Aversive Dog Training Methods: What Does the Research Say?
- Stephen Dube
- May 26, 2025
- 29 min read
Updated: Jul 13
Dog training methods can influence more than whether a dog sits, stays, walks politely on a leash, or stops barking.
The way we respond to behavior can affect what dogs learn, how they feel in certain situations, and how they respond to similar experiences in the future.
Aversive dog training methods use something a dog finds unpleasant, uncomfortable, intimidating, or painful to decrease unwanted behavior or increase desired behavior through avoidance.
Depending on the training approach, this may involve leash corrections, shouting, physical intimidation, prong collars, electronic collars, or other consequences the dog works to avoid or escape.
These methods can change behavior.
An accurate discussion of aversive training shouldn’t begin with the claim that punishment never works. Decades of research into learning demonstrate that consequences can influence behavior, including consequences intended to decrease it.
The more important question is not simply:
Can aversive training stop a behavior?
Dog owners should also consider:
Why was the behavior happening?
What did the dog actually learn?
Did training address the underlying cause or primarily suppress the outward behavior?
Could there be unintended effects on stress, fear, welfare, or future behavior?
Could the same training goal be accomplished effectively using a less intrusive approach?
Researchers have examined relationships between dog training methods, learning, stress, behavior, welfare, and the human-dog relationship.
The scientific literature has limitations, and individual studies don’t always reach identical conclusions.
Study design, sample size, definitions of training methods, owner reporting, trainer experience, and the behaviors being addressed can all influence results.
That makes careful interpretation important.
It also makes broad claims such as “aversive methods never work” or “positive reinforcement works for every problem” scientifically unhelpful.
In this guide, we’ll examine what aversive dog training methods are, why punishment can change behavior, the difference between suppressing behavior and addressing its underlying cause, what research tells us about potential risks and effectiveness, and what dog owners should consider when choosing how to train their dogs.
We’ll examine what aversive dog training methods are, why punishment can change behavior, the difference between suppressing behavior and addressing its underlying cause, what empirical research has found about potential behavioral and welfare effects, and what dog owners should consider when choosing how to train their dogs.
1. What Are Aversive Dog Training Methods?
An aversive is something a dog finds unpleasant enough to avoid or escape.
What qualifies as aversive depends partly on the individual dog and the situation. A raised voice, physical correction, startling noise, leash jerk, spray, or electronic stimulation may affect different dogs differently.
In dog training, aversive methods generally attempt to change behavior by introducing something unpleasant after a behavior occurs or by teaching the dog how to avoid or escape an unpleasant experience.
To understand how these methods work, it helps to understand two concepts from learning theory: positive punishment and negative reinforcement.
What Is Positive Punishment?
In behavioral science, the words positive and negative don’t mean good and bad.
Positive means something is added.
Negative means something is removed.
Punishment refers to a consequence that decreases the future frequency of a behavior.
Positive punishment occurs when something is added after a behavior and that consequence makes the behavior less likely to occur again.
Examples might include:
Applying electronic collar stimulation after a dog begins chasing wildlife
Delivering a leash correction when a dog pulls
Shouting at a dog after they jump on a visitor
Using a startling noise to interrupt barking
Applying physical pressure or discomfort following an unwanted behavior
If the behavior decreases because of the consequence, the consequence functioned as punishment.
That distinction matters.
In behavioral science, a consequence isn’t defined as punishment simply because a person intended it to be unpleasant. Its function is determined by its effect on future behavior.
What Is Negative Reinforcement?
Negative reinforcement is frequently confused with punishment.
Again, negative means something is removed, while reinforcement means a behavior becomes more likely to occur in the future.
Negative reinforcement occurs when pressure, discomfort, or another unpleasant stimulus is removed after the desired behavior occurs.
For example, a trainer might apply pressure until a dog performs a particular behavior and then release that pressure.
The removal of the unpleasant stimulus reinforces the behavior that produced relief.
Positive punishment and negative reinforcement are often used together.
A dog may experience an unpleasant consequence for performing one behavior and learn that performing another behavior allows them to avoid or escape that consequence.
What Types of Training Methods Can Be Aversive?
Discussions about aversive dog training often focus on equipment such as:
Electronic collars
Prong collars
Choke chains
Slip leads used to deliver corrections
Spray collars
Startle devices
However, focusing exclusively on equipment can oversimplify the issue.
Aversive techniques can also include:
Leash jerks
Physical corrections
Shouting
Intimidation
Forced positioning
Deliberately startling a dog
Applying physical pressure
Simply identifying a piece of equipment doesn’t tell us everything about how it is being used, how intensely it is applied, or how the individual dog responds.
A useful discussion of training methods should consider the actual training procedure, the dog’s behavioral and emotional response, the skill of the person applying the technique, and the potential risks and benefits.
2. Why Can Aversive Training Appear to Work Quickly?
Punishment can produce rapid changes in observable behavior.
A dog who experiences an unpleasant consequence for barking, lunging, jumping, chasing, or pulling may stop performing that behavior.
To an owner struggling with a difficult problem, that change can feel dramatic.
However, observing a reduction in behavior doesn’t necessarily tell us:
Why the behavior decreased
What the dog learned about the situation
Whether the dog’s emotional response changed
Whether the dog learned a more appropriate alternative behavior
Whether the behavior will return in another situation
Whether there were unintended effects on stress, fear, or welfare
Consider a dog who growls when approached by unfamiliar people.
If the dog is punished for growling, the growling may decrease.
But several different things could be happening.
The dog might become more comfortable with unfamiliar people.
The dog might learn that remaining quiet prevents the unpleasant consequence while still feeling afraid.
The dog might associate unfamiliar people with the unpleasant experience.
Or the dog might learn that growling is ineffective and begin using a different response when feeling threatened.
Looking only at whether the growling stopped doesn’t answer these questions.
Changing Behavior Is Not Always the Same as Changing Emotion
This distinction is particularly important when working with behaviors influenced by fear, anxiety, frustration, or stress.
Observable behavior and emotional responses are related, but they aren’t identical.
A dog can stop displaying a behavior while still experiencing the emotion that contributed to it.
For example:
A fearful dog may stop attempting to move away.
A reactive dog may stop barking.
A dog uncomfortable with handling may stop growling.
A dog experiencing separation-related distress may become less outwardly active.
In each case, reduced behavior could indicate improvement.
But reduced behavior alone isn’t enough to determine the dog’s emotional state or overall welfare.
This is one reason behavior professionals and researchers may consider more than whether an unwanted behavior has stopped.
Depending on the situation, they may also consider:
Body language
Stress-related behavior
Physiological measurements
Recovery after stressful events
Willingness to engage
Changes in behavior over time
Behavior Suppression vs. Addressing the Underlying Cause
Behavior suppression occurs when an observable behavior decreases without necessarily resolving the motivation or emotional state contributing to it.
Imagine a dog who barks and lunges when unfamiliar dogs approach.
An unpleasant consequence is applied each time the dog reacts.
Eventually, the barking and lunging decrease.
From the owner’s perspective, the training may appear successful.
But the reduction in behavior alone doesn’t tell us whether the dog:
Feels safer around other dogs
Is less frustrated
Has developed better coping skills
Has learned an appropriate alternative behavior
Is simply avoiding the unpleasant consequence
The important question is not only:
Did the behavior stop?
We should also ask:
What did the dog learn, and did the training address the reason the behavior was happening?
What Does Successful Behavior Change Look Like?
The answer depends on the dog and the behavior being addressed.
For a reactive dog, meaningful progress might include:
Responding successfully at closer distances to a trigger
Recovering more quickly after becoming upset
Reorienting toward the handler
Displaying more relaxed body language
Learning useful alternative behaviors
Successfully navigating environments that were previously too difficult
For a dog uncomfortable with handling, progress might include:
Voluntarily approaching
Remaining relaxed for gradually longer periods
Participating in cooperative care
Recovering more quickly after a difficult experience
Effective training should consider both the behavior we can observe and, when relevant, the emotional factors that may be contributing to it.
This doesn’t mean every unwanted behavior is caused by fear or anxiety.
Dogs also behave based on reinforcement history, access to desired outcomes, environmental conditions, physical needs, and previous learning.
The point is simpler:
Stopping behavior and solving the problem aren’t always the same thing.
Understanding that distinction helps us more carefully evaluate both training methods and their outcomes.
3. What Does Research Say About Aversive Dog Training?
Researchers have examined relationships between dog training methods, stress-related behavior, physiological responses, learning performance, cognitive bias, and canine welfare.
The available research has limitations.
Studies differ in design, sample size, training methods, trainer experience, behaviors being addressed, and how researchers measure welfare and training outcomes.
Many studies are observational rather than randomized experiments, making it difficult to establish direct cause and effect.
Despite these limitations, the broader scientific literature provides useful information for dog owners considering different training approaches.
Aversive Training and Canine Welfare
A 2020 study published in PLOS ONE examined 92 companion dogs attending seven dog training schools in Portugal.
Researchers categorized the schools based on the training methods used:
Reward-based
Mixed methods
Aversive-based
The researchers evaluated behavior during training, collected saliva samples to measure cortisol, and used a cognitive bias test to examine longer-term welfare.
Dogs attending aversive-based training schools displayed more stress-related behaviors during training.
Dogs from schools using the highest proportion of aversive methods also showed greater increases in cortisol after training and more pessimistic responses during the cognitive bias assessment.
What Is a Cognitive Bias Test?
Cognitive bias testing attempts to evaluate how animals respond to ambiguous situations.
In the 2020 study, dogs learned that one location contained food while another location did not.
Researchers then presented bowls in ambiguous locations between those positions.
Dogs who approached the ambiguous locations more slowly were interpreted as displaying a more pessimistic cognitive bias.
Dogs from the group exposed to the highest proportion of aversive methods responded more pessimistically than dogs attending reward-based schools.
The researchers concluded that dogs trained using aversive-based methods experienced poorer welfare outcomes both during training and outside the immediate training environment.
What Are the Limitations of This Research?
Responsible interpretation requires understanding what the study can and cannot tell us.
The dogs weren’t randomly assigned to training methods.
Owners had already chosen their training schools.
The schools differed in the proportion and types of aversive techniques used.
Other differences between dogs, owners, trainers, and training environments could also have influenced the results.
The study provides meaningful evidence of an association between greater use of aversive training methods and poorer welfare indicators.
It doesn’t prove that every dog exposed to an aversive training method will experience the same effects.
Are Aversive Methods More Effective?
Potential welfare effects should be considered alongside another important question:
Do aversive training methods produce better results?
A 2017 review of the scientific literature examined research concerning the welfare and effectiveness of aversive dog training methods.
The authors found evidence of potential welfare concerns associated with aversive methods and found no evidence that training based on positive punishment was more effective than positive reinforcement-based training.
The review also identified limitations in the available research, including differences in study design, training techniques, populations, and measurements.
This doesn’t mean every reward-based training plan is automatically effective.
Training outcomes can be influenced by:
Trainer skill
Timing
Reinforcement selection
Consistency
The dog’s learning history
The environment
The complexity of the behavior
Physical and emotional health
Owner participation
Comparing training methods requires more nuance than declaring one approach universally successful and another universally ineffective.
What Does Research on Electronic Collars Show?
Electronic collars are among the most debated aversive tools in dog training.
Several studies have compared electronic collar training with other approaches.
A 2020 study published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science compared three groups of dogs referred for off-leash behavioral problems.
One group was trained by trainers experienced with electronic collars and used the equipment.
A second group worked with the same trainers without electronic collars.
A third group was trained by reward-focused trainers without electronic collars.
Researchers found no evidence that electronic collar training produced better outcomes.
The reward-focused group responded to cues more quickly and required fewer repetitions in several measures.
The authors concluded that electronic collars weren’t necessary for effective training, even when used by experienced trainers.
What About Research Showing Different Results?
Scientific research doesn’t always produce perfectly consistent findings.
A 2024 experimental study compared electronic collar training with two food-reward-based approaches for stopping dogs from chasing a fast-moving lure.
Dogs in the electronic collar group were more successful at stopping the chasing behavior and demonstrated greater retention and generalization during subsequent testing than dogs in the two food-reward groups.
Researchers reported limited evidence of negative welfare effects based on the measurements used, although dogs vocalized in response to electronic collar stimulation.
These findings differ from some previous research comparing electronic collar and reward-based training.
The study has also generated scientific discussion about whether the food-reward protocols provided an appropriate comparison with the electronic collar procedure.
This disagreement illustrates an important principle when interpreting scientific research.
A single study shouldn’t automatically override the broader body of evidence.
At the same time, research that challenges previous findings shouldn’t be ignored simply because the results are inconvenient.
Studies should be evaluated based on:
Experimental design
Methodology
Limitations
Replication
Measurements used
How the findings fit within the broader scientific literature
The available research doesn’t support the claim that aversive methods are incapable of changing behavior.
It also hasn’t established that aversive methods are necessary for effective dog training.
That distinction is important.
The question isn’t simply whether a training method can work.
Dog owners should also consider comparative effectiveness, potential welfare consequences, the individual dog, the behavior being addressed, and whether less intrusive alternatives are available.
4. Can Training Methods Affect Behavior and the Human-Dog Relationship?
Training doesn’t happen in isolation.
Dogs learn not only from the consequences of their behavior but also from the people, environments, objects, and situations associated with those consequences.
This means evaluating a training method requires looking beyond whether the unwanted behavior stopped.
We should also consider:
What the dog learned about the situation
Whether unintended associations developed
How the dog responds during training
Whether the dog remains willing to participate
Potential effects on stress and welfare
How training may influence interactions between the dog and owner
Dogs Can Learn More Than We Intend to Teach
Consider a dog who barks and lunges when another dog appears.
The trainer applies an unpleasant consequence immediately after the reaction.
The intended lesson may be:
Barking and lunging causes an unpleasant consequence.
However, dogs continuously form associations between events in their environment.
The dog could potentially associate the unpleasant consequence with:
The other dog
The location
The person holding the leash
The training equipment
A particular movement
A combination of environmental cues
This process is related to classical conditioning.
It doesn’t mean every correction automatically causes a dog to fear their owner, equipment, or environment.
It does mean trainers and owners should consider the possibility of unintended associations when applying unpleasant consequences.
This may be particularly important when working with behaviors influenced by fear, anxiety, or stress.
Can Training Methods Affect the Dog-Owner Relationship?
The relationship between dogs and their owners is often used as an argument both for and against different training methods.
Supporters of reward-based training may claim that aversive methods automatically destroy trust.
Supporters of aversive methods may point to dogs trained with corrections who continue to seek attention, play with their owners, and show signs of attachment.
The scientific evidence is more complicated than either argument suggests.
A dog can have a strong attachment to an owner while also experiencing stress, fear, or discomfort during particular training situations.
Likewise, observing a dog approach, play with, or show affection toward an owner doesn’t tell us how the dog feels about every interaction with that person.
The more useful question is:
Can the way we train influence how dogs perceive, respond to, and interact with the people training them?
Research suggests that it may.
What Does Research Tell Us About Training Methods and Attachment?
A 2019 study examined relationships between training methods and the dog-owner bond using a modified version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Procedure, a test originally developed to study attachment relationships.
Researchers observed 34 dogs from six dog training schools categorized according to whether they used reward-based or aversive-based methods.
The researchers examined behaviors including:
Proximity seeking
Contact with the owner
Exploration
Play
Responses to separation
Responses when the owner returned
Dogs trained with reward-based methods showed more behaviors interpreted as indicators of secure attachment.
The researchers concluded that training methods may influence the quality of the dog-owner relationship.
However, the study had limitations.
The sample size was relatively small.
Dogs weren’t randomly assigned to owners or training methods.
Owners had already chosen their trainers and training approaches.
Other factors, including temperament, training history, owner behavior, and the home environment, could also have influenced the results.
The evidence doesn’t justify claiming that aversive training automatically destroys the relationship between every dog and owner.
It does provide a reasonable basis for considering the dog-owner relationship when evaluating training methods.
Can Punishment Affect a Dog’s Willingness to Participate?
Learning often requires experimentation.
Dogs need opportunities to perform behaviors, receive feedback, and adjust what they do.
When incorrect responses consistently produce unpleasant consequences, some dogs may become more hesitant to offer behavior.
Owners and trainers sometimes describe dogs in these situations as:
Less engaged
Reluctant to participate
Hesitant to offer behavior
Worried about making mistakes
Individual dogs can respond differently to similar training experiences.
However, research examining stress, learning, and welfare gives us reason to consider how the emotional environment surrounding training may influence participation.
Reward-based training attempts to create opportunities for dogs to perform behaviors, receive clear feedback, and earn reinforcement for successful choices.
When mistakes occur, they can also provide information about the training plan.
If a dog repeatedly performs the wrong behavior, we can ask:
Is the desired behavior clear?
Has the dog learned the skill?
Is the environment too difficult?
Is the reinforcement valuable enough?
Are we increasing difficulty too quickly?
Is stress interfering with learning?
These questions help trainers adjust the training plan rather than assuming the dog simply needs a stronger consequence.
Trust Is Difficult to Measure, but It Still Matters
Trust is a complicated concept to study scientifically.
We can’t directly ask dogs how they feel about their owners or training experiences.
Researchers instead examine measurable behaviors and physiological responses that may provide information about attachment, stress, welfare, and emotional state.
That means we should be cautious about absolute claims.
The available evidence doesn’t demonstrate that every use of an aversive automatically destroys the bond between a dog and owner.
It does suggest that training methods may influence dogs’ stress responses, behavior, welfare, and interactions with the people training them.
For dog owners choosing between training approaches, that possibility is worth considering.
The goal of training isn’t merely to control behavior.
For many owners, the larger goal is to help their dogs learn successfully, navigate everyday life, communicate safely, and participate willingly in activities with the people they live with.
How we teach those skills is part of that relationship.
5. What Are the Potential Behavioral and Welfare Risks?
Evaluating dog training methods requires looking beyond whether an unwanted behavior decreases.
Researchers studying canine welfare may examine:
Stress-related behaviors
Physiological measures such as cortisol
Fear and anxiety
Aggressive behavior
Cognitive bias
Learning performance
Interactions between dogs and their owners
No single measurement can tell us everything about a dog’s emotional state or welfare.
Cortisol, for example, is involved in the body’s stress response, but increased cortisol alone doesn’t tell us whether an experience was harmful. Physical activity, excitement, and other factors can also affect cortisol levels.
Behavior can be equally complicated.
Yawning or lip licking may occur during stressful situations, but individual behaviors shouldn’t automatically be interpreted as proof that a dog is experiencing severe distress.
This is why stronger studies attempt to examine multiple measurements and patterns rather than relying on a single behavior or physiological marker.
Stress-Related Behavior and Cognitive Bias
As discussed earlier, research comparing dogs attending reward-based and aversive-based training schools has identified differences in stress-related behavior, cortisol responses, and cognitive bias.
Other research has also examined relationships between owner-reported training methods and dogs’ responses to ambiguous situations.
A 2021 study found that dogs whose owners reported using two or more aversive training methods displayed more pessimistic responses during a cognitive bias task than dogs whose owners reported using no aversive methods.
Because the training methods were reported by owners rather than experimentally assigned, the study demonstrates an association rather than proving that aversive training directly caused the differences.
However, findings from multiple studies using different populations and methods provide reasonable grounds for considering potential welfare effects when choosing training methods.
Are Aversive Methods Associated With Fear and Aggression?
Several studies have reported associations between confrontational or aversive training methods and behaviors related to fear, anxiety, and aggression.
A frequently cited 2009 study surveyed dog owners seeking help from a veterinary behavior service.
Owners were asked which training methods they had previously used and whether their dogs responded aggressively.
Confrontational techniques included:
Hitting or kicking the dog
Growling at the dog
Forcing the dog onto their back
Staring the dog down
Physically forcing objects from the dog’s mouth
Researchers found that some confrontational methods were associated with aggressive responses from dogs.
The authors concluded that confrontational techniques could provoke aggressive responses and potentially create safety risks for owners.
Does This Mean Aversive Training Causes Aggression?
Not necessarily.
Many studies examining training methods and behavior are observational or rely on owner questionnaires.
This makes determining cause and effect difficult.
For example, owners of dogs already displaying serious behavior problems may be more likely to try aversive methods.
If those dogs also display more aggression, researchers can’t automatically conclude that the training method created the aggression.
Other factors may include:
Genetics
Previous learning history
Early experiences
Physical health
The owner’s experience
Severity of the behavior problem
Frequency and intensity of the training method
The available research supports concern about associations between aversive and confrontational training methods and undesirable behavioral or welfare outcomes.
It doesn’t support claiming that every use of an aversive technique will cause aggression.
Accuracy matters.
Exaggerating the evidence doesn’t strengthen the case for humane training. It simply makes legitimate concerns easier to dismiss.
The Risk of Unintended Associations
Dogs are constantly learning about relationships between events.
Suppose a dog becomes frightened when unfamiliar dogs approach.
Each time another dog appears, the handler applies an unpleasant consequence to stop barking or lunging.
The handler intends to create an association between:
Barking and lunging → unpleasant consequence
But the dog may also form an association between:
Other dog appears → unpleasant consequence
This could potentially make the presence of other dogs more emotionally significant rather than less.
Similar concerns can apply when dogs are responding to:
Unfamiliar people
Children
Veterinary handling
Grooming
Other animals
Particular environments
Whether unintended associations develop depends on factors including timing, intensity, predictability, the individual dog, and previous learning history.
The possibility is particularly important when working with behaviors influenced by fear or anxiety.
Why Punishing Warning Signals Can Be Risky
Growling, barking, snarling, freezing, moving away, and other behaviors can provide information about a dog’s emotional state.
These signals aren’t always convenient.
A dog growling at a visitor can be frightening.
A dog barking and lunging during a walk can be embarrassing and difficult to manage.
Understandably, owners often want these behaviors to stop.
But focusing exclusively on eliminating the warning signal can miss the reason it occurred.
Consider a dog who growls when someone approaches their food.
If the dog is punished each time they growl, the growling may decrease.
That doesn’t necessarily tell us whether the dog now feels safer about people approaching their food.
The dog may have learned:
People approaching my food is safe.
Or the dog may have learned:
Growling when people approach my food causes something unpleasant to happen.
Those are very different learning outcomes.
Does Punishing Growling Cause Dogs to Bite Without Warning?
You may have heard the statement:
“Never punish a growl because it teaches dogs to bite without warning.”
There is a reasonable behavioral principle behind this warning, but the claim should be explained carefully.
If a warning behavior is repeatedly punished and decreases while the fear, pain, or discomfort contributing to the behavior remains, the dog may use different behaviors in future situations.
That creates a practical safety concern.
However, research hasn’t established a simple universal sequence in which punishing growling automatically causes dogs to begin biting without warning.
Dogs and aggressive behavior are considerably more complicated than that.
The safer principle is:
When a dog displays a warning signal, don’t focus only on stopping the signal. Investigate why the dog felt the need to use it.
Depending on the situation, that may involve:
Creating distance
Changing the environment
Preventing unsafe situations
Evaluating possible pain or medical issues
Teaching alternative behaviors
Using desensitization and counterconditioning
Seeking qualified professional help
Warning signals provide information.
Suppressing the information without addressing the underlying problem can make behavior more difficult to evaluate and manage safely.
A Quiet Dog Isn’t Necessarily a Calm Dog
The term learned helplessness is sometimes used casually in discussions about dog training.
In experimental psychology, learned helplessness has a specific meaning related to exposure to uncontrollable aversive events and subsequent changes in behavior.
A dog who becomes quiet or stops responding during training shouldn’t automatically be diagnosed as experiencing learned helplessness.
Similarly, terms such as “shut down” are informal descriptions rather than precise behavioral diagnoses.
However, dogs experiencing stressful or difficult situations may become:
Less active
Less exploratory
More hesitant
Less willing to interact
More likely to avoid particular situations
These changes deserve attention.
Reduced activity or behavior doesn’t automatically indicate that the underlying problem has been resolved.
Individual Dogs May Respond Differently
One reason discussions about dog training become so contentious is that people observe different outcomes.
One owner may use a particular correction and report no obvious negative effects.
Another may use a similar technique and see increased fear or reactivity.
Both observations can be genuine.
Dogs differ in:
Temperament
Genetics
Previous experiences
Sensitivity
Motivation
Physical health
Learning history
Resilience
Training techniques also differ in intensity, frequency, timing, and application.
The fact that not every dog experiences an obvious negative outcome doesn’t mean a method carries no risk.
Likewise, evidence of potential risk doesn’t mean every dog exposed to an aversive technique will experience serious behavioral harm.
A Question of Risk, Not Just Results
The scientific evidence surrounding aversive dog training isn’t perfect.
More randomized, controlled, long-term research would improve our understanding of how specific techniques affect different dogs and behavior problems.
But decisions still need to be made using the evidence currently available.
Research has reported associations between greater use of aversive methods and:
Increased stress-related behavior
Differences in cortisol responses
More pessimistic cognitive bias
Aggressive responses to some confrontational techniques
Potential differences in the dog-owner relationship
At the same time, research comparing aversive techniques with reward-based approaches hasn’t established that aversive methods are necessary for effective dog training outcomes.
That leads to a reasonable question:
If a training goal can be accomplished effectively using methods that present fewer potential risks to welfare and behavior, why begin with the more intrusive option?
The goal isn’t to pretend dogs should never experience frustration, disappointment, boundaries, or unpleasant events.
That would be impossible.
The goal is to evaluate training methods based on more than whether they can stop behavior.
A thoughtful approach considers:
Effectiveness
Potential risks
Canine welfare
The individual dog
The reason the behavior occurs
Available alternatives
The owner’s ability to implement the training plan
Long-term outcomes
That provides dog owners with a much more useful framework than simply asking:
“Did the behavior stop?”
6. What Can Dog Owners Do Instead?
Choosing not to rely primarily on aversive methods doesn’t mean ignoring unwanted behavior, allowing dogs to do whatever they want, or attempting to solve every problem by continuously handing out treats.
Effective reward-based training requires understanding why behavior happens and developing a practical plan to change it.
Depending on the behavior and the individual dog, that plan may involve:
Managing the environment
Preventing repeated practice of unwanted behavior
Identifying triggers
Teaching alternative behaviors
Reinforcing desirable choices
Adjusting the difficulty of the training environment
Using desensitization and counterconditioning
Addressing fear, anxiety, or frustration
Evaluating possible medical factors
Seeking professional help when appropriate
The specific approach depends on the dog and the reason the behavior is happening.
Management Is Part of Training
Management means changing the environment to prevent problems while new skills are being taught.
Examples include:
Using a baby gate when visitors arrive
Keeping food and tempting objects out of reach
Walking a reactive dog during quieter times
Creating distance from triggers
Using a long line while practicing recall
Preventing access to windows where a dog repeatedly barks at people outside
Management doesn’t necessarily change behavior by itself.
It creates conditions where unwanted behavior is practiced less frequently and appropriate behavior can be taught more successfully.
A dog who practices the same unwanted behavior hundreds of times between training sessions is becoming increasingly experienced at exactly the skill you don’t want.
Teach the Dog What to Do Instead
Stopping unwanted behavior is only part of an effective training plan.
Dogs also need opportunities to learn behaviors that work better.
For example:
Instead of only correcting a dog for jumping on visitors, teach and reinforce keeping four paws on the floor or going to a mat.
Instead of only stopping leash pulling, reinforce walking near the handler and use access to sniffing as a reward.
Instead of only interrupting barking at the window, manage access to the trigger and teach an alternative behavior.
Instead of punishing a dog for moving away during handling, gradually teach cooperative participation in grooming or veterinary care.
Alternative behaviors give dogs practical opportunities to succeed.
Address the Reason the Behavior Is Happening
The same outward behavior can occur for different reasons.
A dog may bark because of:
Fear
Frustration
Excitement
Attention seeking
Territorial behavior
Previous reinforcement history
A dog may pull on the leash because they want to:
Reach another dog
Investigate a smell
Move faster
Escape something frightening
Reach a familiar destination
The appropriate training plan depends on the function and context of the behavior.
This is one limitation of focusing exclusively on stopping what the dog is doing.
If we don’t understand why the behavior occurs, we may suppress the symptom without addressing the larger problem.
Use Desensitization and Counterconditioning When Appropriate
Behaviors involving fear, anxiety, or reactivity may require more than teaching obedience skills.
Two commonly used behavior modification strategies are desensitization and counterconditioning.
Desensitization involves exposing a dog to a trigger at an intensity they can successfully handle and gradually increasing the difficulty over time.
Counterconditioning involves working to change the dog’s emotional response by pairing the trigger with something the dog values.
For example, a dog who responds fearfully to unfamiliar people might begin training at a distance where they can notice a person without becoming overwhelmed.
Positive outcomes can then be paired with the person’s presence while the dog remains at a manageable level of exposure.
Over time, and depending on the individual dog, the training plan may gradually become more challenging.
The goal isn’t simply to prevent the dog from displaying fear.
The goal is to help change how the dog responds to the situation.
Reward-Based Training Still Requires Skill
Choosing positive reinforcement-based training doesn’t guarantee that every training plan will succeed.
Poor timing, unclear communication, inappropriate reinforcement, insufficient management, unrealistic expectations, and failure to address the cause of behavior can undermine progress.
Giving a dog treats occasionally isn’t the same as implementing a complete behavior modification plan.
Effective training may require:
Identifying why the behavior occurs
Selecting appropriate reinforcement
Breaking difficult skills into smaller steps
Managing the environment
Gradually introducing distractions
Practicing consistently
Monitoring progress
Adjusting the plan when something isn’t working
The relevant comparison isn’t between punishment that works and positive reinforcement that magically works.
The better comparison is between carefully designed training plans that consider effectiveness, welfare, potential risks, the individual dog, and the reason the behavior is happening.
Begin With the Least Intrusive Effective Approach
A reasonable principle for choosing training methods is to begin with approaches that can effectively address the behavior while minimizing unnecessary fear, pain, intimidation, stress, and risk.
If a dog can learn a reliable recall using reinforcement, gradual increases in difficulty, appropriate management, and a long line for safety, there is little reason to begin with a more intrusive method.
If a reactive dog can make progress through distance, management, counterconditioning, desensitization, and reinforcement of useful behaviors, those approaches provide a reasonable starting point.
If those strategies aren’t working, the next step shouldn’t automatically be increasing punishment.
Instead, reconsider:
The behavior assessment
The training plan
The environment
The dog’s physical health
The dog’s emotional state
The owner’s ability to implement the plan
Whether additional professional expertise is needed
Choosing less intrusive methods first isn’t about being permissive.
It is about making thoughtful training decisions based on effectiveness, welfare, and potential risk.
7. Can You Switch From Aversive Methods to Reward-Based Training?
Many dog owners have used aversive training methods at some point.
You may have followed advice from a previous trainer, purchased a training tool recommended online, watched popular training videos, or simply used the methods you were taught growing up.
Learning more about dog behavior and deciding to change your approach is part of becoming a more informed dog owner.
Dog training continues to evolve as our understanding of canine behavior, learning, and welfare develops.
What matters is deciding how you want to move forward.
Start With the Behavior, Not the Training Tool
If you want to change your training approach, begin by identifying the specific behavior you’re trying to address.
Ask:
What does my dog do?
When does the behavior happen?
What usually happens immediately before it?
What happens immediately afterward?
What might my dog be trying to gain, avoid, or communicate?
Is fear, anxiety, frustration, excitement, or stress involved?
Has pain or another medical issue been ruled out when appropriate?
These questions can provide more useful information than simply asking which training tool should replace the one you were previously using.
Expect Behavior to Change Gradually
If you stop using a training method that was suppressing behavior, the unwanted behavior may return.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the new approach is failing.
It may mean the dog hasn’t yet learned what to do instead.
Dogs develop habits, expectations, and emotional responses based on previous experiences.
Some behaviors may improve quickly.
Others may require weeks or months of consistent training.
Progress may also be uneven.
A dog may perform successfully in one environment and struggle in another.
They may improve for several weeks and then have a difficult day.
Behavior change is rarely a perfectly straight line.
Use Management While Teaching New Skills
Management can help prevent repeated practice of unwanted behavior while new skills are being taught.
Depending on the problem, this might involve:
Creating more distance from other dogs while working on reactivity
Using gates or leashes to manage greetings with visitors
Preventing access to items your dog frequently steals
Using a long line while developing a reliable recall
Choosing quieter walking routes while teaching leash skills
Management creates opportunities for successful learning.
It doesn’t replace training, but it can make training safer and more effective.
Focus on Observable Progress
When changing your training approach, look for measurable signs of improvement.
Depending on your goals, progress might include:
Recovering more quickly after seeing a trigger
Responding successfully around more distractions
Offering desirable behaviors more frequently
Requiring fewer prompts
Showing more relaxed body language
Becoming more willing to participate in training
Successfully handling situations that were previously too difficult
These changes can provide a clearer picture of progress than expecting immediate perfection.
What If Reward-Based Training Hasn’t Worked?
Dog owners sometimes say they tried positive reinforcement and it didn’t work.
That experience shouldn’t automatically be dismissed.
However, it is worth examining what was actually tried and why the training plan was unsuccessful.
An effective behavior modification plan may require:
A better understanding of why the behavior occurs
More effective management
Different reinforcement
Improved timing
Breaking skills into smaller steps
Adjusting the environment
More gradual increases in difficulty
Addressing fear or anxiety
Considering medical factors
More consistent practice
If progress isn’t happening, the answer may not be abandoning reward-based training.
The training plan itself may need to change.
When Should You Work With a Professional?
Professional help may be appropriate when:
Behavior is creating a safety risk
Your dog has bitten or attempted to bite
Fear, anxiety, or reactivity is worsening
Your dog is experiencing severe separation-related distress
Behavior changes suddenly without an obvious explanation
You feel overwhelmed or unsure how to proceed
Previous training attempts haven’t produced meaningful progress
Depending on the situation, appropriate help may include a certified professional dog trainer, qualified behavior consultant, veterinarian, or veterinary behaviorist.
Medical evaluation can be particularly important when behavior changes suddenly or when pain, anxiety, or another health concern may be contributing to the problem.
Changing Your Approach Is Part of Learning
Good dog owners and trainers should be willing to reconsider their methods as they learn more.
Research develops.
Professional standards change.
New evidence emerges.
The goal isn’t to achieve a perfect training history.
The goal is to make thoughtful decisions using the best information available and continue developing a training plan that works for both the dog and the people who live with them.
8. What Should Dog Owners Take Away From the Research?
Dog owners deserve accurate information about the potential benefits and risks of different training methods.
Aversive training methods can change behavior.
Pretending otherwise oversimplifies the science of learning and makes meaningful discussions about dog training more difficult.
The more important question is whether aversive methods are necessary when effective alternatives are available.
Research comparing dog training approaches has identified potential concerns associated with aversive methods, including:
Increased stress-related behavior
Differences in cortisol responses
More pessimistic cognitive bias
Aggressive responses to some confrontational techniques
Potential effects on interactions between dogs and their owners
The scientific literature also has limitations.
Not every study uses the same definition of aversive training.
Many studies are observational, rely partly on owner-reported information, involve relatively small sample sizes, or examine dogs already attending particular training programs.
These limitations mean we should be cautious about absolute claims.
The available evidence doesn’t demonstrate that every dog exposed to an aversive training method will develop fear, aggression, anxiety, or a damaged relationship with their owner.
It also doesn’t demonstrate that every reward-based training plan will be successful.
What the evidence does provide is a reason to consider more than whether a training technique can stop behavior.
Effective Training Should Consider the Whole Dog
Behavior doesn’t happen in isolation.
Dogs behave based on factors including:
Learning history
Environment
Physical health
Emotional state
Genetics
Previous experiences
Access to reinforcement
Relationships with people and other animals
Effective training considers these factors.
If a dog repeatedly performs an unwanted behavior, the solution may involve:
Changing the environment
Preventing repeated practice of the behavior
Teaching alternative skills
Addressing fear or frustration
Improving communication
Adjusting the training plan
Seeking professional or veterinary help
Sometimes the most important change isn’t finding a stronger consequence.
It is developing a better understanding of why the behavior is happening.
Evaluate Training Methods by Both Results and Risk
Dog training discussions often become unnecessarily divided into opposing camps.
One side may argue that aversive methods are always abusive and never effective.
The other may argue that reward-based trainers simply hand out treats and refuse to address unwanted behavior.
Neither description provides dog owners with particularly useful information.
A better approach is to ask:
Is the training plan effective?
What does the dog appear to be learning?
Does the plan address the reason the behavior occurs?
What potential risks are associated with the method?
How is the dog responding physically and behaviorally?
Are less intrusive alternatives available?
Can the owner realistically and consistently implement the plan?
Is additional professional or veterinary support needed?
These questions move the discussion away from training ideology and toward practical decision-making.
The Goal Is Effective, Thoughtful Training
Choosing a training method shouldn’t require pretending that difficult behavior is simple.
Dogs can struggle with serious problems.
Owners can feel frustrated, embarrassed, frightened, and overwhelmed.
Effective training needs to provide practical solutions.
At the same time, how we achieve those results matters.
When choosing a training approach, dog owners should consider:
Effectiveness
Potential risks
Canine welfare
The individual dog
The cause and context of the behavior
Available alternatives
Long-term outcomes
The goal shouldn’t be to defend a particular training ideology at all costs.
It should be to make informed decisions that help dogs and their owners make meaningful, sustainable progress.
9. Why I Choose Positive Reinforcement-Based Training
My decision to use positive reinforcement-based methods isn’t based on the belief that dogs should never experience boundaries, frustration, disappointment, or consequences.
Dogs need clear communication.
They need consistency.
They need appropriate management, realistic expectations, and opportunities to learn skills that help them successfully navigate the human world.
I choose positive reinforcement-based training because the available scientific evidence provides reasonable grounds for considering the potential welfare and behavioral risks associated with aversive methods, while research hasn’t established that those methods are necessary for effective dog training outcomes.
My goal is to begin with approaches that can teach useful behavior while minimizing unnecessary fear, pain, intimidation, stress, and risk.
That means:
Understanding why behavior happens
Managing situations a dog isn’t ready to handle
Teaching useful alternative behaviors
Selecting rewards that matter to the individual dog
Reinforcing progress
Gradually increasing difficulty
Paying attention to body language and emotional responses
Adjusting the training plan when something isn’t working
Positive reinforcement-based training doesn’t mean ignoring unwanted behavior.
It means developing a thoughtful plan for changing behavior while considering the individual dog, the reason the behavior occurs, and the potential risks and benefits of the available training methods.
Positive Reinforcement Dog Training in Muskegon and West Michigan
If you’re struggling with your dog’s behavior, you don’t have to choose between ignoring the problem and relying on harsh corrections.
As a CPDT-KA and Fear Free Certified dog trainer, I provide private, in-home dog training for families in Muskegon and surrounding West Michigan communities.
Training takes place where behavior actually happens: in your home, around your neighborhood, and as part of your daily routine.
Whether you’re working through puppy behavior, leash pulling, everyday manners, or reactivity, the goal is to develop a practical training plan that helps you better understand your dog, teach useful skills, and make meaningful progress together.
If you’re unsure which training option is right for you, schedule a free consultation to discuss your dog, the challenges you’re experiencing, and the most appropriate next step for reaching your training goals.
Research and References
This article draws on peer-reviewed research examining dog training methods, canine welfare, stress-related behavior, cognitive bias, training efficacy, aggressive responses, and the dog-owner relationship.
Scientific research on dog training continues to develop. Individual studies differ in design, sample size, populations, definitions of aversive training, and methods used to measure behavior and welfare.
For that reason, individual studies should be interpreted as part of the broader scientific literature rather than treated as proof that every dog will respond identically to a particular training method.
Vieira de Castro et al. (2020)
Does Training Method Matter? Evidence for the Negative Impact of Aversive-Based Methods on Companion Dog Welfare
PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023.
Examined relationships between training methods and behavioral, physiological, and cognitive indicators of welfare in 92 companion dogs attending seven training schools.
Fernandes, Olsson, and Vieira de Castro (2017)
Do Aversive-Based Training Methods Actually Compromise Dog Welfare? A Literature Review
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 196, 1–12.
Reviewed scientific literature examining aversive dog training methods, canine welfare, and training effectiveness.
China, Mills, and Cooper (2020)
Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 508.
Compared training outcomes among dogs trained with electronic collars, without electronic collars by the same trainers, and by reward-focused trainers.
Johnson and Wynne (2024)
Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs
Animals, 14(18), 2632.
Compared electronic collar training with two food-reward-based approaches for stopping dogs from chasing a fast-moving lure.
Vieira de Castro et al. (2019)
Carrots Versus Sticks: The Relationship Between Training Methods and Dog-Owner Attachment
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 219, 104831.
Examined associations between training methods and attachment-related behavior in dogs attending reward-based and aversive-based training schools.
Casey et al. (2021)
Dogs Are More Pessimistic if Their Owners Use Two or More Aversive Training Methods
Scientific Reports, 11, 19023.
Examined associations between owner-reported training methods and dogs’ performance during a cognitive bias task.
Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009)
Survey of the Use and Outcome of Confrontational and Non-Confrontational Training Methods in Client-Owned Dogs Showing Undesired Behaviors
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1–2), 47–54.
Examined owner-reported training methods and aggressive responses among dogs presented to a veterinary behavior service.
Cooper et al. (2014)
The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs With Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training
PLOS ONE, 9(9), e102722.
Compared the welfare and effectiveness of electronic collar training with training conducted without electronic collars under field conditions.
Interpreting Dog Training Research
Research comparing dog training methods presents significant challenges.
Dogs differ in genetics, temperament, physical health, learning history, environment, and previous experiences.
Trainers differ in skill, timing, technique, and philosophy.
Studies also differ in methodology, measurements, sample sizes, and definitions of reward-based, mixed, and aversive training.
These limitations don’t mean the research should be ignored.
They mean conclusions should reflect both the findings and limitations of the available evidence.
Taken together, the current body of research provides reasonable evidence that aversive training methods can present risks to canine behavior and welfare.
At the same time, the evidence doesn’t support claiming that aversive methods are incapable of changing behavior, that every dog exposed to an aversive technique will experience behavioral harm, or that every reward-based training plan will automatically succeed.
The more useful conclusion is that dog training methods should be evaluated according to effectiveness, potential risks, canine welfare, the individual dog, the reason the behavior occurs, and the availability of less intrusive alternatives.
As research continues to develop, dog owners and professionals should remain willing to evaluate new evidence and adjust their approaches accordingly.
Comments