E-Collars and the Silent Fallout: Research on Shock Collar Damage

They're marketed as "tools."

As "training aids." As "humane alternatives" to other methods. As something that "just gets their attention" or provides "a gentle reminder."

But the research tells a different story.

E-collars (electronic collars, shock collars, remote training collars) cause measurable physiological stress, documented psychological damage, and long-term behavioural fallout that often goes unrecognised until it's severe.

The damage is real. The evidence is clear. And the dogs suffering this damage rarely show it in ways we're taught to recognise.

Let me share what the research actually says, what happens in dogs' bodies and minds when subjected to electric shock, and why the fallout is often silent until it's catastrophic.

An e-collar delivers an electric shock through two metal prongs that contact your dog's neck.

The intensity varies depending on the setting, but all settings work on the same principle:

 applying an aversive stimulus (pain or discomfort) to punish or suppress behaviour.

Proponents claim modern e-collars are "gentle" or "just a tap" or "like a tens unit." But research measuring dogs' physiological responses tells us what dogs actually experience.

And it's not gentle.

The Physiological Response

When a dog receives an electric shock from an e-collar, their body responds immediately:

• Cortisol spikes. This is the primary stress hormone. Research by Schilder and van der Borg (2004) found significantly elevated cortisol levels in dogs trained with e-collars compared to dogs trained with positive reinforcement.
  
  
• Heart rate increases. The sympathetic nervous system activates. This is the fight-or-flight response. The body is preparing for threat.
  
  
• Muscle tension and pain response. The shock activates pain receptors. This is not "just a sensation." This is nociception, the neural process of encoding harmful stimuli.
  
  

These aren't subjective interpretations. These are facts, measurable physiological stress responses.

Let's look at what peer-reviewed research has actually found about e-collar use in dogs.

Stress and Welfare Impact

Schilder and van der Borg (2004) published groundbreaking research in Applied Animal Behaviour Science examining dogs trained with e-collars versus positive methods.

They found dogs trained with e-collars showed:

• Significantly more stress-related behaviours (yawning, lip licking, panting)
• Lower body postures indicating fear
• More tension in their bodies
• Signs of anticipatory fear (showing stress behaviours even when the collar wasn't activated)
  
  

The dogs had learned to fear the training context itself.

Learned Association with the Handler

Cooper et al. (2014) conducted research published in PLOS ONE comparing e-collar training to reward-based training.

Key findings:

• Dogs trained with e-collars showed more stress behaviours
• Dogs displayed more behaviours associated with poor welfare
• No evidence that e-collars were more effective than reward-based methods
• Dogs showed signs of associating their handler with the aversive stimulus
  
  

This last point is crucial. The shock doesn't just suppress the unwanted behaviour. It damages the relationship between dog and guardian.

Long-Term Psychological Impact

Schalke et al. (2007) published research in Applied Animal Behaviour Science examining the long-term effects of e-collar training.

They found that even when handlers were trained to use e-collars "correctly," dogs showed:

• Persistent stress responses
• Generalised anxiety
• Fear responses to the training environment
• Signs of learned helplessness

And these effects persisted long after training ended.

The dogs didn't just "get over it." The psychological impact was lasting.

The Fallout Isn't Always Obvious

Here's what makes e-collar damage particularly insidious: the most severe psychological damage often looks like "good behaviour."

Dogs don't always show their distress through obvious reactivity or aggression. Sometimes they shut down. They become compliant. They stop "misbehaving."

Take a look at the research on stress related behaviours and training methods below. 

Imagine then guardians and even dog trainers who simply can't recognise that the above behaviours indicate internal stress responses. And sadly dog training is not regulated in the UK so there are plenty who don't recognise a dog's most basic pleas.

The psychological damage from e-collar use often manifests in ways that aren't immediately connected to the training method.

Learned Helplessness

This is perhaps the most damaging outcome.

Learned helplessness occurs when an animal (or person) experiences repeated aversive stimuli they cannot predict or control. They learn that their behaviour doesn't influence outcomes. That nothing they do matters.

They give up.

With e-collars, this happens because the dog cannot reliably predict when the shock will come or what will make it stop. Even with "proper" use, the dog's understanding is imperfect. The context is complex. The rules aren't clear.

So they stop trying to understand. They stop attempting to control outcomes. They become passive.

This looks like:

• A dog who no longer offers behaviours
• A dog who seems "calm" but is actually shut down
• A dog who doesn't show enthusiasm or engagement
• A dog who seems to have "given up" their personality
  
  

Guardians often don't connect this to the e-collar because it develops gradually.

Generalised Anxiety

Dogs trained with e-collars often develop anxiety that extends far beyond the original training context.

Research by Schilder and van der Borg (2004) documented this: dogs showed stress behaviours not just during training, but in the general presence of their handler, in the training location even without the collar, and sometimes in completely unrelated contexts.

The anxiety generalises.

A dog shocked for barking might become anxious about making any vocalisations. A dog shocked for pulling on lead might become anxious about walking at all. A dog shocked for approaching other dogs might develop generalised social anxiety.

The fallout spreads in unpredictable ways.

Suppressed Communication

Dogs communicate their stress, fear, and discomfort through body language and behaviour.

But when those communications are punished (a fearful dog who barks gets shocked, a stressed dog who pulls gets shocked), dogs learn to suppress their communication.

They stop showing you they're uncomfortable. They stop warning you they're stressed. They go straight from appearing "fine" to biting, because all the warning signals that should have preceded that bite were punished away.

This is extraordinarily dangerous.

Research by Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009) published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science found that confrontational training methods (including e-collars) were associated with increased aggression in dogs.

Not because they made dogs more aggressive, but because they suppressed the warning signals that precede aggression.

Damaged Handler Relationship

Cooper et al. (2014) found evidence that dogs associate their handler with the aversive stimulus of the shock.

This makes sense. From the dog's perspective, the shock happens in the presence of their person. During training with their person. Often immediately after their person has given a command.

The dog learns their person is unpredictable and potentially dangerous.

This manifests as:

• Reduced check-ins on walks
• Less eye contact
• Decreased social engagement with the guardian
• Wariness around the person
• A relationship based on compliance rather than trust

And often, guardians don't recognise this as damage. They think their dog has "calmed down" or "learned to behave."

But the dog has learned to be wary of them.

Some trainers advocate for "balanced" training that uses both rewards and aversives (including e-collars).

The argument is that this provides clarity, that dogs need to understand both what to do and what not to do.

But research doesn't support this approach.

Vieira de Castro et al. (2020) published research in PLOS ONE examining the welfare of dogs trained with aversive methods versus reward-based methods.

They found:

• Dogs trained with aversive methods showed elevated cortisol
• More stress behaviours during and after training
• Poorer welfare indicators
• No evidence of improved learning outcomes

The aversives don't make training more effective. They just make it more stressful.

And the combination of rewards and aversives doesn't mitigate the damage. Research by Deldalle and Gaunet (2014) found that even when positive reinforcement was included, the presence of aversive methods still created welfare concerns.

You cannot balance trauma with treats.

I want to be clear about something: most people who use e-collars are not trying to harm their dogs.

They're trying to solve a problem. Often a serious one. A dog who bolts and could be killed. A dog whose reactivity is escalating. A dog whose behaviour is becoming dangerous.

And they've been told e-collars are the solution. By trainers. By other dog guardians. By marketing that emphasises "quick results" and "reliability."

They're trying to help their dog, and they've been given false information.

The industry that sells and uses e-collars has a vested interest in downplaying the damage. In emphasising the "success stories" while ignoring the fallout. In blaming "user error" when things go wrong rather than acknowledging the inherent problems with the method.

So guardians use them believing they're doing the right thing. Believing the research doesn't apply to "modern" e-collars or "proper" use or their specific situation.

And by the time they see the psychological damage, it's often severe. And they often don't connect it to the training method because the damage is silent.

The most heartbreaking part of e-collar fallout is how much of it remains invisible until it's catastrophic.

We don't see the elevated cortisol. We don't see the chronic stress response. We don't see the learned helplessness developing. We don't see the anxiety generalising.

What we see is a dog who "behaves better." Who doesn't pull on lead. Who doesn't bark. Who doesn't bolt.

We see suppressed behaviour and call it success.

But inside that dog, their stress hormones are elevated. Their nervous system is dysregulated. Their relationship with their guardian is based on fear of unpredictable pain rather than trust. Their communication has been suppressed rather than heard.

And then one day, seemingly out of nowhere, the dog bites. Or shuts down completely. Or develops severe anxiety. Or becomes aggressive toward other dogs or people.

And we don't connect it to the e-collar training that happened months or years before.

We think it's a new problem. An unexpected development. Bad genetics. Poor socialisation. Something wrong with the dog.

But the research tells us: this is the predictable outcome of aversive training methods. This is the silent fallout becoming visible.

Here's the crucial point: we don't need e-collars.

The behaviours people use e-collars to address (recall, reactivity, pulling, barking) can all be addressed effectively with positive reinforcement methods.

Research by Hiby, Rooney, and Bradshaw (2004) found that dogs trained with reward-based methods were more obedient than dogs trained with aversive methods.

The science is clear: positive methods work better and without the welfare costs.

Yes, they often take longer. Yes, they require more skill from the trainer. Yes, they require patience and consistency and management while you're building the behaviours you want.

But they don't create the silent fallout. They don't damage the dog's psychology. They don't suppress communication. They don't create learned helplessness or generalised anxiety or damaged relationships.

They build confident, engaged dogs who trust their guardians. Take a look at the difference in the research findings below. 

If you're reading this and you've used an e-collar with your dog, I want you to know something important:

This isn't about shame. This is about information.

You did what you thought was right with the information you had. You were trying to help your dog. You were given tools and methods that were presented as effective and humane.

Now you have different information. And what matters is what you do with that information going forward.

If you're still using an e-collar, consider stopping. Consider working with a qualified positive reinforcement trainer to address the behaviours you were trying to suppress.

If you've used an e-collar in the past, watch for the signs of silent fallout. Generalised anxiety. Reduced engagement. Suppressed communication. Wariness toward you.

These can be addressed. The damage isn't necessarily permanent.

But it requires recognising it first. It requires understanding that your dog's current behavioural or emotional struggles might be connected to past aversive training, even if that training seemed "successful" at the time.

E-collars aren't the only aversive tools marketed to dog guardians. Prong collars, choke chains, and citronella spray collars operate on the same fundamental principle: applying discomfort or pain to suppress behaviour.

Prong collars work by causing pain when a dog pulls. The metal prongs dig into the sensitive skin of the neck, creating discomfort that's meant to discourage pulling. 

Research by Dohne et al. (2008) found that prong collars cause significant discomfort and can lead to tracheal damage, whiplash injuries, and increased stress responses. 

Like e-collars, they don't teach dogs what to do, only what not to do through pain. And they create the same risks: suppressed communication, damaged relationships, and dogs who associate their guardian with unpredictable discomfort.

Citronella spray collars are often marketed as "humane alternatives" to shock collars. They spray a burst of citronella when the dog barks. 

Grot collars strangle and don't loosen up. They can damage the dog's airway, neck and cut off the airflow. 

But research by Juarbe-Diaz and Houpt (1996) found no significant difference in stress responses between citronella collars and shock collars. The dog still experiences an unpredictable aversive stimulus. 

The mechanism is different, but the psychological impact (learned helplessness, generalised anxiety, suppressed communication) follows the same pattern. A startling spray in the face is still aversive, still unpredictable, still damages trust.

The principle remains consistent across all these tools: we cannot build confident, trusting relationships through methods based on discomfort and fear. 

Whether the aversive is electric shock, metal prongs, or citronella spray, the research shows these methods create welfare concerns, suppress rather than resolve underlying issues, and damage the dog-guardian relationship. 

And in every case, positive reinforcement alternatives exist that are both more effective and don't carry these welfare costs.

All of the above 'tools' are available freely online. That does not mean they are ok to use though, in fact the opposite applies.

The evidence is clear. The research is consistent. The physiological and psychological damage from e-collar use is documented and measurable.

Dogs trained with e-collars experience:

• Elevated stress hormones
• Fear and anxiety that generalises beyond the training context
• Suppressed communication that makes them more dangerous, not less
• Damaged relationships with their guardians
• Risk of learned helplessness and shutdown
• No better learning outcomes than positive reinforcement training

We don't need to keep using methods that cause this damage. We have effective alternatives. We have the research. We have the knowledge.

What we need is the willingness to prioritise our dogs' emotional and psychological wellbeing over quick fixes. To invest the time in methods that build rather than break. To choose trust over fear.

Our dogs deserve that.

They deserve to learn without pain. To be guided without fear. To build confidence rather than compliance. To maintain their ability to communicate rather than having it shocked out of them.

They deserve guardians who understand that the silent fallout is real, even when it's invisible. Who recognise that suppressed behaviour isn't the same as resolved behaviour. Who know that compliance achieved through fear is not the same as engagement built through trust.

And they deserve us to do better once we know better.

Skool for dog people is a low cost high value membership created for guardians and professionals who need both a support network and learning environment that really cares. We cover canine and human emotional health and wellbeing, scentwork and welfare plus much more. 

Join below and get your 7 Steps to Scentwork challenge completed during your free trial. 

Key Research References:

• Cooper, J.J., 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.
• Schilder, M.B.H., & van der Borg, J.A.M. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
• Schalke, E., et al. (2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
• Vieira de Castro, A.C., et al. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE.
• Herron, M.E., Shofer, F.S., & Reisner, I.R. (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.
• Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., & Bradshaw, J.W.S. (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare.
• Deldalle, S., & Gaunet, F. (2014). Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog and on the dog-owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.