Shock Collars vs. TENS Units: Why This Comparison Is Inaccurate and Harmful
If you’ve ever questioned the safety of shock collars (also known as e‑collars), you’ve probably seen people say:
“They’re just like a TENS unit — safe and therapeutic.”
This analogy is misleading — and can be dangerous for dogs and guardians alike. In this post we’ll explain what TENS units are, how shock collars function, and why the comparison falls apart scientifically and ethically.
What Is a TENS Unit?
TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) is a medical device used in human healthcare for pain relief.
✔️ Purpose: Reduce pain, support healing
✔️ User control: The person chooses intensity and can stop stimulation at any time
✔️ Context: Used with fully informed consent under therapeutic guidance
TENS units work by stimulating nerve pathways in a controlled way to reduce perceptions of pain — not to create pain. They are inherently non‑aversive and intended to help, not punish.
How Shock Collars Actually Work
Shock collars are behavioral tools designed to deliver an aversive electrical stimulus to suppress or interrupt unwanted behavior.
Key differences from TENS units:
Applied without consent — dogs cannot choose or control the stimulus.
Aversive intent — intended to discourage behavior by creating discomfort or pain.
Unpredictable associations — dogs may link the shock to the wrong cue or context.
While some trainers suggest “low levels” of stimulation are merely a distraction, the technical design still relies on electrical discomfort contingent on behavior — not therapeutic nerve modulation like TENS.
What the Science Actually Says
Here’s where the analogy breaks down in the research:
Shock Collars Are Aversive and Can Increase Stress
Several peer‑reviewed studies show that shock collars can lead to stress‑related behaviors, fear responses, and negative emotional states:
Dogs trained with e‑collars show more stress‑related body language (e.g., avoidance, tension, panting) compared to non‑aversive methods. Banshock Collars
Long‑term behavioral changes can occur, including fear of handlers or environments associated with the shock. Scottish Government
A review of aversive training methods found that electronic collars — even when used correctly — carry behavioral risk compared to reward‑based methods. Wikipedia
Positive Reinforcement Performs Better Without the Harm
Research comparing training outcomes found:
Reward‑based training was as effective or more effective than shock collar training for common problems like recall. AVSAB
Dogs trained with positive methods showed fewer stress indicators and often more reliable behavior change.
This suggests that even where shock collars are effective at suppressing a behavior, they do not improve welfare and may harm the human–dog bond.
Why the TENS Analogy Doesn’t Hold
Consent and Control
Humans using TENS choose stimulation levels based on comfort. Dogs exposed to shock collars cannot opt out or understand the contingency between action and consequence.
Purpose: Therapy vs. Aversive Punishment
TENS Unit Shock Collar Pain management Behavior suppression Therapeutic intentCreated discomfortUser‑choiceOperator‑controlled
These are fundamentally different purposes — even though both involve electrical stimulation.
Learning and Emotional Impact
Dogs interpret shock through their emotional brains, not cognitive understanding. This means:
Behavior may be suppressed, but fear and anxiety can increase. Banshock Collars
Dogs may mis‑associate punishment with context cues other than the intended behavior. Scottish Government
Aversive conditioning can work to stop behavior — but that doesn’t mean it teaches better behavior or improves welfare.
Humane, Effective Alternatives
Positive reinforcement‑based training — rewarding the behaviors you want — has a strong scientific track record:
✔ Encourages learning and engagement
✔ Strengthens the human–dog relationship
✔ Minimizes fear, stress, and aggression
These methods address the cause of behavior challenges rather than suppressing symptoms.
Final Takeaways
The belief that shock collars are “just like TENS units” is inaccurate for three key reasons:
Purpose differs — TENS is therapeutic; shock collars are aversive.
Consent and control differ — humans choose; dogs do not.
Outcomes differ — shock collars risk stress and fear; TENS does not.
In other words, the TENS comparison minimizes real welfare concerns without solid scientific support.
If you’re looking for training methods that build trust, confidence, and long‑term success, there are evidence‑based alternatives that don’t rely on pain or discomfort.
References
Below are key academic sources referenced in this post:
Zazie Todd, PhD — study showing reward‑based training equal to or better than shock collar training, with fewer welfare risks. AVSAB
Peer‑reviewed observations of stress‑related behaviors linked to shock collar use. Banshock Collars
Welfare reports noting negative emotional impacts and risks of mis‑association. Scottish Government
Meta‑review summarizing risk profiles of aversive methods including e‑collars. Wikipedia
