Comparison of learning effects and stress
between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting
signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs
Y. SALGIRLI1*, E. SCHALKE2, I. BOEHM2, H. HACKBARTH2
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, 06110 Ankara, TURKEY.
Institute of Animal Welfare and Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bünteweg 2, 30559 Hannover, GERMANY.

1
2

*Corresponding author: yaseminsalgirli@gmail.com

SUMMARY
Application of aversive stimuli in training, in particular via electronic training
collars, is a highly controversial issue. The aim of the present study was to
evaluate stress and learning effects of 3 different training methods, i.e. electronic training collar, pinch collar and a conditioned quitting signal in dog
training organized in 3 sessions. In order to assess stress effects of the training
methods, salivary cortisol concentrations and behavioural reactions of 42 police
dogs of the breed Malinois were measured. The electronic training collar induced less stress and had stronger learning effect in comparison to the other
methods in a training situation which required high motivation in case that
proficiency of dog trainer is proved. It was also noted that quitting signal was
markedly stressful in dogs. In the present study, however, theoretical and practical knowledge of each dog trainer could not be achieved during the assessment
of pinch collar as well as quitting signal. Therefore, the findings of the study
lead to the conclusion that debates over effectiveness of training methods
should include not only the training aids but also the qualification of the trainer.

Keywords: Dog training, Malinois, electronic training collar,
pinch collar, quitting signal, learning, behavioural reaction,
stress, salivary cortisol.

RÉSUMÉ
Comparaison de 3 méthodes d’entrainement (collier électrique d’entrainement, collier d’étranglement et signal d’abandon) sur l’apprentissage
et le stress chez les chiens de police malinois
Durant l’entrainement, l’application d’un stimulus de répulsion, notamment
par le biais d’un collier électrique, est une méthode hautement controversée.
Le but de cette étude a été d’évaluer les effets de 3 méthodes différentes d’entrainement, collier électrique, collier d’étranglement et signal d’abandon, sur
l’apprentissage et le stress durant un exercice d’entrainement de chiens de
police organisé en 3 sessions. Pour déterminer le niveau de stress induit, les
concentrations de cortisol salivaire et les réactions comportementales ont été
mesurées sur 42 chiens de police de race malinois. Dans le cas où l’efficacité
du dresseur est certifiée, le collier électrique a induit un stress moins important
et un meilleur apprentissage que les autres méthodes durant un exercice d’entrainement requérant une forte motivation. Il est à noter aussi qu’un signal
d’abandon s’est avéré particulièrement stressant chez les chiens. Cependant,
dans l’étude présente, les connaissances théoriques et pratiques de chaque
propriétaire n’ont pas pu être évaluées lors de l’utilisation du collier d’étranglement ou de la mise en œuvre du signal d’abandon. Cette étude conduit à
la conclusion que l’évaluation globale des méthodes d’entrainement doit tenir
compte non seulement des outils utilisés mais aussi de la qualification de
l’entraineur.

Mots clés : Chien, entrainement, Malinois, collier électrique, collier d’étranglement, signal d’abandon, apprentissage, réaction comportementale, stress, cortisol
salivaire.

Introduction
In recent years, a controversial debate has emerged over the
use of punishment in dog training. On one hand, some authors
claim that with respect to producing physical damage to the
skin and/or the body, electronic training collars are relatively
safer than the mechanical training aids [9, 12] and, further,
they have no adverse effects at all [4]. Opponents, on the other
hand, argue that the use of electronic training collar is painful,
unethical and unnecessary regardless of the severity of the
training situation or problem behaviour [3, 13]. There are
some scientific researches examined effects of electronic training
collars in the area of dog training. The studies conducted by
SCHILDER and VAN DER BORG [17] and SCHALKE et
al. [16] conclude that electronic training collars can be used

in accordance with animal protection principles if only the
following criteria are met: The user must have sufficient practical and theoretical knowledge of these devices and must have
undergone a test showing his capability to use them. Nevertheless, even if these criteria are met, the devices can only be
used in specifically designed training situations [16, 17]. All
in all, both scientific studies conclude that alternative training
methods imply less stress on the animal, thus they comply
with animal protection policies. Up until now, however, no
scientific research has been conducted which could prove this
hypothesis. Therefore, a comparative statement about the
stress arising from training methods considering animal welfare
has not yet been made.
There are different examples in the literature studying salivary
cortisol values and behavioural indicators for the assessment
Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535

COMPARISON OF LEARNING EFFECTS AND STRESS BETWEEN 3 TRAINING METHODS IN MALINOIS

of acute stress in animals [1, 11]. According to BEERDA [1],
non-invasive sampling methods must be used to assess stress
in animals since those methods have minimal influence on the
results. He further emphasized the necessity of using a physiological parameter concomitant with behavioural parameters
in order to support the interpretation of the behavioural data
when assessing stress. Therefore salivary cortisol values and
direct behavioural reactions of the dogs were evaluated as
stress parameters in the present study. Several researchers reported a number of different behavioural indicators of acute
stress in dogs, which comprise lowering and arching of the
body [1, 7, 18], flattening ears [1, 7, 18] and lowering the tail
and/or holding the tail tightly between the legs [1, 18] when
the dogs are confronted with the aversive situation. In the present
study, the aim of the test design was to determine acute stress
arising from the training methods. Thus, above mentioned behavioural elements were evaluated as acute stress parameters.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether any stress
is caused by the use of specific conditioned signal, quitting
signal, and/or pinch collars and if they do so, whether the
stress produced in the process is comparable to the one with
electric training collars. Corrections made by pinch collar and
electronic training collar were considered as representatives
of the positive punishment while correction made by the quitting
signal was considered as the application of the negative punishment. In this context, positive punishment refers to an application of an aversive stimulus as a consequence of an
undesired behaviour and negative punishment connotes the
prevention or withholding of the delivery of an appetitive stimulus in case that the undesired behaviour occurs [15]. We
set out to investigate the direct behavioural reactions and salivary cortisol values of the dogs upon administration of above
mentioned training methods. We were especially interested in
finding out which method leads to less stress in dogs during
training with high level of arousal. Furthermore, this study
examined the learning effects of the electronic training collar,
the pinch collar and the quitting signal. Thus, the compatibility
of the learning effect of ‘’negative punishment’’ method with
the ‘’positive punishment’’ method, in a training with high
level of arousal and motivation were also be assessed.

Material and Methods
SUBJECTS AND TEST PERSONS
Forty-two adult police dogs of both genders (33 males and
9 females) and varying ages (3-10 years old) of the breed Malinois (Shorthaired Belgian Sheepdog) served as subjects for
this study. All dogs in the study were official police service
dogs and recruited from two different police departments in
Germany. The decision to use only Belgian Malinois was employed in an attempt to avoid the variability due to breed characteristics. During the study, dogs participated the sessions
with their own handlers.
All tests were conducted on open air training grounds which
were also used for routine police dog training. In order to obtain
the standardization in respect to the test area, each dog was
tested on the same place where it started to be tested during
the entire experiment.
Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535

531

Two test instructors were present during the entire experiment.
The main responsibilities of the test instructors were the observation and control of the test sessions. Additionally, two
experienced canine officers who were also professional dog
trainers took part in the study as decoys. The main responsibility of the decoys was provoking the dogs during the test
sessions in order that the dogs make a mistake. Another responsibility of the decoys during this study was the administration of the electronic training collar. During the sessions in
which the electronic training collar was tested, they held the
receiver of the collar and gave the electric impulse whenever
the dog made the mistake. Each of the helpers provoked one
group during the whole experiment. The aim of using the
same person as decoy for all dogs in the same group was to
minimize the variability arising from the provocation style
and, also, to the decoy himself.
Each training method used in this research required a proper
training aid. Dogtra 600 NCP/2® electronic training collar,
Klickstachelhalsung® pinch collar, the standard normal collar
and the 5 m long leash were used as training aids.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND TESTS
In the current literature, it was cited that there are differences in response to aversive stimulus between individuals
[8, 19]. LINDSAY [12] additionally suggested that in order
to amplify the statistical results in studies in which the electronic training collar was tested, “within subject design’’ must
be applied since individual variables can cause incorrect data.
Therefore, in the present study ‘’within subject design’’ was
applied as experimental design for comparison of stress and
learning effects of the different training methods. Namely,
each training method was tested on each dog on different days
during the research. In order to eliminate the effects of the administration orders of the training methods on the results, six
subgroups, A, B, C, D, E, F, were established, to each of them
a different administration order of the training methods was
applied (randomized cross-over design, Table 1).

Subgroups
A
B
C
D
E
F

1st test day
Q
Q
E
E
P
P

2nd test day
E
P
Q
P
Q
E

3rd test day
P
E
P
Q
E
Q

Q: Quitting signal, P: Pinch Collar, E: Electronic Training Collar.

TABLE I: Cross-over design of the study conducted in order to compare
3 different learning methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar
and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois police dogs.

Prior to the main experiment, since 7 dogs had never been
trained with the electronic training collar before, an adaptation
phase, which lasted six weeks, was conducted for them. For
the adaptation phase, the dogs carried the electronic training

532

SALGIRLI (Y.) AND COLLABORATORS

collars during the normal daily training routine. The same procedure was applied for the rest of the dogs for a week since
they were already familiar to the electronic training collar.
This procedure was conducted in order to achieve habituation
of the dogs to the device again since the electronic training
collars are forbidden in Germany since 2006.
Quitting signal is a conditioned signal which evokes feeling
of frustration in dogs since it has a meaning of withdrawal of
the reward. The main principle of the quitting signal is to
condition a feeling of frustration, and thus, to abandon of a
distinctive behaviour towards a specific signal. In order to participate in the experiment, the dog should withdraw itself from
the toy immediately after the first instruction of the signal.
Before the main experiment started, quitting signal training
procedure was completed and the signal was tested on each dog.
The main experiment took three test days for each dog. The
time interval between test days was one week. On each test
day, a different training method was tested on the dog. Maximal
three main test sessions were conducted for each dog per day
to test the concerning training method. Learning effect of training
methods was evaluated considering these three sessions. Regardless of which method was tested, each dog carried three
collars around its neck, which were standard, pinch and electronic training collars, during the entire experiment in order
to ensure the standardization among the training methods. The
dogs were brought to the training area with a leash on standard
collar and were kept on the leash throughout the entire experiment.
Before conducting the main test, two different sessions were
performed with each dog, which were obedience and play sessions. During the obedience session, the dog did some obedience exercises for eighty seconds. This session brings the
dog to a certain level of arousal, so that the optimal results
could be achieved at the main test. After the obedience session,
a standardized play session, which lasted for forty seconds,
was carried on. In the play session, the handler played freely
with his/her dog. The goal of performing the play session between
the obedience- and test sessions was to avoid misevaluation
of extra-stress caused by frustration. At the end of the two minutes,
the dog and its handler came to the determined point at which
they took up the heel position. After the dog and its owner
took up the heel position with their backs turned to the entry
of the test area, the decoy with a protection sleeve and a whip
in his hand entered the test area. As soon as the handler took
his position up at a distance of approximately 3 m from the
dog and the handler, the owner gave the “Heel” command to
his/her dog and started to walk by the decoy (figure 1). From
that moment on, the decoy tried to provoke the dog in order
that it made a mistake. As the dog made the mistake, the training method which would be tested was administered. As testing
the quitting signal, the handler used a 5 m long leash. The first
reason of using 5 m long leash for the quitting signal was to
allow reaction time for the dog handler and also for the dog
and, thus, to be able to evaluate clearly whether the dog stopped
due to the influence of the collar or to the signal. The second
reason was to be sure that the dog could not reach the decoy
and, thus, it could not get rewarded by being able to catch him.
As mentioned before, the training method which would be
tested was administered as the dog made the mistake. If the

FIGURE 1: Test situation for comparing 3 different learning methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois police dogs.

dog abandoned the undesired behaviour reliably after the correction, the same test procedure was repeated after an hour in
order to see whether the method had a learning effect. During
the repetition of the test, the same procedure as in the first test
was carried out. The decoy did exactly the same provocation
against the dog. If the dog did not repeat the same mistake,
the test session was terminated and it was noted that the method
had a learning effect. In case that the dog showed a reaction
against the decoy again, the test was repeated after an hour
for the last time. If the dog did not abandon the undesired behaviour reliably after the first correction, the handler and the
dog left the test area and no repetition session was conducted.

MEASUREMENTS
Salivary cortisol measurements
Salivary cortisol concentration was measured as one of the
stress parameters. The saliva samples were obtained from the
dogs with cotton buds manufactured by Salivettten® der Firma
Sarstedt AG & C. Each dog handler took the saliva sample from
his/her own dog. In order to stimulate the secretion of saliva,
citric acid (Amos Vital Vitamin C Pulver der Firma Amos
Vital GmbH) had been put into the dogs’ mouths before the
saliva samples were collected. Following samples were measured during the research:
- Resting samples: Two samples were taken with one hour
interval in a home environment.
- Basal samples: The same procedure as in the main experiment without any intrusion of the decoy was conducted. The
dogs were brought to the training ground. The decoy stood
still at a distance of approximately 3 m from the dog and its
owner. However, the owner was not allowed to apply any punishment to the dog if it made any mistake. The saliva samples
were collected at 5, 10 and 15 minutes after the dogs leaving
the training ground and the cortisol values were recorded as
basic values.
- Experimental samples: The saliva samples were collected
at 5, 10 and 15 minutes after the administration of the concerning training method. The investigation of the samples was
carried out in the laboratory of pharmacology and toxicology
Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535

COMPARISON OF LEARNING EFFECTS AND STRESS BETWEEN 3 TRAINING METHODS IN MALINOIS

533

at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover. For the
measurement, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
kits (IBL®) were used.

Behavioural observations
The entire experiment was filmed on DVDs using a video
camera. The recorded DVDs were reviewed later in order to
analyze the direct behavioural reactions of the dogs after the
administration of the training methods. The direct reactions
of the dogs were evaluated using an extensive ethogram. Onezero sampling method was used in order to assess the direct
behavioural reaction of the dog upon the administration of the
above mentioned methods.

FIGURE 2: Learning effects of the 3 different learning methods (electronic
training collar (ETC), pinch collar (PC) and quitting signal (QS)) in
Belgian Malinois police dogs.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data analysis was performed with SPSS 16.0 Inc. software.
Two significance levels were set at the levels 95% (P<0.05**)
and 99% (P<0.01*). Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for the
comparison of the learning effect of the training methods between groups and subgroups. Learning effects between the
training methods as well as the saliva cortisol concentrations
were analyzed by paired-sample t-tests. Frequency analyses
have also been used for the detection of direct behavioural effects of training methods.

Results
LEARNING EFFECTS
As shown in figure 2, with electronic training collar, the method had learning effect on 39 of 42 dogs. In other words, at
the end of the experiment the wrong behaviour was abandoned
in 39 out of 42 dogs. With pinch collar, learning effect was
obtained on 32 of 42 dogs, that is, 32 dogs abandoned the misbehaviour at the end of pinch collar part of the experiment.
Four dogs could be tested for the learning effect of the quitting
signal since the other 38 dogs did not reliably quit the behaviour after the instruction of the signal. In fact, the signal had
learning effect on only 3 dogs out of 42 subjects. The learning
effect was maximal with electronic training collar, not significantly compared to the pinch collar (P = 0.160) but significantly compared to the quitting signal (P < 0.0001). In
parallel, the learning effects of the pinch collar were also significantly higher than those obtained with the quitting signal
(P < 0.0001). Considering learning effect of the training methods, no significant difference was found between subgroups.

64.3% of the dogs exhibited this typical reaction after corrected
by the pinch collar, but the difference between the 2 methods
was not statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was found in comparison for the tail reactions (lowering)
between the electronic training collar and the pinch collar (t-test,
P = 0,165). Comparing the first joint reactions of the dogs to
the pinch- and the electronic training-collar, it was found that
the correction applied by the pinch collar caused lower body
posture than the one applied by the electronic training collar
(figure 3). Moreover, 4.8% of the dogs exhibited “extreme lowering of body posture” as a reaction to the pinch collar, while
this reaction was observed in none of the dogs using the electronic training collar. Dogs elicited vocalizations more frequently as a reaction to the electronic training collar than to
the pinch collar (P < 0.0001) (figure 4). As mentioned above,
only 4 dogs out of 42 subjects abandoned the behaviour after
receiving the quitting signal during the first session. Therefore,
only the reactions of these 4 dogs were tested. Consequently,
it was observed that 2 dogs showed “backward ear position”
and 1 dog showed “extreme lowering of body posture” together
with the “crouching” after getting the correction.

DIRECT BEHAVIOURAL REACTIONS
In order to determine the direct effects of the training methods,
the reactions of the separate ear, tail and joint parts as well as
the vocalizations of the dogs were considered. Considering
the behavioural reactions against the methods, no statistically
significant difference was found between the subgroups.
In reaction to the electronic training collar, 38.1% of the
dogs showed “maximum backward ear position” whereas
Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535

FIGURE 3: Comparison of the first joint reactions to the electronic training
collar (ETC) and the pinch collar (PC) in Belgian Malinois police dogs.

SALIVARY CORTISOL MEASUREMENT
The highest cortisol concentration was evaluated in each
dog after the administration of the each training method. A

534

total of 17 dogs showed maximal cortisol values after the instruction of the quitting signal, while 15 and 10 dogs exhibited
maximal hormone concentrations after administration of signal
with electronic training collar and with pinch collar, respectively
(figure 5). To have a better comparison, relative cortisol values
established as difference between maximum cortisol values
and resting cortisol values were compared. Both relative cortisol
values after the administration of the pinch collar (P = 0.0004)
and the electronic training collar (P = 0.0065) were significantly lower than the relative basal value. No statistically significant difference was found between the relative basal
cortisol value and the relative cortisol value after the instruction of the quitting signal. However, no significant difference
was found between electronic training collar and pinch collar
or quitting signal (P = 0.2006 and P = 0.1782, respectively)
while the relative cortisol value after the application of quitting signal was significantly higher than after the application
of pinch collar (P = 0.0294). As a result, the highest cortisol
concentrations were measured after the instruction of the quitting
signal (figure 5). In addition, considering the relative cortisol
values, no significant difference was found between the subgroups.

Discussion
The results of the present study showed that the electronic
training collar as well as the pinch collar was convenient as
training aids to cease the unwanted behaviour. The electronic
training collar was, however, found to be more effective in
comparison to the pinch collar. By contrast, the desirable learning
effect could not be achieved in application of the quitting signal.
The reason of obtaining high learning effect with electronic
training collars might be due to the fact that the device fulfils
the essential punishment criteria such as timing and sensitive
adjustment, which the learning theories require [1, 6, 14, 16,
20]. In case an appropriate device is chosen, the electronic
training collar gives possibility of making a sensitive adjustment for the level of punishment. In the present study, the dose
of the stimulus was reliably adjusted for each dog by two proficient dog trainers. These dog trainers were also responsible
for administration of the electronic training collar. Thus, the
correct timing was obtained. On the other hand, while using

FIGURE 4: Vocal reactions to the electronic training collar (ETC) and the
pinch collar (PC) in Belgian Malinois police dogs.

SALGIRLI (Y.) AND COLLABORATORS

pinch collar, it is difficult to achieve a sensitive adjustment,
as factors such as strength and motivation of the handler are
essential for the effectiveness of the mechanical training devices [10, 12, 20]. In addition to that, the pinch collar had to
be administered by the dog handlers themselves. That obligation
might also cause different results since the ability of each dog
handler in timing and application of the method was different.
An explanation for the low learning effect of quitting signal
is similar to that of pinch collar. Since the dog handler applied
the method, the optimal timing could not be achieved for each
dog. Moreover, as using the conditioned quitting signal, feeling
of frustration upon application of the signal might not be as
strong as the feeling arised during the provocation of the
decoy in most of the dogs.
One of the goals of the present study was to compare the
direct behavioural reactions of the dogs to three different training
methods. Considering the body posture and ear positions,
pinch collars seem to induce more behavioural reactions, in
the form of distress, than the electronic training collar However,
the maximal cortisol values after the administration of electronic training collar were higher, but not significantly, than
that after application of pinch collar. This contradiction between
physiological and behavioural measures support the hypothesis
that behavioural responses are not always concomitant to physiological parameters in case of exposing to stress [5, 21]. Furthermore, it might also support the claim that in a study
involving highly exciting training sessions such as police dog
training, the behavioural data is more reliable than the physiological measures such as cortisol concentrations and heartrate frequency [17].
Within the frame of the study it was detected that more
vocal reactions were elicited by the electronic training collar
than by the pinch collars. The explanation of more vocalizations with electronic training collar might be that these vocal
reactions are elicited as “startle reactions” [2] rather than
“pain-induced vocalizations”. Visibility of the punishment as
in the application of the pinch collar can cause that the dog
reacts in different ways according to the cues given by the
handler subconsciously, such as facial expression, body language, holding style of the leash etc.. That is, the application
of the pinch collar as well as of the quitting signal is directly
linked to the handler since the correction made by the owner

FIGURE 5: Number of the dogs with maximal cortisol values per learning
method (electronic training collar (ETC), pinch collar (PC) and quitting
signal (QS)).
Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535

COMPARISON OF LEARNING EFFECTS AND STRESS BETWEEN 3 TRAINING METHODS IN MALINOIS

is visible to the dog. Furthermore, the feeling of the leash on
the pinch collar could be a signal for the dog as forthcoming
punishment, whereas no signal could be perceived by the dog
while testing the electronic training collar. All those associations
the dog makes between the punishment and the owner are undesirable in training since the dog can show a submissive
communication with its owner if it perceives that the punishment comes from him/her. On the other hand, as applying the
electronic training collar, if exact timing is obtained, the dog
makes association only between the situation and the effect.
In fact, this might be another explanation of the high learning
effect of the electronic training collar.
Considering the maximum cortisol concentrations, it was
evaluated that most of the dogs exhibited maximal values after
the instruction of the quitting signal. It was further detected
that even the dogs on which the quitting signal had learning
effect exhibited clear stress related behaviours. This point is
noteworthy since this result raises an important question about
whether the psychic stressors such as frustration and uncertainty produce more stress than the physical exposures in animals.
The significant difference found between the quitting signal
and the pinch collar supports this hypothesis, at least for the
dogs of Malinois breed. Considering the relative cortisol values,
the basal values were significantly higher than the values obtained using the electronic training collar and the pinch collar.
As mentioned above, no correction was applied on dogs even
though they made a mistake before the collection of basic
value. This uncertainty might cause a high stress just as the
feeling of frustration during the use of quitting signal.
As a conclusion, in the present study, it was found that the
electronic training collar had higher learning effect and induced
less stress to cease the unwanted behaviour in comparison to
the other training methods in a situation with high motivation.
However, for achieving this result, it is essential to prove the
administrator’s practical and theoretical knowledge. Overall,
the debates over training methods should include not only the
specific training aids but also their significance for animal
welfare prospect should be covered. The qualifications of professional dog trainers such as practical and theoretical knowledge requirements that trainers must fulfil should also be
considered in new discussions. Therefore, we strongly recommend to put more emphasize on qualification of the trainer
when assessing the effectiveness of training methods. We finally
recommend that further studies should be performed to investigate whether the same findings could be achieved with the
dogs of other breeds.

535

2. - BROOM D.M., JOHNSON K.G.: Stress and animal welfare, BROOM
D.M. and JOHNSON K.G (ed), 1st edition, Chapman and Hall Publishing, TJ Press, Great Britain, 1993, pp.: 88.
3. - BSAVA’s POSITION STATEMENT: Electronic training devices: a behavioural perspective. J. Small Anim. Pract., 2003, 44, 95-96.
4. - CHR!ST!ANSEN F.O., BAKKEN M., BRAADSTADT B.O.: Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second year confrontation with domestic sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.,
2001, 72, 131-143.
5. - CRON!N G.M., HEMSWOTH P.H., BARNETT J.L., JONGMAN
E.C.J., NEWMAN E.A., Mc CAULEY I.: An anti-barking muzzle for
dogs and its short-term effects on behaviour and saliva cortisol concentrations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2003, 83, 215-226.
6. - DESS N.K., LINWICK D., PATTERSON J., OVERMEIER J.B.: Immediate and proactive effects of controllability and predictability on
plasma cortisol response to shocks in dogs. Behav. Neurosci., 1983,
97, 1005-1016.
7. - FEDDERSEN-PETERSEN D., OHL F.: Ausdrucksverhalten beim
Hund: Mimik und Körpersprache, Kommunikation und Verstaendigung, BECK A. (ed), Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH, Stuttgart,
2008, pp.: 172.
8. - JACQUES J., MYERS S.: Electronic training devices: a review of current literature. Anim. Behav. Consult.: Theor. Pract., 2007, 3, 22-39.
9. - KLEIN D: Telereizgeraete, Sachkunde zur Anwendung in der Hundeausbildung, 1st edition, Books on demand Gmbh, Germany, 2003,
pp.: 38.
10. - LANDSBERG G., HUNTHAUSEN W., ACKERMANN L.: Handbook of behaviour problems of the dog and cat. LANDSBERG G.,
HUNTHAUSEN W. and ACKERMANN L. (eds), 2nd edition, Saunders, Edinburgh, London, 2003, pp.: 64.
11. - LAY D.C. Jr., FRIEND T.H., BOWERS C.L., GRISSOM K.K., JENKINS O.C.: A comparative study of physiological and behavioural
study of freeze and hot-iron branding using dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci.,
1992, 70, 1121-1125.
12. - LINDSAY S.R.: Handbook of applied dog behaviour and training.
Vol 3, Procedures and Protocols, LINDSAY S.R. (ed.), Iowa State
University Press, Ames, 2005, pp.: 557-634.
13. - OVERALL K.L.: Why electric shock is not behaviour modification?.
J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res., 2007, 2, 1-4.
14. - POLSKY R.H.: Electronic shock collars: Are they worth the risks?
J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc., 1994, 30, 463-468.
15. - REID P.: Learning in dogs. In: The behavioural biology of dogs, JENSEN P. (ed.), CABI publishing, 2007, pp.: 120-144.
16. - SCHALKE E., STICHNOTH J., OTT S., JONES-BAADE R.: Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in
everyday life situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2007, 105, 369-380.
17. - SCHILDER M.B.H., VAN DER BORG J.A.M.: Training dogs with
help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2004, 85, 319-334.
18. - SCHWIZGEBEL D.: Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Verhalten des
deutschen Schäferhundes im Hinblick auf tiergerechte Ausbildung.
In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung, 1982, KTBLSchrift 291, pp.: 138-148.
19. - SHEPPARD G., MILLS D.S.: The development of a psychometric
scale for the evaluation of the emotional predispositions of pet dogs.
Internat. J. Comp. Psychol., 2002, 15, 201-222.

References

20. - TORTORA D.F.: Understanding electronic dog-training. 2nd edition,
Tri-Tronics Inc., Tucson, Arizona, 1982, pp.: 21-32.

1. - BEERDA B.: Stress and well-beings in dogs. Thesis (PhD), Universiteit
Utrecht, Netherlands, 1997, pp.: 29-44.

21. - VINCENT I.C., MICHELL A.R.: Comparison of cortisol concentrations in saliva and plasma of dogs. Res. Vet. Sci., 1992, 53, 342-345.

Revue Méd. Vét., 2012, 163, 11, 530-535