Your Dog Trainer Uses a Prong Collar. A New Study Says That Reveals Your View of Animals

Jennifer Martinez stood in the parking lot of a dog training facility in Phoenix, watching through the window. Inside, a German Shepherd wearing a prong collar lunged toward another dog. The trainer jerked the leash. The dog yelped, then sat. The trainer smiled and offered a treat. Jennifer's stomach turned. She got back in her car and kept driving.

Two weeks later, she tried a different trainer. This one used clicker training and spent twenty minutes explaining positive reinforcement theory before ever touching her reactive Cattle Dog mix. No corrections. No collar pressure. Just treats, timing, and patience. Jennifer signed up immediately. What she didn't realize was that her choice said something specific about how she views animals - and a new study published in Anthrozoös in January 2026 explains exactly what.

Researchers surveyed 500 American dog owners and found a direct link between training methods and ethical beliefs about animals. People who scored higher on "anthropocentric" measures—viewing animals primarily as resources for human use—were significantly more likely to use physical corrections like prong collars, choke chains, and e-collars. Those who scored higher on "animal protection" values were more likely to stick with positive reinforcement and avoid aversive tools entirely.

The study didn't just confirm what many suspected. It quantified it. Your choice of dog trainer isn't random. It reflects your deeper beliefs about whether animals deserve autonomy, whether they experience fear and pain the way humans do, and whether those experiences matter.

Marcus Chen, a balanced trainer in Austin, argues the research oversimplifies reality. He's been training dogs for fifteen years and uses what he calls a "full toolbox approach." Treats and praise form the foundation, but he'll reach for a prong collar when a 90-pound Rottweiler is dragging an elderly owner down the street. "I'm not trying to hurt the dog," Marcus says.

"I'm trying to give clear communication fast, before someone gets injured."

He points to client after client whose dogs transformed in weeks using his methods. Results matter, he insists, and sometimes positive-only training takes too long.

Sarah Kim in Seattle sees it differently. She's a certified dog trainer who refuses to use any tool designed to cause discomfort.

"If I can't train a dog without scaring it or hurting it, that's my failure as a trainer, not the dog's," she says.

Sarah has worked with severe aggression cases, fearful rescues, and dogs other trainers deemed "too far gone." Her success rate speaks for itself, but her methods require time—sometimes months—and not every owner has that patience.

The divide isn't new, but it's gotten louder. Social media amplified the conflict. A video of a trainer using an e-collar goes viral, sparking thousands of comments calling it abuse. A clip of a positive-only trainer working with a reactive dog for forty-five minutes with no visible progress gets criticized as ineffective. Both sides accuse the other of cherry-picking examples, ignoring science, and putting ideology ahead of dogs' wellbeing.

300+ breeds. Find Your Match

Here's what makes the debate messier: dog training in the United States is completely unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a professional dog trainer tomorrow. No licensing. No standardized education. No oversight. A Frontiers in Veterinary Science study published in 2026 interviewed 35 trainers and found wildly different interpretations of what "humane" and "effective" even mean. Balanced trainers argued corrections provide clarity. Positive trainers countered that fear-based suppression isn't the same as learning.

french bull dog on the bed

The scientific data leans one direction. Multiple studies show aversive training methods increase stress behaviors, elevate cortisol, and can damage the dog-owner bond. A 2020 study of 92 dogs found those trained with aversive methods displayed more stress during training and showed more pessimistic responses in cognitive tests. The veterinary community has largely moved toward recommending reward-based methods, with organizations like the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior explicitly advising against shock collars and prong collars.

But science doesn't always win arguments, especially when personal experience feels more convincing. Dog owners share stories of trainers who "fixed" their dog in one session using an e-collar after months of failed positive training. Those testimonials are powerful, even if they don't address whether the dog learned through understanding or fear.

What matters for owners choosing a trainer right now is this: your decision isn't just about techniques. It's about what you believe dogs deserve and how you want to relate to them. Jennifer in Phoenix didn't reject the prong collar trainer because she thought it wouldn't work. She rejected it because watching a dog yelp felt wrong to her. That instinct, the study suggests, reflects her broader belief that animals have emotional experiences worth protecting - even when it's inconvenient or slow.

The training world isn't going to resolve this soon. But understanding that your choice reveals your values might make the decision clearer.

Sources:
dog training methods debateprong collar vs positive reinforcementbalanced dog training controversyshock collar ethics studydog training science 2026