Kind Alternatives to Shock and Aversives - Understanding what positive reinforcement really means — and why it matters
- muttsandmischief
- Oct 26, 2025
- 6 min read
Understanding what positive reinforcement really means — and why it matters.
This week, I had the pleasure of joining the Pet Professional Guild Advocacy Team discussion panel, where we explored Kind Alternatives to the Use of Shock and Aversives. You can find the recording linked below for your viewing pleasure.
One of the key topics that came up was how often we see people within the industry describe themselves as positive reinforcement trainers. But what does that really mean — and how might this label sometimes be misunderstood or misused?
We’re all familiar with the buzzwords floating around the dog-training world. Sometimes, individuals claim to use positive reinforcement simply because they follow a shock, leash correction, or physical pressure with a treat or praise. Sadly, the term positive reinforcement has been widely misrepresented — and even within the media, it’s often used out of context.
So, what is positive reinforcement? Is it just handing over a treat, offering a toy, or giving a cuddle? Let’s take a closer look.
The Four Quadrants — Made Simple
When trainers mention “the four quadrants,” they’re referring to the basic ways behaviour can be increased or decreased. It sounds complicated, but it’s really about what happens before or after a behaviour that makes it more or less likely to happen again.
Here’s the breakdown in plain English:
Positive Reinforcement (+R) → Adding something your dog enjoys to encourage behaviour. Example: Your dog sits, you give a treat. They’re more likely to sit again.
Negative Reinforcement (–R) → Taking away something unpleasant to encourage behaviour. Example: A choke chain tightens until the dog sits, then loosens. The dog learns to sit to avoid the pressure.
Positive Punishment (+P) → Adding something unpleasant to stop behaviour. Example: A shock collar zaps when the dog barks. The dog stays quiet to avoid pain.
Negative Punishment (–P) → Taking away something your dog wants to stop the behaviour. Example: You stop playing when your dog jumps up.
Of these, positive reinforcement is the one that adds joy, builds confidence, and strengthens the bond between you and your dog.
Why Aversive Tools Cause Harm
Shock, prong, and choke collars all rely on pain, pressure, or fear to suppress behaviour. Even when used by people who claim to be “balanced” or “gentle,” these tools work by making a dog uncomfortable enough to stop doing something.
Scientific research has shown that aversive methods can:
Increase fear and anxiety (Cooper et al., 2014; Vieira de Castro et al., 2020)
Suppress behaviour rather than teach what to do instead
Damage trust between dog and guardian
Lead to frustration or defensive aggression
When we see a dog who appears “calm” after punishment, what we’re often seeing is learned helplessness — the dog has stopped trying to communicate because they’re afraid of the consequences. True calmness comes from feeling safe, not silent.
A Guardian's Perspective based on one segment from the media
BBC Morning Live; www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002l4d2
This news segment actually inspired the creation of this blog. After watching it, I asked a guardian—someone who does not work professionally with dogs—to share their thoughts and reactions.
When the presenter stated, “So-called shock collars have been marketed to be effective when used correctly,” the guardian interpreted this as suggesting that shock collars are acceptable when applied properly. This phrasing gave the impression that their use could be justified under certain conditions.
During the interview with Professor Johnathan Cooper, the guardian felt that the intensity of the shock was being downplayed. The comparison to an electric fence, which is unpleasant, led them to believe that the collar’s impact might not be particularly harmful. From their perspective, if a low-level shock “wouldn’t actually harm the dog,” and the highest setting was said to be “no worse than an electric fence,” then the device might seem like a practical solution for problems such as recall training.
The guardian reflected that, based on the discussion, they might have considered using a shock collar if they could find someone to show them how to “use it correctly.” Nothing in the segment, they said, strongly discouraged them from using one.
However, they also felt that positive reinforcement and fear-free training methods were ultimately more enjoyable and rewarding—for both them and their dog. They noted that their dog would not experience anxiety or panic when hearing a cue word, as might happen with aversive methods.
When hearing the veterinarian’s perspective, the guardian said it opened their eyes to the idea that unwanted behaviours might stem from pain, illness, or discomfort. They appreciated that this offered a more compassionate and investigative approach to understanding behaviour, rather than defaulting to tools designed to suppress it.
This highlights how influential language can be when discussing animal welfare in public spaces. Subtle phrasing choices—such as implying that aversive tools are acceptable when “used correctly”—can unintentionally reinforce outdated or harmful ideas. For many guardians, especially those seeking quick solutions to challenging behaviours, this kind of wording can make punishment-based methods sound safe or even endorsed by experts. As professionals, it’s our responsibility to ensure that information shared with the public promotes clarity, compassion, and critical thinking—so that guardians are empowered to make informed, welfare-focused choices for their dogs.
This is why continued education and open conversation are so vital. By helping guardians understand not just what works but why it works, we can replace confusion and fear with knowledge and empathy.
Media Responsibility and Professional Ethics
This brings us to a broader concern—how the media and professional bodies represent animal welfare, and the ethical responsibility that comes with that. Over the years, many of us in the profession have written to broadcasters and regulators to express concern about how certain training methods are portrayed to the public.
In one instance, a popular training company known for using aversive methods was featured on national television. When professionals raised concerns about the welfare implications of promoting such approaches, the response from the broadcaster was disheartening. Rather than engaging with the evidence or acknowledging the welfare issues raised, feedback was brushed aside and attributed to professional rivalry rather than genuine concern for animal wellbeing.
Similarly, complaints to media regulators are often acknowledged but seldom acted upon, and raising concerns about misinformation from within other professional fields can feel equally discouraging. The process can be intimidating, with responses framed in formal or defensive language that discourages open dialogue and reflection.
These experiences highlight a wider issue: when harmful or outdated practices are given a platform without balance or context, it not only misleads guardians but also erodes public trust in credible, science-based professionals. Ethical journalism and transparent professional communication are essential to ensuring that animal welfare remains at the heart of every public discussion about training and behaviour.
Kindness Is the Most Effective Tool We Have
Positive reinforcement isn’t about permissiveness or “spoiling” dogs. It’s about communication, cooperation, and compassion.
When we focus on rewarding desired behaviours rather than punishing unwanted ones, we:
Encourage dogs to want to learn
Build resilience and confidence
Strengthen the human–canine bond
Encourage trust instead of fear
Kindness isn’t a weakness. It’s science, it’s welfare, and it’s how we create learning that lasts a lifetime.
Listen to the Discussion
Listen to the full Pet Professional Guild Advocacy Team panel: Kind Alternatives to the Use of Shock and Aversives https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/ppg-advocacy-panel-kind-alternatives-to-the-use-of-shock-collars-and-aversives/
Moving Forward Together
As we move forward together, it’s worth remembering that kindness isn’t just an alternative—it’s the foundation of everything we do. When we choose empathy over control and curiosity over criticism, we open the door for learning that feels safe, connected, and real. Every guardian who pauses to understand their dog, every professional who chooses evidence over ego, and every conversation that challenges outdated ideas helps move our industry—and our relationships with dogs—toward something better. Bit by bit, we’re creating a world where kindness isn’t the softer option. It’s the stronger one.
💬 I’d love to hear your thoughts—what does kindness look like in your training journey? Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments below.
Until next time, keep it kind — and keep building connections through paws to play. 🐾
References
Cooper, J. J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D. S. (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.
Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Moreira, N., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does the training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023.
Comments