Can a dog trainer “addict” a dog to an e-collar, meaning causing a dog to want to repeatedly receive an aversive stimulus (of any kind)?
Those making those claims are most likely trying to apply Opponent- Processing Theory, postulated by Solomon and Corbit (1974), which generally makes the following argument:
Humans: The first time someone jumps out of an airplane with a parachute, they are terrified. They are then in a dull mood after they land, then recover back to a normal state. Each time they repeat a jump they are less afraid and become more and more thrilled when they land. They do it for the thrill. Thus, they get “addicted” to jumping.
Dogs: Here was the basic description of the dog experiment: shock a dog intensely for 10 seconds, several times in a row in a Pavlov harness, it will scream and freak out. When released, it will be sullen, and then over time will recover. After multiple sessions, the dog will eventually not scream and freak out during stimulation, and when the experience is over, and the dog is released from the trap, it will be elated, jumping up on people and happy.
My interpretation and opinions follow:
I don’t think these are the same at all. I don’t think Solomon and Corbit understood dog behavior at all.
I see no evidence, ever, that a dog will go thrill seeking to experience some horrifying event just to feel the thrill when it is over. That “happy” dog afterwards isn’t happy, it is displaying appeasement behaviors because of the experience. That is how it is processing all of this. That isn’t joy. That is a signal that it accepts that somehow it has lost rank to everyone else at that moment.
I know that rats can be made to endure an electrified boardwalk to get to food, but that isn’t the same as being addicted to getting their feet shocked along the path. If given the choice, of an electrified runway or one that isn’t electrified, they will choose the latter.
I see no evidence that dogs get addicted to wanting to be shocked by an e-collar for a duration just to get the “happy” release when it is over.
Dogs don’t go looking to go through hardships again and again, either. Rats put in a pool will swim for hours to not drown, but they aren’t then motivated to go through that again to feel the thrill of being able to get out of that trap.
Humans will embark on a Lord of the Rings quest. I don’t see dogs ever doing that.
My conclusion: dogs never get “addicted” to e-collars. Ever. Generally, the proper justification for using corrections of any type, including e-collars, is to get dogs to avoid doing actions that could be harmful or deadly… like chasing an alligator, kill an endangered species, messing with a beehive, chasing an elk, grabbing a poisonous snake, or running into traffic, endangering the handler in traffic, etc. Just because corrections are sometimes essential to have a real-world dog doesn’t mean that they choose to be corrected again. Avoidance training is more durable than positive reinforcement training, meaning much less likely to extinguish or weaken. That is why it is used. That is why you can never rely just on positive reinforcement methods to keep a dog away from a rattlesnake. Anyone who has done a lot of positive reinforcement training with real dogs in the real world knows the limitations.
No puppy seeks to provoke Mama again right after she growled and snapped because those sharp baby teeth sunk into her tail, just to get the fun of being growled at or snapped at again. They don’t get addicted to that. In the old days, no kid wanted to hear dad come home and hear the leather belt coming out of his pants, just to experience that again, right?
Here is what these trainers are misinterpreting. I have seen dogs that were all silly after an aversive situation… getting injured, being conquered, something startling, something overwhelming… offering appeasement behaviors to others around them. I have also seen dogs that were highly stressed and would pounce on anything after an aversive event to get some kind of comfort release. It looks like drive to someone who might not see the dog up closely: chasing a ball or grabbing the leash or someone’s pants, for example, but it isn’t drive at all. A milder version is when someone eats too big a bowl of ice cream after coming home from a miserable day at work. That desire to eat isn’t hunger, it is comfort seeking.
I think what we are seeing is a version of learned helplessness training, but with the dog learning to endure until allowed to escape. I think that Peterson, Maier, and Seligman who wrote “Learned Helplessness” (1993) would concur. (Richard L. Solomon was their mentor, by the way.) I think they disproved this part of the Opponent- Process Theory. The dog just learns to endure the trap because no effort provides any escape. Furthermore, this later work showed the deleterious effects of such treatment, including an early death among test subjects.
You choose to make your own interpretation. For myself, and my students, I would never make a dog endure something like the above and claim the dog likes it. It is why I choose to not use negative reinforcement training, including the risks of developing learned helplessness in a dog.
Plan accordingly.