioral differences that were most profound when the person
associated with the shock (the owner or handler) was
present. These data supported those from a previous study
(Beerda et al., 1997), which also documented alterations in
the HPA axis in dogs that were shocked when compared
with dogs experiencing no shock. Their conclusions were
that: (1) this type of training, in general, is stressful; (2)
receiving shocks is painful for the dogs; and (3) the dogs
learn a context-dependent concern—the presence of the
handler and his or her commands announces the reception
of shocks. It is important to note that despite these differences, these dogs all continued to work. Because handler
capabilities are a confounding variable when evaluating
working dogs, collecting the data about whether aversive
training actually affects abilities of successful dogs to work
is likely to be difficult. This does not mean that such data
should not be collected.
These conclusions give lie to the assertions that “taps”
are “imperceptible” and “tickle” human beings (Goldberg,
online), and that when fitted with electronic collars people
are surprised that they feel so little. In short, if the 1/1000 of
a second “tap” (no information on how such data were
acquired or validated) only generates a reaction so subtle
that a dog might only look at you or flick his ear (Goldberg,
online), why are we not using a clicker or a voice to get that
response? If the “stimulus” is just to get attention (Courtney,
2005; , 2004, online; Hassen, n.d.), this becomes all about
timing and getting the dog’s attention. Do we really need an
electric collar or shock to do that? If so, we have likely
overridden many of the dog’s normal responses. In such
cases the obvious conclusion is that these dogs would have
responded and will respond to clear signaling and humane
training designed to provide them with a clear, contextual
set of instructions.
Polsky (2000), following up on numerous citations suggesting links between shock and a change in behavior from
nonaggressive to aggressive, has published data supporting
an undesirable change in overall behavior in dogs subjected
to electronic fences, where previously unaggressive dogs
became aggressive when the dog was wearing the receiver

4

Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 2, No 1, January/February 2007

collar, the system was working, and the dog was in or near
the signal field. In each of these cases, the shock delivery
was completely out of context to the behavior the dog was
performing, usually greeting someone, and in each of these
cases these previously nonaggressive dogs delivered multiple bites, doing serious damage to the victims, 2 of whom
were children. Although the cases cited are few (5), the
pattern of the behaviors is important, worrisome, and deserves to be further pursued.
Shock collars have also been asserted to have utility as
a failsafe method for stopping trained patrol dogs from
overly enthusiastic biting, yet there are no published data
on this issue that we could discover. In an article from the
Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) newspaper on 26 August 2006, there is a report of a dog who, in the course of
searching a garage for a burglar, repeatedly bit his handler, ignoring shocks from the collar he was wearing
(Lin, 2006). Many police dogs wear shock collars in the
absence of any clear data that shock will inhibit a dog
who is trained to react aggressively in controlled situations. In fact, once they are fully behaviorally and physiologically engaged in attack behaviors, these dogs are
likely to be further stimulated by pain, if they don’t
already override such outside sensations.
Many advocates of humane approaches have asked
whether we would treat a child with a behavioral problem
this way, and if not, why should we treat a dog this way?
The flippant and unfortunately painfully accurate answer
may be, “Because we can,” a response that is never
adequate. Researching this editorial made me viscerally
ill, but the materials available clearly make the case that
the claims citing efficacy of shock are not based in
science or in the scientific method. If we can encourage
our clients to participate in the discussion about how we
know something, they can begin to evaluate the incredible effluence of argumentum, ad hominem, themselves.
Only if clients have the critical skills that allow them to
read and evaluate the information available to them can
they ask for humane help. It is only in this way that we
can interrupt the cycle of violence so many have perpetuated.
Karen L. Overall, Philadelphia, PA

References:
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., de Vries, H.W., Mol,
J., 1997. Behavioural, saliva cortisol, and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci 58, 365-381.
Castle, L., n.d. 22 Myths about Ecollars. Retrieved Dec 7, 2006 from Lou
Castle site. http://www.loucastle.com/myth.htm.
Courtney, S., 2005. The rehabilitation of “Grace.” Control and Therapy
Series, Post-Grad. Found. Vet. Sci. Univ. Sydney 240, 1622-1624.
Deeley, M., n.d. The modern remote electric training collar, retrieved
Dec 7, 2006, from the Florida Dog Trainer website. http://www.
floridadogtrainer.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/electroniccollar.
pdf.
Goldberg, M., n.d. The ForceFree method. Retrieved December 7, 2006,
from. http://www.chicagodogtrainer.com/chicago_dog_training.html.
Hassen, F., n.d. What is remote collar training? Retrieved December 7,
2006, from http://sitmeanssit.com/articles/article14.html.
IPDTA. International Positive Dog Training Association. http://www.
ipdta.org/.
Laurette, N.J., n.d. Shock equipment. Retrieved December 7, 2006 from
IPDTA site: http://www.ipdta.org/Research%20Findings.html#
Shock_Equipment_.
Lin S., 2006. Santa Ana officer files suit over police dog bite. Los Angeles
Times; http://www/latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dogbite23aug23.
NAIA, n.d. National Animal Interest Alliance. Some veterinarians and
activists want to limit dog training collars and techniques. Retrieved
December 7, 2006, from NAIA Web site: http://www.naiaonline.org/
articles/archives/sciorprop.htm#pos.
Overall, K.L., 1999. Letter to the editor on shock: Electronic collars
“appalling.” Aust. Vet. J. 77, 408.
Overall, K.L., 2003. Letter to the editor on shock. Aust. Vet. J. 81,
324-325.
RadioFence, n.d. The facts about modern electronic training devices.
Retrieved December 7, 2006, from PetSafe Web site. http://www.
petsafeoutreach.com/white_paper.pdf.
Perkins, J., 2003a. Letter to the editor on shock. Aust. Vet. J. 81, 190.
Perkins, J., 2003b. Letter to the editor on shock. Aust. Vet. J. 81, 394-395.
Perkins J., 2005. “Sargie” saved from euthanasia using a static pulse
remote training collar. Control and Therapy Series, Post-Grad. Found.
Vet. Sci. Univ. Sydney. 240:1621.
Polsky, R., 2000. Can aggression in dogs be elicited through the use of
electronic pet containment systems? J. Appl. Anim. Wel. Sci. 3, 345358.
Schafe G.E., Nader, K., Blair, H.T., LeDoux, J.E., 2001. Memory conciliation of Pavlovian fear conditioning: a cellular and molecular perspective. TRENDS Neurosci. 24, 540-546.
Schilder M.B.H., van der Borg, J.A.M., 2004. Training dogs with help of
the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 85, 319-334.
Seligman, M.E., 1971. Phobias and preparedness. Behav. Ther. 2:307-320.
Wittenberg, G.M., Tsien, J.Z., 2002. An emerging molecular and cellular
framework for memory processing by the hippocampus. TRENDS
Neurosci. 25, 501-505.