23/08/2026
Aversives are making a big comeback - and we need to talk about why.
Slip leads. Prong collars. E-collars. Leash corrections. “Pressure and release.”
As a behaviour consultant, I’m increasingly concerned about the normalisation of these tools again - particularly when they are presented as necessary, harmless, or the only way to address “serious” behaviour.
Let’s look at this through the- four quadrants of operant conditioning
Aversive-based training commonly relies on positive punishment (P+) - adding something unpleasant to reduce a behaviour - and negative reinforcement (R-)- removing something unpleasant when the dog gives the desired response.
And yes, these methods can suppress behaviour very quickly.
But suppression is not the same as teaching.
If a dog stops barking because a correction is delivered, what has the dog actually learned?
Have we taught an alternative behaviour?
Have we changed the underlying emotion?
Have we helped the dog feel safer?
Or have we simply taught them that expressing themselves in that situation comes with consequences?
Research increasingly raises concerns about this distinction.
A 2017 review examined 17 studies on aversive training methods and concluded that positive punishment and negative reinforcement can jeopardise dogs’ physical and mental welfare, with no evidence that positive punishment is more effective than reward-based training.
In a 2020 study of 92 companion dogs, Vieira de Castro et al. found that dogs trained with higher proportions of aversive methods showed more stress-related behaviours, more tense behavioural states, greater increases in cortisol following training and a more pessimistic response in a cognitive-bias task. In other words, the effects were not confined to the training session - welfare differences were also found outside it.
Earlier work by Hiby, Rooney & Bradshaw (2004) also found that reward use was positively associated with obedience, while punishment showed no such benefit and was associated with some problem behaviours.
