CALL TODAY!
(610) 770-7158
Ultimate Guide to Science-Based Dog Training You Must Know

Ultimate Guide to Science-Based Dog Training You Must Know

by

Ultimate Guide to Science-Based Dog Training You Must Know
Ultimate Guide to Science-Based Dog Training You Must Know

Introduction

This post serves as a companion piece to Ivan Balabanov’s Training Without Conflict podcast episode titled The Real Facts About Science-Based Dog Training.

You can find the podcast episode on YouTube, and it is also embedded at the end of this article. This episode is perfect for anyone interested in diving into the authentic science of dog training. It provides a clear and concise overview of peer-reviewed and validated learning science developed over the past 50+ years.

This article is not intended to replace watching (or listening to) the podcast itself. Instead, it consolidates all the referenced studies with brief summaries of their significance. Much of the content originates from the slides Ivan shared during the podcast video.

I compiled these references to highlight the importance of Ivan’s podcast in advancing dog training practices. While I worked on organizing the materials for easier access, full credit goes to Ivan Balabanov for presenting the science and uncovering the relevant studies. For those who wish to deepen their knowledge of dog training, I highly recommend attending Ivan’s Training Without Conflict Certification Course. As someone who is TWC-Certified, I can confidently say it is worth every investment.

 

Strawman Arguments

The studies and insights shared in this podcast challenge the force-free training community, their associated organizations, and certain veterinary groups, which often promote feel-good misinformation while misleading the public. Some individuals are aware of this misrepresentation, but many are simply unaware of how flawed their positions truly are. A fitting quote illustrates this point:

“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough to think you’re right, but not knowing enough to know you’re wrong.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

Critics may attempt to dismiss the studies presented in Ivan’s podcast due to their age. However, age does not equate to irrelevance. These findings have stood the test of time because they are rooted in decades-old, well-established learning science. We don’t reject Newton’s law of gravity simply because it was formulated in 1665, and the same reasoning applies to these studies.

All the studies referenced here are peer-reviewed and have been validated through repeated experiments over the years. None have been refuted or contradicted. They are foundational to science-based dog training, and any discomfort they cause within certain narratives or biases doesn’t diminish their validity. Ignoring these facts only reflects a disregard for evidence and truth.

The Problems of the Force-Free Studies

In contrast, most of what the force-free community presents are studies based on surveys and questionnaires. Peer-reviewing those, means to only review the methodology of the survey process. The survey results can’t be peer-reviewed. They will change with every new group of people interviewed. That hardly compares to scientific experiments. Surveys and questionnaires also can’t be retested or reproduced unless you survey the same people with the same questionnaire twice. It should be pretty obvious that that wouldn’t make much sense.

Anyone who has ever followed an election poll knows that surveys and questionnaires are just guesses and assumptions. One reason is that many people will interpret the questions differently, making the results suspect. Further, how you ask a question also changes the answers. There are many more reasons surveys and questionnaires aren’t worth much.

If any force-free trainer could directly contradict any of these findings, they would have by now. But they haven’t been able to … in over 50 years. That alone makes it pretty obvious where the truth lies.

How to Use This Article

The scientific evidence Ivan shared in his podcast is extensive and overwhelmingly supports his arguments. To make the content more digestible, this article is designed for easy navigation. Begin with the topics that interest you most. Each section includes collapsible study summaries for convenience.

By clicking on “Review the Science,” you can explore detailed studies relevant to specific areas of interest. Time codes corresponding to the podcast are provided, and the organization of sections mirrors the podcast for seamless reference. Enjoy learning and deepening your understanding!

References

    • Book: Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn
    • Position Statement on Humane Dog Training from the AVSAB:
      • Claim: The application of aversive methods—which, by definition, rely on the use of force, pain, or physical/emotional discomfort—should not be utilized in dog training or behavioral therapy.
      • Claim: Reward-based training techniques have consistently been shown to outperform aversive methods in effectiveness. Numerous survey-based studies indicate that dogs trained exclusively through reward-based methods exhibit the highest obedience levels, while those trained with aversive-only techniques display the lowest. Balanced training, which blends rewards and aversives, ranks between these two extremes. — Hiby et al., 2004
      • Fact: Aversive training techniques often hinder a dog’s ability to acquire new skills and tasks, highlighting their limitations when compared to positive reinforcement strategies.

  • The Above Statements Are Simply False

    This has been documented in hundreds of scientific papers.

    • Fact: In some cases, punishment is the ONLY viable option to stop unacceptable or dangerous behaviors that may pose risks to the dog or others.

    This article reviews the actual science, as well as some of the most significant studies in learning science. These findings are not new—they have been known for over 50 years. While some groups prefer to ignore these truths due to personal biases, science does not work that way. Facts cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient or unpopular.

    All the studies referenced here are peer-reviewed and have undergone validation multiple times by different scientists. To date, none have ever been refuted or proven incorrect. These studies reflect the current understanding of learning science and are based on controlled, scientific experiments—not questionnaires or surveys, which are inherently unverifiable. The validity of this body of work has been independently confirmed numerous times, underscoring its importance and reliability.

  • Claim: Negative Punishment is better than Positive Punishment

    • Start Time: 14:50
    • Fact: Negative punishment, such as withholding rewards, has been shown to cause significantly higher stress levels in dogs compared to positive punishment methods using tools like prong collars or e-collars. — Salgirli, 2008

      Review the Science:

      • Study Title: Comparison of Learning Effects and Stress Between 3 Different Training Methods (Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar and Quitting Signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs (PDF)
      • Author: Yasemin Salgirli
      • Published In: Dissertation at Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, 2008
      • Citation Record: Cited in 25 other articles and studies according to Google Scholar.

Claim: Timeouts Are Better Than Positive Punishment

  • Start Time: 18:07
  • Fact: Across 11 studies, participants chose to endure mild electroshocks rather than face boredom for periods of 6 to 15 minutes. This highlights how social isolation—one of the harshest forms of punishment for humans—is highly aversive but not consistently effective, particularly in dog training contexts. — Wilson, 2014
  • Fact: The use of non-contingent releases during timeouts can lead to negative side effects, further questioning the efficacy of this approach. — Harris & Hershfield, 1978

    Review the Science:

    • Study Title: Just Think: The Challenges of the Disengaged Mind (PDF)
      • Authors: Timothy D. Wilson et al.
      • Published In: Science, July 2014, Volume 345, Number 6192, Pages 75-77
      • Cited By: Referenced in 606 articles and studies according to Google Scholar.
    • Study Title: Behavioral Suppression of Seriously Disruptive Behavior in Psychotic and Retarded Patients: A Review of Punishment and its Alternatives (PDF)
      • Authors: S. L. Harris and R. Ersner-Hershfield
      • Published In: Psychological Bulletin, December 1978, Volume 85, Issue 6, Pages 1352-1375
      • Cited By: Referenced in 146 articles and studies according to Google Scholar.

  • Is There a Place for Aversives in Dog Training?

    • Start Time: 19:13
    • Fact: While positive reciprocity (mutual altruism) is widely studied in evolutionary biology, negative reciprocity (retaliatory actions that reduce fitness) has often been overlooked. Among social animals, retaliatory aggression is frequently observed. Individuals may punish group members who infringe on their interests, leading subordinates to cease behaviors that might negatively impact dominant individuals. Such punitive strategies are essential for establishing dominance hierarchies, deterring freeloaders, disciplining offspring or mates, and maintaining cooperative behaviors. — Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995

      Review the Science:

      • Study Title: Punishment in Animal Societies (PDF)
        • Authors: T. H. Clutton-Brock and G. A. Parker
        • Published In: Nature, January 1995, Volume 373, Issue 6511, Pages 209-216
        • Cited By: Referenced in 1252 articles and studies according to Google Scholar.

     

1. Common Arguments Against Punishment

2. Claim: Punishment Provokes Aggression

  • 2. Claim: Punishment Induces Emotional Changes that Interfere with Learning

    Start Time:     21:51Aggression responses are not restricted to Positive and Negative Punishment. Aggression responses can also occur with Positive Reinforcement when fading out food (extinction).

    • Fact: Experiments have shown that parts of Positive Reinforcement are aversive as well and will lead to aggression. The transition from food—Positive Reinforcement—to extinction is an aversive event. Aggression is sometimes a major side effect of that extinction — Azrin, Hutchinson & Hake, 1966; Lerman, Iwata & Wallace, 1999

      Review the Science:

    • Fact: Fortunately, subsequent work has suggested that the problem of elicited aggression is not really serious in most situations. Because aggression can easily be suppressed through the use of contingent punishment. — Ulrich, Wolf & Dulaney, 1969 

      Review the Science:

      • Study Title: Punishment of Shock-Induced Aggression (PDF)
        • Authors: Roger Ulrich, Marshall Wolf and Sylvia Dulaney
        • Published In: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, November 1969, Volume 12, Number 6, Pages 1009-1015
        • Cited By: 54 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
    • Fact: Further experiments, found that near-zero levels of elicited aggression could be produced by punishing each attack, even when non-contingent shocks were scheduled every 30 seconds during 2-hour sessions. — Azrin 1970; Roberts & Blase, 1971 

      Review the Science:

3. Claim: Positive Punishment is Ineffective

        • Authors: Dorothea C. Lerman and Christina M. Vorndran
        • Published In: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 431-464
        • Cited By: 444 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
    • Fact: Punishment is the treatment of choice for life threatening behavior that must be suppressed rapidly to prevent serious harm to itself or others. — Foxx, 2003

  • Review the Science:

    • Study Title: The Treatment of Dangerous Behavior  (PDF)
      • Authors: Richard M. Foxx
      • Published In: In Behavioral Interventions, February 2003, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-21
      • Cited By: 38 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

4. Claim: Punishment Does Not Teach A Desired Behavior

  • Start Time: 25:25
  • Claim:Punishment Does Not Teach A Desired Behavior. — Murray Sidman: Coercion and Its Fallout, 2000 (book)
    • This is a silly argument. Punishment is not supposed to teach dogs new behaviors or what to do instead of a problem behavior. That’s what Positive and Negative Reinforcement is for. Punishment is used to reduce and extinguish behaviors.

5. Claim: Punishment Creates Fear

  • Start Time: 25:49This is misleading as fear of dangerous, injurous or destructive behaviors is a good thing. Appropriate fears keep all of us alive. For example, if we can teach a dog to be afraid of rattlesnakes, it will avoid them and not get killed. Fear of rattlesnakes is healthy. Fear of dangerous things is one of the most natural ways of learning not to do something that will harm or kill us (or a dog). This would be similar with car chasing, livestock predation, self-mutilation or other dangerous or unacceptable behaviors. In many instances, appropriate fear can be a powerful motivator for learning and can help dogs adopt good behaviors that keep them safe.

6. Claim: Punishment Creates Fear

  • Start Time: 27:50

    When dogs learn how to successfully escape an aversive, they will show normal learning behavior of escape and avoidance learning. There is no negative fallout and they develop resistance to learned helplessness. Without pre-training on how to avoid aversives successfully, learned helplessness will develop. So, the key is proper pre-training.

    Claim: When dogs are initially exposed to an inescapable electrical stimulus, they will not try to learn an avoidance strategy later, even when one was available. This is referred to as learned helplessness.  — Seligman & Maier, 1967

     

    Fact:This claim is correct but represents the worst-case scenario and requires the trainer to be incompetent. The same researchers found in a subsequent study—two years later—that pre-training with an electric stimulus created resistance to the development of learned helplessness. — Maier, Seligman & Solomon, 1969

  • Review the Science:

    Study:Failure to Escape Traumatic Shock  (PDF)
    Author(s): Martin E. P. Seligman and Steven F. Maier
    Published in: Journal of Experimental Psychology, May 1967, Volume 74, Number 1, Pages 1-9
    Cited by: 3454 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
    Study: Pavlovian Fear Conditioning and Learned Helplessness  (PDF)  (Book)
    Author(s): Steven F. Maier, Martin E. P. Seligman and Richard L. Solomon
    Published in: Punishment and Aversive Behavior (The Century Psychology Series) by Byron A. Campbell, Russell M. Church, 1960, Pages 299-342
    Cited by: 502 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Note: The study outlining the risk was cited 3454 times, while the study outlining the solution was only cited 502 times. Seven times more people only care about the problem and not the solution. Ask yourself, why that is.

     

    Fact:More recent studies found that exposure to aversives that can be controlled by the animal’s behavior help build increased resiliance not only to the aversive in question but more broadly to stressors in general. Therefore—theoretically—controlled exposure to aversives could somewhat paradoxically improve the long-term well-being of dogs. — Vollmer, 2002; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Volpicelli et al., 1983

     

  • Study: Punishment Happens: Some Comments on Lerman and Vorndran’s Review  (PDF)
    Author(s): Timothy R. Vollmer
    Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 469-473

    Cited by: 52 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders  (PDF)
    Author(s): Dorothea C. Lerman and Christina M. Vorndran
    Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 431-464

    Cited by: 444 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: Learned Mastery in the Rat  (PDF)
    Author(s): Joseph R. Volpicelli, Ronald R. Ulm, Aidan Altenor and Martin E. P. Seligman
    Published in: Learning and Motivation, May 1983, Volume 14, Number 2, Pages 204-222
    Cited by: 57 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

 

Negative Reinforcement

  • Start Time: 30:06Fact: Every reinforcement includes both negative and positive aspects. It is impossible to separate positive reinforcement from negative reinforcement. — Michael, 1975; Baron & Galizio, 2005

 Fact: The results of the analysis suggest that contingent skin shock is by far the most effective procedure and has the most favorable side effect profile. — Blenkush, 2017

Training Equipment

  • Start Time: 31:50Claim: Force-Free trainers state that head collars and no-pull harnesses are the only training tools that should be used as they are not aversive and don’t cause pain.

    Fact: Head collars and no-pull harnesses are aversive tools. Additionally, these collars are alleged to work by mimicking natural dominance behaviors thereby increasing deference and obedience to the owner. — Overall, 1997; Ogburn et al., 1998; Haug, 2002

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Comparison of Dogs’ Reactions to Four Different Head Collars  (PDF)
    Author(s): Lore I. Haug et al.
    Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, September 2002, Volume 79, Number 1, Pages 53-61

    Cited by: 10 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals  (Read)
    Author(s): Karen L. Overall
    Published in: Book, January 1997 (Buy)

    Cited by: 663 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: Comparison of Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Dogs Wearing two Different Types of Collars  (PDF)
    Author(s): Philip Ogburn et al.
    Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, December 1998, Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 133-142
    Cited by: 31 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

The Electric Collar

  • Start Time: 37:40Fact: … led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators. — Schalke et al., 2006

     

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Clinical Signs Caused by the Use of Electric Training Collars on Dogs in Everyday Life Situations  (PDF)
    Author(s): E. Schalke et al., 2006
    Published in: In Applied Animal Behaviour Science, December 2006, Volume 105, Pages 369–380
    Cited by: 105 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
    Fact: All had experienced years of failed attempts to control their aggression through large pharmacological interventions and restricting their freedom of movement via restrictive environments. The use of comprehensive multifaceted behavioral programs involving punishment resulted in dramatic and lasting reductions in aggression, the elimination or great reduction of drug use, and major lifestyle improvements. — Foxx, 2003

  • Review the Science:

    Study: The Treatment of Dangerous Behavior  (PDF)
    Author(s): Richard M. Foxx
    Published in: In Behavioral Interventions, February 2003, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-21
    Cited by: 38 other articles and studies per Google Scholar
    Fact: In a study of 41 Elkhounds, 29 hunting dogs and 68 English Setters behaviors indicative of motivation for chasing or attacking sheep were examined in three different way and successfully suppressed. — Christiansen, et al., 2001

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Behavioural Differences Between Three Breed Groups of Hunting Dogs Confronted with Domestic Sheep  (PDF)
    Author(s): Frank O. Christiansen, et al.
    Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, May 2001, Volume 72, Number 2, Pages 115-129
    Cited by: 54 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Fact: There is a controversy about the use of aversive stimuli for the treatment of self-injurious, aggressive, and other dangerous behaviors with individuals with mental retardation and autism. The validity of argumentation in favor of CS is, amongst others, related to safety of the electrical shock (i.e., given its effectiveness). This study adds to this argument by demonstrating that 48 (healthy) individuals who were administered a total of 480 clinical electrical shocks failed to experience any negative effects (e.g., fainting, aggressive reactions, escape). — Duker et al, 2002

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Effects of Single and Repeated Shock on Perceived Pain and Startle Response in Healthy Volunteers  (PDF)
    Author(s): Pieter C. Duker et al.
    Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Volume 23, Issue 4, July–August 2002, Pages 285-292
    Cited by: 6 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Fact: When treatment was compared to baseline measures, results showed that with all behavior categories, individuals either significantly improved, or did not show any change. Negative side effects failed to be found in this study. — van Oorsouw et al., 2008; Linscheid et al., 1994; Rechter & Vrablic, 1974

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Side Effects of Contingent Shock Treatment  (PDF)
    Author(s): W.M.W.J van Oorsouw et al.
    Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, November–December 2008, Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 513-523

    Cited by: 18 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: Positive Side Effects in the Treatment of SIB Using the Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS): Implications for Operant and Biochemical Explanations of SIB  (PDF)
    Author(s): Thomas R. Linscheid, Carrie Pejeau, Sheila Cohen and Marianna Footo-Lenz
    Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, January/February 1994, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 81-90

    Cited by: 39 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: The Right to Treatment Including Aversive Stimuli  (PDF)
    Author(s): Emanuel Rechter M.D. and Martin Vrablic M.A.
    Published in: Psychiatric Quarterly, September 1974, Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 445–449
    Cited by: 11 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Fact: The study ‘Evaluation of an Aversion-Based Program Designed to Reduce Predation of Native Birds by Dogs’ is the most comprehensive study on supressing predation through aversion training ever conducted. The study spanned multiple years from 1998-2007. During this time frame a totals of six training sessions were conducted. After the fifth training session all of the dogs showed 100% avoidance towards the Kiwi birds. This result remained the same during the sixth training session. Of the 1156 dog in this study, 843 dogs stopped chasing Kiwi after only one shock. 313 dogs needed two shocks to stop. 128 needed three shocks to stop. Only 42 dogs needed four shocks to stop completely. No dog needed more than four shocks. The study included follow-ups to assess long-term effects. No negative long-term side effects were found. — Dale et al., 2017

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Evaluation of an Aversion-Based Program Designed to Reduce Predation of Native Birds by Dogs: An Analysis of Training Records for 1156 Dogs  (PDF)
    Author(s): Arnja R. Dale, Christopher A. Podlesnik and Douglas Elliffe
    Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, March 2017, Volume 191, June 2017, Pages 59-66

    Cited by: 10 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    The following three studies are a great example on how the force-free community tries to manipulate studies to create the findings they want. Unfortunately for them, they were caught in this case.

    This poorly constructed study is quoted a lot by the force-free training community. The focus of the training was on training recalls from chasing sheep. However, the dogs were kept on leash and the sheep in play pens. Read that last sentence again. Yes, that is what they did to prove rewards-based training works and e-collars are unnecessary. Hardly a valid setup. Thanks to Sargisson and McLean this was called out a year later (see below).

    Claim: Rewards-based training is effective in stopping dogs from livestock predation. Shock-collars are unnecessary. — Cooper, et al., 2014; China et al, 2020

  • Review the Science:

    Study: The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward-Based Training  (PDF)
    Author(s): J. J. Cooper, et al.
    Published in: PLoS ONE, September 2014, Volume 9, Issue 9, e102722

    Cited by: 65 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Study: Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. A Focus on Positive Reinforcements  (PDF)
    Author(s): Lucy China, Daniel S. Mills and Jonathan J. Cooper
    Published in: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2020, Volume 7, Article 508
    Cited by: 32 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

    Fact:Fortunately, in 2021 Sargisson et al, reviewed the work of China et al, 2020 and stated: Attacks by dogs are unlikely to be initiated when the owner is within 1m (3ft) and the dog is on-lead. China et al.’s results shed no light on the possible behavior of the dog off-lead or when the owner is absent, and therefore cannot be used as an empirical justification for removing e-collars as a technique for treating dogs with behavioural problems. — Sargisson & McLean, 2021

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Commentary on ‘Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. A Focus on Positive Reinforcements’  (PDF)
    Author(s): Rebecca J. Sargisson and Ian G. McLean
    Published in: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021, Volume 8, 629746

    Cited by: 2 other articles and studies per University of Waikato.

    Fact: The output of an e-collar tested by the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Dix, 1991) was found to produce 3000 times less electrical energy than that allowed by standards for electrical fences, six times less electrical energy than that produced by the static discharge produced by walking on a carpet, and 50 times less than what is considered necessary to reach pain thresholds. — Dix, 1991

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Investigation Of Sonic Invisible Boundaries Unit  (PDF)
    Author(s): G.I. Dix

    Published in: BMC Veterinary Research, 1991, Volume 8, Issue 93

    Fact: The traditional measure of intensity dynamic range is the ratio of the stimulation currents required to produce sensation threshold Is and pain threshold Ip. Ip/ls typically ranges from 2-4 for unexperienced subjects and 6-8 for experienced subjects. This means when someone is conditioned to the sensation it takes about double the intensity to get a reaction. — Kaczmarek, 1991

  • Review the Science:

    Study: Optimal Electrotactile Stimulation Waveforms For Human Information Display  (PDF)
    Author(s): Kurt Alan Kaczmarek
    Published in: Dissertation, 1991, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Ultimate Guide to Science-Based Dog Training You Must Know

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*
Consent*

Leave a Comment