Vibration, Beep, GPS and Citronella Dog Training Collars – A Behavioural Perspective

Posted by Krisztina Harasztosi, MSc, CDBC, ADT-IAABC, CSAP-BC

This article does not address electronic shock collars, as there is already substantial discussion and research documenting their welfare implications. Instead, the focus here is on devices commonly marketed as “no-shock” or “humane” alternatives, including vibration (buzz) collars, tone or beep collars, GPS trackers with sound functions, citronella spray collars, and bark collars using sound, vibration, or spray. While these tools are often perceived as non-aversive, what matters from a behavioural perspective is not how they are described, but how they function for the dog.

Key scientific terms

In animal learning, behaviour is shaped by consequences. A reward (reinforcer) is something the dog genuinely values in that specific moment and context, which increases the likelihood of a behaviour occurring again. A punisher, by contrast, reduces the likelihood of a behaviour, but only if the dog experiences it as aversive. An aversive is anything the dog seeks to avoid or escape. Importantly, these definitions are based on the dog’s experience, not on human intention. Negative reinforcement occurs when a behaviour increases because it stops or avoids something unpleasant.

How these dog training collars are typically used

In real-life use, these collars are most often applied as interrupters. Manufacturer instructions and common usage patterns indicate that these devices are intended to function as interruptions or deterrents, often described using terms such as “correction,” “disruption,” or “stop behaviour.” A vibration, sound, or spray is delivered to stop a behaviour, and sometimes the dog is then rewarded after returning or disengaging.

While this may appear consistent with reward-based training on the surface, the primary learning process is usually different.

Cue vs consequence

A key distinction in learning is whether a signal functions as a cue or a consequence. A cue is given before behaviour and predicts an outcome, while a consequence occurs during or after behaviour and changes it. Whistles and verbal recalls are typically trained as cues. Vibration, beep, and spray collars are most commonly used as consequences, applied during behaviour to interrupt or stop it.

This difference fundamentally changes how the dog learns and why the behaviour occurs.

What is happening

The typical sequence is:

• the collar activates

• the dog changes behaviour

• the stimulus stops

From a learning perspective, this is negative reinforcement. The behaviour is maintained because it makes the stimulus go away, not necessarily because the behaviour itself is rewarding.

A relatable example

A simple human example of negative reinforcement is the seatbelt warning sound in a car. When the seatbelt is not fastened, an unpleasant, repetitive sound starts. Most people quickly fasten the seatbelt to make the sound stop. The behaviour increases because it removes the unpleasant stimulus.

This works because the sound is annoying enough to motivate action, and the behaviour required is quick and easy to perform. However, even in humans, sensitivity varies. Some people find it mildly irritating, while others may experience it as highly aversive or stressful, especially those with sensory sensitivities.

Why this matters for dogs

For dogs, the situation is more complex. Behaviours such as recall are not always simple or easy. They may compete with strong motivations such as chasing, fear, or excitement. For a stimulus to reliably interrupt behaviour in these situations, it often needs to be more salient, and therefore more aversive.

In addition, unlike a seatbelt sound, collar-based stimuli are delivered directly on the dog’s body, often on sensitive areas such as the neck, which increases the likelihood that the experience is intrusive or uncomfortable.

If a stimulus reliably changes behaviour, it is not neutral. A neutral stimulus does not affect behaviour. If the dog does not care about the stimulus, it will not work. If it works reliably, it has functional significance for the dog. With body-based stimuli such as vibration on the neck, this significance is very likely aversive for most dogs, even if mild. The question is not whether it is aversive, but how aversive it is for that individual dog.

External cues vs body-based stimuli

A whistle is an environmental signal that can be conditioned without physical intrusion and, unless the dog is noise-sensitive, is not inherently aversive. A vibration collar, by contrast, delivers a sensation directly on the dog’s body, typically on the neck, which is a sensitive area. This makes it far more likely to be perceived as intrusive or uncomfortable. In addition, dogs have highly sensitive hearing, so even a beep delivered close to the ear can be experienced as aversive, depending on volume, frequency, and the individual dog.

Even with conditioning, the dog’s learning history often includes an element of anticipating or terminating the sensation, which differs from responding to a purely predictive cue.

Does adding food change it?

Adding food after the fact does not reliably change this underlying contingency. The collar still functions as an interrupter, and the dog experiences the stimulus before receiving reinforcement.

In real-world use, the stimulus may become neutral for some dogs over time, particularly if they are less sensitive or if reinforcement is added consistently. However, this does not make it equivalent to a positively conditioned recall cue. The learning history often still includes an element of interruption or avoidance, which influences how the dog responds.

“Just getting attention”

A common explanation is that these collars are simply “getting the dog’s attention.” However, if a stimulus reliably interrupts behaviour, it is not neutral. If it consistently stops behaviour, it is meaningful to the dog and often at least mildly aversive.

In practice, effectiveness and aversiveness are often linked.

Individual sensitivity

Dogs vary in how they experience these stimuli. If the dog does not find the stimulus meaningful, it will not work. If it works reliably, it is likely aversive to some degree.

Dogs that are anxious, fearful, reactive, highly aroused, or have lower emotional regulation are more likely to experience these stimuli as stressful or destabilizing.

Citronella collars

Citronella collars provide a clearer example of this mechanism. These devices spray a substance into the dog’s face contingent on behaviour, and manufacturer guidance often acknowledges that dogs may become confused or agitated. Functionally, these collars operate through behavioural suppression rather than reinforcement.

Why suppression is not a solution

Interrupting behaviour suppresses its expression but does not address its function. Behaviour is driven by underlying emotional states, environmental factors, and learning history. If these are not addressed, the behaviour may return, escalate, or shift into other forms.

Stopping behaviour is not the same as solving it.

Recall training

Reliable recall is built through reinforcement history, where returning consistently leads to outcomes the dog values. This creates a strong, positive association and supports reliability across different environments.

Interruptive strategies may produce compliance in the moment, but they do not build motivation, clarity, or long-term stability.

A practical alternative

If an interruptive signal is needed, it can be trained as a positively conditioned cue, such as a whistle or verbal signal paired with meaningful reinforcement. In this case, the dog responds because it expects something valuable, not because it is trying to stop or avoid a stimulus.

Addressing a common argument

A common argument is that vibration can be conditioned as a recall cue. While this is theoretically possible, it offers no functional advantage over simpler, less intrusive signals such as a whistle or verbal cue. Using a collar-based stimulus therefore adds unnecessary complexity and potential risk without clear benefit.

Conclusion

From a behavioural and welfare perspective, devices marketed as “no-shock” are not necessarily non-aversive. In practical use, they tend to be either ineffective or effective because they introduce some level of discomfort, interruption, or avoidance.

Why I do not recommend these tools

Based on how these devices function in real-world use, I do not recommend them for training or behaviour modification. They either fail to produce reliable results or rely on mechanisms that introduce discomfort or avoidance. This means they do not build motivation, do not support emotional regulation, and do not address the underlying causes of behaviour.

When these tools function as aversive stimuli, they introduce a risk of increasing stress or frustration, particularly in more sensitive dogs. In some cases, this may contribute to escalation of behaviour, including aggressive responses, or lead to displacement and repetitive behaviours. These outcomes are not guaranteed, but they are recognized risks when behaviour is suppressed without addressing underlying causes.

There are more effective and more ethical approaches available. Training that prioritizes reinforcement, clear communication, and structured skill-building produces more stable, reliable, and welfare-supportive outcomes.

For these reasons, I do not recommend vibration, beep, GPS sound, or citronella-based collars as training tools.

If you are interested in learning how to train a positive interrupter, which can be a strong foundation for improving recall or working in more distracting situations (such as around wildlife or during play), you can read my previous blog post:

Positive Interrupter Training – Never Say No Again: https://www.thegibsonsdogrunner.ca/post/never-say-no-again-training-the-positive-interrupter

Written by Krisztina Harasztosi, CDBC, ADT-IAABC, CSAP-BC, PST-CI, CBATI-KA, FFCP, AnimalKind, FDM,

© Krisztina Harasztosi. All rights reserved. This content may not be reproduced, distributed, or used without permission.