The Pitfalls of Using Punishment in Companion Animal Behavior
Companion animal behavior experts and veterinarians increasingly caution against using punishment-based techniques when training dogs and cats. In behavioral terms, punishment refers to any consequence that reduces the likelihood of a behavior recurring. This includes positive punishment – adding an aversive stimulus such as yelling or a leash correction – as well as aversive tools like shock collars, prong (pinch) collars, choke chains, spray bottles, and physical reprimands. Pet owners often resort to tactics such as shouting “no,” squirting a cat with water, or using leash jerks and electric shocks in an attempt to stop unwanted behaviors[1]. While these methods may sometimes interrupt a behavior momentarily, a growing body of research shows they come with significant risks and unintended consequences. The discussion below explores the behavioral, psychological, and welfare-related fallout of punishment-based training in dogs and cats, drawing on current scientific literature. All forms of punitive training – from verbal scolding to physical corrections – can create more problems than they solve, undermining the animal’s well-being and the human-animal bond.
Behavioral Consequences of Punitive Methods
Induced Fear and Avoidance: A common outcome of punishment is that the animal learns to fear whatever is associated with the aversive event. Instead of understanding why their behavior was “wrong,” the pet may simply become afraid of the context or person delivering the punishment. For example, if a dog is punished with a leash correction or shock whenever it barks at another dog, it might start to associate the sight of other dogs with the unpleasant experience. The result can be a conditioned fear response – the dog becomes anxious or defensive whenever other dogs appear, even if no punishment follows[2][3]. Similarly, a cat that gets sprayed with water for climbing on the counter might not learn “counters are off-limits” at all; instead, the cat learns that being on the counter when the owner is present leads to something scary. The cat may simply wait until the owner isn’t around to do the behavior, or it may begin to avoid the kitchen or the owner entirely out of fear[4][5]. In one account, a cat who was routinely squirted learned to run away at the sight of the bottle or the person holding it, clearly indicating it feared the punishment and not necessarily the forbidden act itself[6]. This kind of outcome erodes trust and does not truly teach the pet what to do instead. Importantly, if an unpleasant consequence only occurs when a human is present, animals often fail to generalize the “rule” to other situations[7][8]. A dog might refrain from jumping on the sofa when you’re in the room (to avoid a scolding or spray), but as soon as you leave, the perceived threat is gone and the behavior resumes. In essence, the animal learns to “beat the system” rather than genuinely reform its behavior.
Punishment can also lead to avoidance of the punisher or the training situation. Studies note that positively punished dogs may become fearful or defensive toward the person administering the corrections[2]. The Merck Veterinary Manual summarizes that numerous studies have found punishment-based training and confrontational handling tend to increase animals’ fear and avoidance behaviors[2]. Pets may learn to shun interactions with their owner or handler if those interactions have a history of unpredictably turning painful or frightening. For instance, research on working dogs trained with shock collars found that dogs eventually associated their handler’s presence and commands with the shocks; even outside the training context, these dogs showed persistent signs of stress when near their handler, indicating they had learned to expect bad outcomes in that presence[9]. In extreme cases, an animal may shut down and refuse to engage at all, a state often referred to as learned helplessness. If a pet experiences aversive stimuli that it cannot escape or control, the safest strategy (from the animal’s perspective) is to stop trying any behavior. A chronically punished dog may cease offering behaviors or obey only in a robotic manner, not out of understanding, but out of a fear of doing something wrong. Trainers have observed that animals trained heavily with aversives can become apathetic, seemingly “well-behaved” because they are suppressing normal behaviors across the board[10][11]. To an untrained eye this might look like compliance, but it often reflects an animal that is anxious and disengaged, afraid to make a move. In cats, this dynamic may manifest as the cat hiding, freezing, or “going limp” to endure a scolding or scruff shake, rather than actively learning anything. Such behavioral inhibition is problematic because it means the pet is not only refraining from the undesirable behavior but potentially many other natural behaviors, indicating poor welfare[12].
Aggression and Defensive Responses: Perhaps the most dangerous behavioral consequence of punishment is the risk of provoking aggression. When an animal perceives a threat or physical pain, its natural response may be to defend itself. Punitive training techniques – especially those that involve confrontation or force – can elicit defensive aggression directed back at the owner or others. Herron et al. (2009) surveyed dog owners and found that dogs frequently responded aggressively when subjected to confrontational methods. For example, in that survey 25% or more of dogs reacted with aggression (such as growling, snapping, or biting) when owners tried tactics like hitting or kicking the dog, “alpha rolling” (forcing the dog onto its back), or yelling “no” at them[13][14]. Notably, dogs who were already showing aggression issues were even more likely to respond aggressively to such punishment – e.g. a dog with territorial aggression might become fiercer if someone alpha-rolls or shouts at it[15]. These findings align with anecdotal warnings from veterinarians: attempting to physically dominate or harshly correct an animal can backfire, escalating the very aggression one set out to stop[14]. In some cases, the animal learns that aggression is the only way to stop the frightening situation – for instance, a cat might learn that a swat or bite makes a person back off from trimming its nails after being punished harshly for resisting. Thus, punishment can put the person administering it at risk of injury[16][17], and it may “teach” the pet to use aggression more quickly in the future since lesser warning signals (like growling or hissing) were punished or ignored.
Another serious issue is that punishment often suppresses warning signals of aggression without resolving the underlying emotion. If a dog is punished for growling, it may stop growling in the moment – creating the illusion of “fixing” the behavior – but the dog’s fear or discomfort (the root cause of the growling) remains. The danger here is that the dog, now unable to give a warning growl, might later resort to biting with “no warning.” Animal behaviorists emphasize that by masking the symptoms (outward displays) of fear or aggression, punishment can produce animals who are more unpredictable and hazardous. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB, 2007) notes that while punitive measures might momentarily suppress an aggressive display, they can make the animal more fearful and aggressive underneath, creating a ticking time bomb[18]. A classic example is a dog that is afraid of strangers: if the dog is reprimanded or forced into submission every time it growls at a stranger, it may learn not to growl, but still harbors fear. One day, pushed past its tolerance, the dog might bite without the early growling that would have signaled its distress – a far more dangerous scenario for humans and dogs alike[18]. In essence, punishment can remove the early warning system by which animals communicate discomfort. Far from “rehabilitating” the animal, this sets the stage for sudden, intense aggression. Studies have indeed found that dogs trained with confrontational or aversive methods tend to be less relaxed and more prone to aggression toward humans and other dogs[2][19]. The BC SPCA summarizes research indicating that in the long term, dogs trained through punishment may develop fear of their handler, show less playfulness, and exhibit more fear-based behaviors including aggression[20]. Taken together, these findings underscore that using punishment in training can create or exacerbate behavioral problems – the opposite of what pet owners aim for.
Psychological and Emotional Effects
Beyond observable behaviors, punishment-based training has profound psychological and emotional impacts on animals. Chief among these is an increase in overall stress and anxiety. When pets are trained with aversives, they often become anxious because they are constantly on guard, unsure of what will trigger the next punishment. One veterinary behavior tip sheet explains that “punished animals are typically more anxious than unpunished animals because of the concern that punishment may come from any behavior.”[21] Unlike training that uses clear positive feedback, punishment can be unpredictable from the animal’s perspective – the rules are not always clear, and the animal may start to feel that any action could result in something bad. This anxiety manifests in stress-related behaviors: for example, dogs might show cowering postures, restlessness, panting, lip-licking, yawning, or trembling when they anticipate punishment[22]. These are acute stress signals, and if the punishment is repeated frequently, the stress can become chronic. Elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol have been documented in dogs undergoing aversive training. In a recent controlled study, Vieira de Castro et al. (2020) found that pet dogs trained with high proportions of aversive methods (like leash jerks or electronic collars) had significantly higher post-training cortisol levels than dogs trained with reward-based methods[23]. The dogs in the aversive training group also exhibited more stress behaviors (e.g. lip licking, yawning) and body language indicating tension during training sessions[24][23]. Physiologically and behaviorally, these animals were in a state of heightened anxiety during and after training.
Over time, such stress can take an emotional toll and degrade an animal’s overall welfare state. One innovative measure of animals’ emotional state is the cognitive bias test, which assesses whether an animal tends to expect positive or negative outcomes. In the study mentioned above, dogs from the punishment-based training schools were more “pessimistic” on a cognitive bias task compared to dogs from reward-based schools[25]. In plain terms, the punitively trained dogs expected bad outcomes more often, suggesting a more negative mood or outlook – an analog of anxiety/depression in humans. This provides empirical evidence that aversive training doesn’t just affect dogs in the training moment; it can create a lasting negative emotional bias in their daily life.
Another psychological effect of harsh punishment can be the induction of learned helplessness, which is essentially a state of resigned apathy. If an animal comes to believe it has no control over avoiding the aversive (for example, if punishment is inconsistently timed or inescapable), it may stop trying new behaviors altogether. Karolina Westlund, PhD, describes that animals exposed to seemingly random or inescapable punishment may simply “freeze” and do nothing as a coping mechanism, which is symptomatic of learned helplessness – a condition related to clinical depression[10][26]. In training scenarios, a dog in this state might appear calm and compliant, but in reality it has shut down out of fear. This emotional state is obviously detrimental to the animal’s quality of life. It also means the animal isn’t learning in a healthy way; it’s merely trying to avoid the next blow. Indeed, high levels of fear and stress are known to impair learning and memory. When an animal is overly stressed, its ability to form new positive associations or recall taught behaviors is greatly reduced[27][28]. Extreme arousal or fear triggers a fight-flight-freeze response, not thoughtful learning. A classic principle in psychology, the Yerkes-Dodson law, holds that while a moderate level of arousal can help performance, too much stress hinders problem-solving and learning[28]. In punishment-based training, animals may become so anxious about avoiding punishment that they cannot concentrate on the task or absorb what behavior is desired of them[29]. This is counterproductive to training goals and further frustrates both pet and owner.
From an emotional wellbeing perspective, punishment often damages the crucial bond of trust between pet and owner. Training methods that rely on fear and pain portray the owner (or trainer) as a source of threats rather than safety. Over time, this can lead to a pet that is wary of its own human family. For instance, feline behaviorists point out that using a squirt bottle or other aversive on cats can erode the human-cat bond – with each punishing spray, the cat’s trust in its owner deteriorates a little more[30][5]. Many punished cats learn to fear their owners or at least certain interactions with them. One might see a formerly friendly cat start to flee whenever the owner approaches, anticipating a reprimand. Similarly, a dog that endures frequent yelling or leash jerks may start slinking away or showing submissive urination when called, because it has come to associate the owner’s approach or voice with punishment. The psychological fallout is that the pet no longer feels secure in the relationship. This loss of trust is not only heartbreaking; it can also lead to further behavior problems (e.g. a fearful pet is more likely to hide, escape, or act defensively). The AVSAB position statement on punishment emphasizes that the human-animal relationship suffers under coercive training – the pet perceives the owner as inconsistent and “unpredictably forceful,” which hinders the bond[31]. In contrast, positive interactions build trust and willingness to cooperate, but those are absent or rare in punishment-heavy regimes. Ultimately, an animal that is anxious about its owner’s behavior will be in a constant state of psychological stress, which is a poor foundation for learning or for a loving companionship.
Welfare and Physical Well-Being Implications
The negative effects of punishment extend to overall animal welfare and physical health. Aversive training methods by definition involve stimuli that the animal finds unpleasant – sometimes mildly so, but often intensely. Tools like shock collars and prong collars, or practices like leash jerking and physical “corrections,” can cause pain and even injury. Veterinary experts have documented a variety of physical risks associated with common aversive tools. For instance, electronic shock collars can cause burns on the skin of dogs in some cases[32]. Prong and choke collars, which apply force to the sensitive neck area, have been linked to injuries such as tracheal damage, bruising, and nerve impairment[32]. One cited report even noted that the pressure from a tight collar can increase intraocular pressure, potentially worsening conditions like glaucoma in predisposed dogs[33]. Sudden, harsh jerks on a collar have caused rare cases of esophageal damage and even neurological issues due to trauma. Physical punishment like hitting or kicking can obviously injure an animal as well – broken bones and tissue damage have occurred in extreme abuse cases. While most pet owners do not intend to harm their animals, the margin for error with physical punishment is slim: if the aversive stimulus is strong enough to be effective, it’s likely close to the threshold of causing injury or intense fear[34]. And if it’s not strong enough, the animal may simply habituate to it, prompting the owner to escalate the force[34]. This is a slippery slope that can easily lead into abuse, even if unintentional.
Even when overt injury is avoided, the pain and discomfort inflicted by aversive techniques raise serious welfare concerns. Organizations like the AVSAB and the Humane Society consider training devices that cause pain (shock, choke, prong collars, etc.) to be incompatible with good animal welfare. Several countries have in fact banned or restricted the use of shock collars on welfare grounds[35]. The underlying principle is that causing an animal to experience pain, fear, and stress during training degrades its quality of life. Chronic stress itself is a welfare issue; animals repeatedly subjected to high stress can develop stress-related illnesses, suppressed immune function, and behavioral pathologies. There is evidence that punishment-based training can lead to prolonged physiological arousal. In one study, even when experienced trainers used “best practices” for electronic collar training (including low settings and warning tones), dogs still showed behaviors indicative of stress and anxiety – such as increased yawning, tense posture, and less interaction with the environment – compared to control dogs[36]. This suggests that even low-level electronic punishment had an adverse effect on the dogs’ welfare during training sessions. Moreover, there was no training benefit: the same study found no consistent advantage in obedience when using e-collars versus positive-reinforcement methods, but clear evidence of greater stress in the dogs with e-collars[37]. In other words, the dogs endured distress without any improved learning outcome, underscoring a needless welfare compromise.
Welfare is not only about physical health but also emotional well-being and the absence of suffering. The cumulative effect of punishment-based handling can be a state of ongoing fear and insecurity for the animal, which is antithetical to the goals of companion animal welfare. A dog that is perpetually worried about the next correction, or a cat that lives in fear of being sprayed or yelled at, is not leading an optimal life. Even if such an animal is “obedient,” it may be chronically stressed or subdued, which is a poor welfare state. Indeed, research comparing training styles found that dogs trained with positive, reward-based methods were not only less fearful but also more playful and engaged in everyday life than those trained with aversives[38][20]. By contrast, punishment-trained dogs were more likely to exhibit depressed or antisocial behavior – they played less and interacted less with strangers, indicating a lingering state of fear or caution[20]. This highlights that the fallout from punishment goes beyond the training context and seeps into the animal’s general demeanor and well-being.
Another aspect of welfare is the risk of unintended consequences that can cause distress or harm. Punishment can create new behavior problems that themselves undermine welfare. For example, if a cat is routinely punished for a natural behavior like scratching furniture (perhaps by loud clapping or a spray of water), the cat’s need to scratch doesn’t disappear. The cat might become so frustrated that it develops redirected behaviors – attacking another pet or human out of stress, or resorting to inappropriate scratching or urinating in hidden areas due to anxiety. Pam Johnson-Bennett, a feline behavior expert, points out that using a squirt bottle often fails to meet the cat’s underlying need and simply adds stress; if a cat was jumping on the counter to feel safe from another pet, spraying it only heightens its anxiety without addressing the fear driving the behavior[39][40]. The unmet needs (like the need for a safe perch or scratching post) remain, and the cat ends up with added fears. In multi-pet households, intervening with punishment can even intensify conflicts. Spraying fighting cats with water, for instance, may startle them apart momentarily, but it can increase their fear and aggression toward each other over time – they associate the pain or fright with the presence of the other cat, thus worsening their relationship[41]. These kinds of unintended outcomes illustrate how punishment-based strategies can inadvertently compound welfare problems: the animal not only suffers the immediate unpleasantness, but may develop ongoing fear, frustration, or inter-animal strife as a result.
In sum, the use of punishment in pet training is “fraught with difficulties,” as the AVSAB position statement diplomatically puts it[42]. The potential adverse effects – physical harm, fear, aggression, generalized anxiety, and suppression of normal behaviors – are well documented in the scientific literature and by clinical experience. Because of these risks, many professional organizations around the world (veterinary behavior associations, humane societies, etc.) have issued clear guidelines advising limited or no use of punishment for behavior modification in companion animals[43][44]. The focus in modern, welfare-oriented training is to use methods that do not jeopardize the animal’s physical or mental health.
Conclusion
Decades of research and practice have revealed that while punishment can sometimes suppress an unwanted behavior in the moment, it comes at a high cost to the animal’s welfare and the human-animal relationship. The pitfalls of using punishment in dog and cat training are numerous: it can induce fear and anxiety, lead to confusion and learning deficits, promote aggressive or defensive reactions, and even cause physical injury. Far from being a shortcut to a well-behaved pet, punitive methods often create new behavioral problems (like heightened aggression or avoidance) and mask true learning. Animals trained under fear may appear compliant, but their obedience is often underpinned by stress rather than understanding. This not only raises ethical concerns but can also make their behavior less reliable – a fearful, stressed pet is unpredictable and potentially unsafe. Current literature resoundingly finds that aversive-based training compromises welfare, with effects observable both during training and in everyday life afterward[45]. The use of pain, intimidation, and coercion can damage the trust our companion animals place in us, undermining the very bond that makes them “companions.” In light of these findings, leading animal behaviorists and veterinarians advocate for extreme caution or outright avoidance of punishment in behavior modification[43][44]. Instead, they emphasize understanding the animal’s needs and motivations, and using humane, science-based approaches to guide behavior (while that lies beyond the scope of this discussion, it is worth noting that effective alternatives exist that do not incur the liabilities of punishment). Ultimately, those who live and work with dogs and cats must recognize that quick fixes through punishment are illusory – they may curb a symptom in the short term, but they do so by compromising the animal’s confidence, security, and well-being. A truly successful behavior change approach is one that not only stops the unwanted behavior but does so without inflicting collateral damage on the animal’s psyche or the mutual bond. Given the substantial risks and limitations outlined above, punishment-based techniques should be viewed as a last resort, if used at all, in companion animal training. The path to a well-behaved, emotionally healthy pet is best paved with patience, compassion, and an understanding of behavioral science – not with fear and punishment.
References
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (2007). AVSAB Position Statement: The use of punishment for behavior modification in animals. AVSAB. [43][46]
Cooper, J. J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D. (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. [47][36]
Galaxy, J. (2010, Nov 18). Squirt bottles, punishment, and cat behavior. Little Big Cat (blog). [6][48]
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, 117(1-2), 47-54. [13][14]
Johnson-Bennett, P. (n.d.). Why a squirt bottle isn’t a good tool for training cats. Cat Behavior Associates. [49][41]
Merck Veterinary Manual (n.d.). Treatment of behavior problems in animals: Behavior modification techniques. (Summary of behavior modification principles by L. Radosta). [2][3]
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, 85(3-4), 319–334. [50][9]
Todd, Z. (2017, April 12). New literature review recommends reward-based training. Companion Animal Psychology (blog). (Summary of: Ziv, G. 2017, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50–60.) [51][52]
Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. [23][45]
Westlund, K. (2016, revised 2023). 20 problems with punishment in animal training. Illis Animal Behaviour (online article). [10][53]
[1] [16] [17] [18] [31] [32] [33] [34] [42] [43] [46] Use of Punishment for Behavior Modification in Animals | Humane Society of Missouri
[2] [3] [7] [8] [19] Treatment of Behavior Problems in Animals - Behavior - Merck Veterinary Manual
[4] [6] [30] [48] Squirt Bottles, Punishment, and Cat Behavior | Little Big Cat - Dr. Jean Hofve
https://littlebigcat.com/squirt-bottles-punishment-and-cat-behavior/
[5] [39] [40] [41] [49] Why a Squirt Bottle isn’t a Good Tool for Training Cats - Cat Behavior Associates
https://catbehaviorassociates.com/why-a-squirt-bottle-isnt-a-good-tool-for-training-cats/
[9] [50] Shock Collars in Training
https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Shock%20Collars%20in%20Training.pdf
[10] [11] [26] [27] [28] [29] [53] 20 problems with punishment in animal training – ILLIS Animal Behaviour Courses
https://illis.se/en/punishment-problems/
https://vth.upei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Behaviour-Tips_Punishment_final.pdf
[13] [14] [15] doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
https://vmc.vet.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/trainingArticle.pdf
[20] [38] [44] Position Statement on Animal Training - BC SPCA
[23] [24] [25] [35] [45] Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare - PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7743949/
[36] [37] [47] Electronic training collars present welfare risk to pet dogs | ScienceDaily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140908083344.htm
[51] [52] New Literature Review Recommends Reward-Based Training
https://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2017/04/new-literature-review-recommends-reward.html
