Minnesota Animal Welfare Conference: Suzanne Hetts on Punishment, Part 2

Punishment should rarely, if ever, be a trainer’s first choice. But Suzanne argues that it’s something we shouldn’t completely dismiss, either. By applying critical thinking skills instead of emotions, we can make better training decisions. And, though it makes me a tad uncomfortable to say it, sometimes those decisions will include punishment.

So how do we decide if punishment should be used? This flow chart, included in our handouts, and available online at this link (on page 19) is very helpful.

Punishment can only be used to eliminate a behavior you don’t like. That said, it’s best to create a reinforcement-based program to create a behavior you do like instead. However, when behaviors are dangerous, they need to be addressed immediately, and the benefits outweigh the risks of using punishment (and make no mistake- there are risks), a punishment-based program may be needed.

If you’ve found yourself in such a situation, Suzanne provided some criteria to ensure that the punishment is effective. The more of these conditions you meet, the more humane the punishment will be. It will still be punishment, of course, but it will reduce the risks of fallout.

Start with Response Prevention

“Response prevention” is where you prevent the unwanted behavior from happening. This is an excellent first step: if you can completely prevent a behavior by changing something, you may not even need a punishment-based solution. However, if you do need to use punishment, response prevention is equally important because…

Punishment Must Be Consistent

When it’s not, the dog may decide that the behavior is worth the risk. For example, if I got a ticket every time I was speeding, I probably would stay within the speed limit. As it stands, though, I’ve had one speeding ticket in the past ten years. Considering the frequency of speeding to being ticketed ratio, it seems worth it. To be effective, the dog must believe that the behavior will automatically trigger the punishment. This is why Suzanne says that…

Remote Punishment is Better Than Interactive Punishment

Dogs are excellent at picking up on discriminative cues that predict events. If you are always the one that delivers punishment, the dog will begin to associate you with the feeling of being punished. For this reason, “booby traps” that appear unrelated to your proximity or presence are preferable to punishments that involve you directly.

It Must Be Immediate

Punishment also must be immediate, and definitely no more than three seconds after the behavior happens. If it’s not, punishment simply becomes aversive: an unpleasant thing that happens randomly with no effect on the behavior.

Dogs Must be Able to “Turn Off” the Punishment

If the punishment must start immediately upon the behavior happening, it must also cease as soon as the behavior stops happening. If the punisher continues to happen after the behavior stops, it will be affecting all those subsequent behaviors. This unnecessarily muddies the waters, making it much harder for the dog to understand what he should and shouldn’t do.

Choose the Correct Intensity

Finally, punishment must be severe enough that it will stop the behavior within 3 to 5 applications, but not so strong that it creates unwanted side effects of fear or aggression. This is probably the hardest criteria to implement, since it requires some guesswork.

If it’s not clear by now, using punishment effectively and humanely requires quite a bit of knowledge, skill, and prior planning. It’s not something to be undertaken in the heat of the moment. The vast majority of the time, there are solutions other than punishment that will be equally effective if you take the time to figure it out.

Minnesota Animal Welfare Conference: Suzanne Hetts on Punishment, Part 1

Punishment is not the problem. So says Suzanne Hetts, PhD, CAAB, CVJ, who elaborates that it is the mis-use of punishment that is a problem. Well, that, and the way we talk about it, which is the subject of today’s post.

Anyone who has been around the dog world for more than, oh, five minutes knows that discussing punishment is “politically sensitive.” Some people refuse to talk about it. Others refuse to listen to people talk about it. Some label anyone who talks about the topic as an animal abuser (or worse- comparing folks to Nazis or child molesters).

There are two big problems with a categorical refusal to discuss punishment. First, Suzanne says that we undermine the profession when we do so. If we don’t talk about it, we lose credibility. Whether we like it or not, punishment exists, and the general public knows that. Refusing to acknowledge that makes us appear willfully ignorant. Worse yet, some trainers don’t talk about punishment accurately or scientifically. For example, some will state that punishment doesn’t work. That’s just a blatant lie. Punishment can and does suppress behavior (that’s sort of the definition of punishment in operant conditioning).

The second problem that Suzanne identifies is that when we refuse to discuss or consider punishment, we miss out on possibly useful options. While Suzanne would rarely use punishment as a first resort, she says there are times it can be helpful. And even if a trainer doesn’t use punishment, she does need to understand it.

A big reason for this is the fact that the general public often defaults to punishment-based solutions. I can’t imagine there are any dog trainers out there that haven’t had a client ask, “How can I get my dog to stop…” Scientifically, stopping behavior requires punishment. Of course, most of us know that the best solution is to reframe the question in terms of what the client wants the dog to do.

And anyway, even if we are opposed to punishment in theory, Suzanne argues that many of the solutions that positive trainers use or recommend are punishing or aversive. For example, the use of a head collars or body blocks are punishing to some dogs, while withholding reinforcement can cause frustration. Still, these are commonly used techniques.

In the end, what it seems to come down to is that humans (trainers and clients alike) have a negative reaction just to the word “punishment.” Think about it; the words “corrections” or “discipline” are far more pervasive, and pack a much smaller emotional punch. Semantics aside, Suzanne encouraged us to consider if we’re really opposed to punishment in and of itself, or if we are actually opposed to confrontational methods.

I find this distinction to be a useful one. I will not use pain or fear to train my dog, but I have no problem telling her she can’t do something, or enforcing a time-out if needed. I will not engage in power struggles, especially with larger, stronger dogs, but I sure will use tools like head halters that give me an advantage. While punishment can become confrontational, it doesn’t have to be. Punishment is not one-dimensional. It’s not all-or-nothing, and our conversations about it shouldn’t be, either.

So what should we discuss when talking about punishment? Ah, you’ll have to tune in next week to find out.

CPDT Study Session #8: Ethical Considerations and Humane Treatment

There are many, many ways to modify a problem behavior. So how is a dog trainer to choose one? The Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers has created a hierarchy of humane responses. It requires that all CPDTs use the least invasive methods first, only moving along to the more invasive procedures if those fail to work.

1. Address any underlying health, nutritional, or physical contributors to the problem behavior first. It’s common knowledge that there can be medical causes for problem behaviors; for example, pain and thyroid issues are discussed widely as potential causes of aggression. Rather than creating a training plan- even one rooted in positive reinforcement based methods- it’s more humane to address those health issues.

2. Manipulate the antecedents. Or, in plain English, if there is an external factor causing the problem, fix that first! So much better to shut the curtains to stop your dog from barking out the windows all day than to use a bark-control collar, no?

3. Use positive reinforcement to teach the dog what you want them to do.Notice how this is halfway through the list? It’s not because it’s wrong to use R+, but rather because it is more invasive than the other options.

4. Implement differential reinforcement of an alternate behavior. This is similar to R+ but since it also includes an element of extinction/negative reinforcement, it’s considered slightly more invasive.

5. Use negative punishment, negative reinforcement, and/or extinction. All three of these use some kind of aversive control, and are therefore considered more invasive than the previous options.

6. Reduce the problematic behavior through the use of positive punishment. Note that P+ is allowed. That said, it is meant to be an option of final resort.

There are some procedures which CPDTs are prohibited from using. These include lifting a dog by the collar, leash, or fur so that two or legs are held off the ground. Swinging the dog, hanging the dog, or restricting the dog’s airway is likewise prohibited. Shock/electronic collars are allowed, but not without using less invasive methods first. A CPDT cannot use more than one at a time, or apply one to the genitals or abdomen. Pinching the dog’s toes, ears, or other body part in order to cause or end a behavior. Holding the dog’s head under water for any period of time is disallowed, as is using a cattle prod on the dog.

I rather like the approach the CCPDT has taken. It shows a definite bias towards positive methods (which I obviously prefer), but does not take tools out of anyone’s toolbox. Although I have no intention of ever using a shock collar on a dog, as I’ve learned more about training and behavior, I’m less and less likely to say “never.” I appreciate having a rational approach that makes suggestions on various types of methods to try before moving on. I especially appreciate the emphasis on addressing health problems and management; I feel like those are often overlooked.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about negative reinforcement being so far down the list. On one hand, I see the point: R- requires there to be an aversive. On the other hand, I think there’s a big difference between purposefully introducing an aversive and removing one that’s already in the environment (such as in BAT).

I’m also glad to see that there are some limits to what can be done. They seem to prohibit only the most egregious options (read: abusive) for use in routine training. And really. Cattle prods? Shocks to the balls? I shudder to think about it. There needs to be a line drawn and this one seems fair. Of course, I would prefer not to use a shock collar at all, but I can see why someone living in rattlesnake country might consider one.

But what do you think? Where would you draw the line? Does this hierarchy go too far? Not far enough? Would love to hear some thoughts.

Shedd Animal Training Seminar: Aversives, Punishment, and You!

I don’t know why, but I always enjoy discussions on punishment. In ways, it feels like a “forbidden fruit.” I very rarely use punishment with my dog or my clients’ dogs, and if you try to discuss it- even theoretically- online, it can cause a lot of controversy. So my opportunities to talk about it are rare.

During the Shedd seminar, Ken talked about the advanced concepts of punishment, negative reinforcement, and aversive stimuli. These are three distinctly different concepts that are often confused, misused, and misunderstood. Still, the definitions are quite simple, and if you plan to use any of these techniques, you really do need to understand them.

An aversive stimulus is something that the animal wants to avoid. There is no definitive list of what makes something aversive; each animal will have different feelings about this. For example, some dogs hate being squirted in the face with water, but Maisy thinks it’s AWESOME.

A reinforcer is anything that increases the behavior it follows. Positive means something was added to make that behavior increase, while negative means something was removed. A negative reinforcer happens when something is removed, and as a result, a behavior increases in the future. This can happen for two reasons. First, the behavior may increase due to avoidance; an aversive isn’t actually applied, it’s simply threatened. The animal acts in order to prevent it from happening. Or, the behavior may be the result of escape. This happens when the aversive is actually applied and the removed with the desired behavior occurs. But either way, negative reinforcement is at play. It’s important to note that negative reinforcement can work and be both humane and effective if it’s done correctly.

A punisher is something that decreases the behavior it follows. This, too, can come in the positive or the negative variety. One way punishment can be used humanely is through deprivation; a reinforcer is withheld (negative) so that the animal will not perform the incorrect behavior again (punishment). Ken pointed out that this is why it’s so important to have multiple reinforcers available because this allows you to withhold certain reinforcers without depriving the animal of his full diet.

With that said, you really do need to know your audience when you use these terms. A trainer will punish a behavior; she wants a particular action to stop. But the public tends to punish the animal. That is, the punishment happens well after the fact, such as grounding a child for a bad report card or putting someone in jail for a crime they committed. In both cases, the actual behavior is so far removed from the consequence that it’s probably not being affected much.

So, while Ken does use punishment, he does not use it as the public understands it.

Ken talked about the use of conditioned punishers, as well. These are things that become aversive by association. Just as a clicker is a conditioned reinforcer because it predicts good things, there are also things that will predict bad things.

A delta signal, which is a warning to the animal that an aversive is about to be applied, can sometimes be used as a last chance to get things right. “Stop doing that or else,” it tells the animal. Your mom using your full name can be a delta signal; it tells you that you need to stop pulling your sister’s hair or face her wrath. The problem with deltas is that it can be very easy for the emotional trainer to escalate the use of punishment.

Ken also told us that a no reward marker acts as a punisher. This is the opposite of a bridge; it marks the moment when a behavior is wrong so the animal won’t do it again. These are typically quite mild, but can still cause frustration in the animal. So, while a skilled trainer can use no reward markers effectively and humanely, Ken thinks the potential for misuse is high.

I think my favorite part of this section was Ken’s discussion on how trainers use punishment versus how the public does. I appreciated the focus on behavior, not whether the animal is being “good” or “bad,” “cooperative” or “stubborn” (a word that always makes me crazy).

But what do you think? Anything intriguing here?

Thank You For Not Shaming Me

One of my private training students was recently recounting an incident in which her anxious, reactive dog left her side during agility class, ran over to another student who was holding her dog, and jumped up towards the dog, growling and snapping.

“I've never thought of him as aggressive before,” she told me, “but that scared me.” Then she said something that made my heart fall: “I'm thinking about using a shock collar the next time something like that happens.”

Long-time readers know that I am not a fan of hurting or scaring dogs in the name of training, especially in the name of a sport. There are good reasons for this, like the possibility of serious unintended consequences, but mostly I don't want to hurt my dog. I love her. Of course, my student loves her dog too, and so I kept my thoughts to myself and simply said, “Yeah? Tell me what you're thinking.”

We talked through the situation; what was happening before and after, what the class instructor said, that kind of thing. My student told me that she was scared that her dog might hurt someone else. She was angry, because she thought her dog was beyond that kind of behavior. And she was losing hope that she would ever be able to take her dog to agility trials. I empathized with her. I've felt all those things, too.

“Well,” I said, “I would be lying if I said that using corrections doesn't work. But your dog is already pretty anxious, and I'm concerned that if you were to use a shock collar on him, it would only increase his anxiety.”

She nodded. “Yeah. Our agility instructor was worried it might create a negative association with the obstacles, too.”

We talked a little longer about the idea, and I concluded by saying that while every person and dog is different, I don't think she needs to use a shock collar on her dog. He's trying so hard to be good, and there is a lot she could do increase the odds that they will be able to compete in agility together some day. Still, I told her, that decision is ultimately hers.

“Thank you for not shaming me.”

“Well,” I said, “It wouldn't have helped, would it?”

She laughed and said no. Then, more seriously, she shared that when she's suggested the idea to other positive trainers, they've reacted so negatively that it shut her down completely. Not only did that make her feel bad, but it also meant that she didn't get a chance to learn about why they felt it was a bad idea, or to learn other options.

That makes me sad, because I really believe that my job as a dog trainer (and for that matter, as a social worker, too) is to educate my clients about their options, share my recommendations, and then empower them to make their own decisions. Of course, I hope that they will follow my advice, but if they opt not to, I want to be able to refer them to a trainer who has the skills needed to minimize the risks inherent in the use of punishment.

Besides, I like people. I don't want to shame them- that's just mean. And if I wouldn't be mean to a dog, why would I do it to his owner?

Why Punishing Anxiety Doesn't Work

I have asthma. This causes my airway to swell and narrow, making it more difficult for oxygen to reach my lungs. In turn, I become short of breath, my chest feels tight, and I often wheeze or gasp for breath. It’s an awful feeling.

I have a friend with a heart condition. She has poor circulation and sometimes her heart rate increases and her blood pressure drops. The end result is light-headedness and occasional fainting spells.

I have worked with people who have diabetes. You’re probably familiar with this disease in which the body doesn’t regulate insulin well. Sometimes, the body will either have too much or too little blood sugar, and the person can be rendered confused, disoriented, or even unconscious.

My dog has an anxiety disorder. Her brain chemistry is not balanced, and the neural pathways of her brain are abnormal as a result. When something happens to overload those pathways, she may become hypervigilant, pace, or growl and snap at people.

What do all of these things have in common? They are medical conditions that are the result of a physical problem in the body. What’s more, these conditions manifest themselves in behavioral terms. Whether it’s gasping for breath, fainting, or becoming aggressive, the behavior is not a conscious decision made by the sufferer.

I want to be clear on this last point: none of us choose to act the way we do as a result of our respective problems. Believe me, I hate having an asthma attack, and when one is imminent, there is little I can do to prevent it. I definitely do not choose to have trouble breathing- it just happens. Likewise, my dog is not weighing out her options when she encounters a situation too stressful for her to handle. Her brain releases a cascade of hormones and neurotransmitters which causes her to react in a certain way.

This is one of the many reasons I prefer to avoid the use punishment when dealing with dogs with behavioral problems. Just as we wouldn’t hit people in diabetic comas in order to stop them from having low blood sugar episodes, we can’t stop a dog from having a panic attack by using a collar correction. While it’s true that some behavior problems are just that- behaviors- others can be traced back to a medical problem like imbalanced brain chemistry, pain, or some other disease process. It is exceedingly difficult to know the cause of so-called misbehavior in the heat of the moment.

I’m not saying that we should just shrug our shoulders and allow things to continue as they are. If we do, there is a risk of death. Left untreated, I could stop breathing because of my asthma. My friend could go into cardiac arrest. And my dog could be euthanized if she bit someone.

Thankfully, there is a lot we can do to prevent those behaviors. I take inhaled steroids twice a day and avoid chemical scents. My friend takes beta blockers and avoids activities proven to cause problems. Diabetics often take insulin and monitor their blood levels. And my dog takes medication, receives ongoing behavioral training, and I help her avoid stressful situations.

What’s more, each of us have things that we can do when exposure to triggers are unavoidable. Whether that’s following a carefully thought out exercise regime, a well-balanced diet, or a behavior modification protocol, there is a lot we can do to cope with an unpredictable world.

If something happens to push our dogs over the edge, we need to step in and help them. Trying to train through the situation is foolish; it’s like lecturing a diabetic on the importance of a proper diet when their blood sugar drops. It’s too late for that. Glucose for a diabetic or a rescue inhaler when I have an asthma attack is not a viable long-term strategy, nor is it prevention. It’s a response to an emergency situation. When our dogs growl, bark and lunge, or otherwise “misbehave,” that’s an emergency, too. Get them to safety.

We owe it to our dogs to help them deal with stress. Seek out a professional, whether it’s a medical appointment with their vet or a behavioral evaluation with a qualified trainer. Come up with strategies that will prevent problem behaviors from occurring. Equip them with the tools that will help them in the moment. Know how to respond in a behavioral emergency.

And above all- remember that you can’t shock a diabetic’s pancreas into working. So why would you do it to your dog?

Shedd Animal Training Seminar: What to Do When Your Animal is Wrong

Ken is unabashedly in favor of positive reinforcement when training. I am too, and in fact, I think most people see the value in using positive reinforcement for training. But people often struggle with what they should do when the animal they are training is wrong, or does something they don’t like. Some people will argue that the only way to deal with incorrect responses is through the use of punishment- after all, it decreases behavior, right?



Ken Ramirez

 Well... yeah. Punishment, aversives, negative reinforcement… it all works. Ken acknowledges this freely. However, he adds that using these approaches can be fraught with pitfalls and often have unintended consequences, especially when done by novice trainers.

To a certain degree, Ken agrees with the advice “reward what you like and ignore what you don’t.” He also acknowledges that there are behaviors that simply cannot be ignored- like aggression. Thankfully, there are many ways to deal with problem behavior. That said, if you’ve come across a behavior that can’t be ignored and you can’t figure out several possible solutions, the situation probably requires skills that are more advanced than you have. And that’s fine! Animal training is something that even the experts continue to learn about, and consulting with others is standard practice.

Ken’s go-to method for dealing with incorrect responses is something called the Least Reinforcing Stimulus or Scenario (LRS). An LRS is designed to deal with unwanted behavior without causing frustration for the animal. It is deceptively simple: to implement an LRS, you provide a completely neutral response for a short period of time, followed by an immediate opportunity for the animal to earn reinforcement. Of course, an LRS is a bit more complicated than that, so let’s take a look at it in more depth.

First, like everything in training, timing is important. The LRS must be implemented immediately so that the animal understands which behavior was incorrect. A poorly timed LRS will likely frustrate the animal, and what you’re looking for is a calm acceptance from the animal.

Next, the LRS should be brief. In general, when an LRS is used, it will probably last from 3 to 5 seconds. Of course, this length may vary. It needs to be long enough that the animal notices an interruption in reinforcement, but not so long that you upset the animal. For trainers and animals that have a relatively fast rhythm going in training, the LRS can be quite short. For slower trainers and animals, the LRS will need to be longer. We saw this playing out in the daily sessions we watched; the sea lions were quite quick, and their LRS might only be a second or two. On the other hand, the lizard we saw was much slower, and his LRS needed to be longer as a result. That said, do not be tempted to extend the length of the LRS beyond what is strictly needed. The LRS should be the same length despite how “bad” the mistake was. It is not a time-out procedure.

One of the most important features of the LRS is that it should be a completely neutral response. This means that you should refrain from having an emotional response (no scowling or grumbling, for example). However, you do not need to freeze. An LRS works because it is an interruption in the flow of reinforcement in which you simply don’t respond to the animal. If you’re looking at the animal, continue looking at it. If you’re looking away, continue to look away. The only exception to this is if what you’re doing is reinforcing.

Finally, you need to provide the animal with an immediate opportunity to earn reinforcement after the LRS. Because you don’t want to cause frustration, the best way to do this is by offering the animal a different, easy behavior. Ken tends to use targeting because that’s such a strong behavior for the animals and trainers at Shedd alike, but any behavior that the animal knows well will work. Ken will then do a few other behaviors before asking for the behavior that the animal failed at earlier.

Astute readers will have realized that the LRS is really meant for an animal with prior training (because there needs to be at least one fallback behavior), and with whom you have a relationship (so that you know how long the LRS should be). It will also only work when the animal is participating in the process. You can’t use an LRS with an animal that’s disengaged from the training process because it won’t notice that you’ve interrupted the reinforcement process.

The LRS, while simple on the surface, really does work. It’s been proven both practically and scientifically. It is, technically, the first step to extinction, so it can take a bit of time. Many positive reinforcement trainers do the LRS quite naturally; I know I’ve done them, but not because I knew that’s what I was doing. Having some knowledge about them definitely helps me understand how to implement them better.

What about you? Do you use an LRS, or something similar? This is an admittedly new concept to me, so I’d love to hear about others’ experience with it.

Do Methods Matter?

As a dog trainer, I think often about how and why I train the way I do. Lately, I’ve been especially interested in what makes for good training. What skills do I need to have to help a dog learn efficiently? What factors contribute to the end result/behavior I’m looking for? In an effort to figure it out, I’ve been doing a lot of reading, and I have been asking others for their insight, too. In the process, I’ve discovered that good trainers:

• Have excellent timing, which allows them to communicate their expectations to their dogs clearly.
• Are consistent and predictable in their actions.
• Have good observation skills, which allow them to see both the dog’s behavior as well as his emotional state.
• Keep their rate of feedback high, which helps the dog understand what is wanted of him.
• Can adjust the lesson plan, asking for more when the dog is ready, and balancing the current level of learning with appropriate distractions.
• Are patient and calm during training.
• Are capable of being creative in their approach, and are always learning new ways of doing things.
• Definitely have a good sense of humor and a healthy dose of humility; things never seem to go the way we expect in training!

What’s missing in this list, though, is how the training is done. In fact, in my research, I found that people very rarely specify that a good trainer avoids corrections and focuses on positive reinforcement. Which leads me to wonder… do methods matter?

 

This is what I want. How do I get it?

Long-time readers know that I feel quite strongly about using positive methods; I do not use pain or fear when I work with a dog. I’ve even gone so far as to say that it’s perfectly possible to train without physical corrections. But for all that, I don’t think that people who train differently than I do are bad trainers. In fact, it would seem that “traditional trainers” are just as capable of demonstrating the skills needed to be good trainers as “positive trainers” are. Good timing, consistency, and observational skills are important whether you’re using a choke chain or a clicker. High feedback rates? Creativity? Adjusting criteria effectively? Ability to remain calm? Yup, all are possible, no matter how you train.

In short, good training is good training, no matter how you do it. So, again, I must ask: do methods matter?

Well, they do for me. I'm a process-oriented person who is interested in more than just the end result. I enjoy teaching my dog how to think and offer behaviors. I think it is fun to watch her figure out the problems I present her. I want a relationship built on feelings of trust and safety, and I think this is easier to do when the dog doesn't need to worry about being hurt or scared.

In addition, I much prefer the end result that comes from a dog who is a willing, cooperative partner that isn’t afraid to try new things. In my experience, dogs who have been trained with positive methods tend to have happier, more enthusiastic performances than those who have been trained with corrections. Of course, I must point out that I have seen very flashy performances come from dogs owned by traditional trainers, and it would be unfair to say that all dogs trained with corrections are miserable. What's more, I've seen some pretty stressed positively trained dogs.

Again, good training is good training. But here's the thing: it’s hard to be good.

If we're honest, most of us probably fall in the mediocre range of training skills. If we keep working at it, we will improve, but in the meantime, we make mistakes. And this is where I see the biggest difference between methods. For example, poor timing plagues many of us, and it leads to confusion because the dog isn’t sure what’s expected of him. The result will be hesitant responses and sloppy behaviors, no matter how you train. But where an uncertain, clicker trained dog will probably continue to keep working, the uncertain, traditionally trained dog is more likely to display signs of avoidance and stop trying entirely.

Certainly, the dog himself influences this a great deal. The “harder” dog- the one who isn’t terribly sensitive either physically or emotionally- will probably be able to sort through inconsistent and confusing messages. The “softer” dog probably doesn’t have that same stamina and persistence, and as a result, tends to shut down much sooner and more often. Unfortunately, it seems that many people vastly underestimate how sensitive their dogs are. The dog is labeled as “stupid” or “untrainable,” and everyone’s quality of life goes down.

I also think it’s easier to become a good trainer when you use positive methods. Take, for example, the skill of adjusting criteria. Ideally, regardless of our training style, we will work to set our dogs up for success. Whether we're clicking or correcting, we want to balance the dog's current level of learning with distractions. With traditional training, the temptation to wait for the dog to make a mistake so we can correct him is strong. Some folks will even purposely set their dogs up to be wrong. Compare this to positive training, where the entire goal is to break the behavior down into small, attainable pieces, which makes it easier to take distractions into account.

I also think positive methods make it easier for the trainer to control her emotions. I know that when I'm focused on seeing mistakes, agitation and frustration tend to creep in. I struggle to remain calm and patient when all I see is wrong behavior. This could just be a quirk of my personality, but I don't think so. I know enough other people who share it to believe this is just the way we are. We humans tend to see what we focus on, and we react to what we see. Reframing the training experience so that we’re focusing on the positive instead of the negative radically changes our emotional reactions.

Again, good trainers have learned to master these skills regardless of their methods, and they can get spectacular performances from their dogs as a result. But for the rest of us? Well, I think the methods do matter. The average person will find it easier to get the results they want using a positive reinforcement-based approach.

But don’t take my word for it. Try it for yourself. And no matter how you choose to train, strive to be good at it. Your dog will thank you.

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Science-Based Training?

 Training with dad. Note the clicker in his hand.

A lot of people call clicker training (or positive-reinforcement training in general) “science-based.” But is it, really? What do we know, scientifically, about training dogs? In this, my last post on Patricia's seminar, I'll discuss some of the studies she shared with us.

I'm always astounded by the number of people who don't train their dogs. These are the people that, when they learn I do rally and obedience with Maisy, or that I teach training classes, always laugh and say, “My dog could use some obedience!” I'm usually then regaled with increasingly horrifying stories of near-death incidents resulting from a lack of training. But then Patricia shared two studies that made me wonder if most people even want a trained dog.

The first study looked at 118 dogs. Roughly half had no training, or only one basic-training class. The other half were highly trained agility, schutzhund, or search and rescue dogs. Each dog was tested on his ability to manipulate a box in order to get food out. Twice as many of the dogs in the trained group were able to get the food, suggesting that higher levels of training is associated with better problem solving skills.

The other study tested dogs' ability to discriminate quantities. The dogs were allowed to choose between small and large piles of food; in general, both groups chose the bigger amounts. However, the difference between highly trained dogs and untrained dogs became apparent in the second stage of the experiment, when the dogs watched their owners choose the smaller piles before being allowed to choose for themselves. The untrained dogs typically followed their person's lead, and also chose the smaller amount- this despite the fact that they earlier chose the bigger piles. The trained dogs, however, chose the larger piles, suggesting that training creates independent thinkers.

Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Perhaps it's a good thing that pet dogs don't receive high levels of training!

Once we've made the decision to train our dogs, though, the next question becomes: how often should we train them? When Maisy and I were actively attending training classes, we were advised to train in short sessions, several times a day. At the very least, we should try to get in 5 or 6 sessions a week. As it turns out, though, this may not be the most efficient use of time.

Two separate studies found that training once a week results in “better learning performance.” They discovered that dogs acquired the skill in fewer sessions when trained less frequently than when trained daily. (One of the studies also looked at how well the dogs remembered what they'd been taught, and found that the dogs in both groups retained the task equally well.)

I think Patricia put it best: maybe the dogs learned in fewer sessions, but come on: it took eight weeks to teach a simple targetting exercise. Maybe it takes a couple of extra sessions, but by doing several sessions a day, the same task could be learned in just a few days. Still, she said these studies point out the importance of processing time; dogs need rest periods in order to learn most efficiently, especially for more complicated tasks.

Finally, every trainer has to make decisions about how they will train. Patricia shared that there are a number of studies showing that force-based training has negative effects. For example, one study showed that dogs trained with shock collars exhibited more signs of stress, even when compared to dogs trained with “fairly harsh” methods. Another found that punishment was associated with increased behavior problems, like aggression, distractability, and overall lower obedience levels. And the study I found most interesting discovered that punishment was associated with increased anxiety in fear in small dogs, but not in large ones.

There are also studies showing that reward-based training has good effects. These dogs are more likely to interact with strangers, be more playful, and are generally better at novel training tasks than dogs who are trained with punitive methods.

Patricia felt it was only fair to share a study whose results we may not like: it found that search and rescue dogs were more successful in advanced stages of training when there was “an increased use of compulsive methods.” Generally speaking, though, it seems that science favors reward-based training, which leads us to the clicker conundrum: should we use them?

One researcher trained 20 dogs to target a ball with their noses. Half the dogs were trained with a clicker, and half were trained with the verbal marker “good.” The results showed that the clicker trained dogs learned the task faster than those trained with the verbal marker (about 36 minutes as compared to 59 minutes). Patricia believes this is because the clicker makes a short, abrupt sound with a very clear start and stop. It's also a “broad noise band”- it covers more frequencies than the spoken word. All of these things make it more distinct and easier for the dogs to notice.

The last study that Patricia shared with us looked at the use of clickers and food versus food only in training. Thirty-five basenjis were taught to target a traffic cone, and once they learned the task, were variably reinforced for a maintenance period. The researchers found no difference in the amount of time that it took the dogs to learn the task; despite proponents' claims, the clicker was not found to speed up learning.

Then the researchers did extinction trials in which they quit giving food to both groups of dogs, but continued clicking the dogs in the clicker group. The results showed that the clicker-trained dogs were more resistant to extinction, to which I just have to say: DUH. The clicker is a reinforcer- it's a secondary reinforcer, not a primary one, it's true, but it's still a reinforcer. Of course the behavior didn't extinguish as quickly. They were still being reinforced. (To be fair, the study authors state that this suggests the clicker does, indeed, act as a secondary/conditioned reinforcer, and I guess it's nice to have that scientifically verified.)

So, with all of this in mind, will it train the way we train? Personally, the answer is no. I train because I enjoy it. Yes, I have a smarter dog as a result, and yes, that can make her more difficult to live with sometimes (I often wonder who is training who). But I train for the experience moreso than the end result... which is probably why I play endless shaping games but have pretty much nothing on cue. (Sigh.) And my methods? Well, those are unlikely to change, too. My choices have been made on my personal moral and philosophical beliefs, not science.

What about you? Will you change anything about your training based on these studies?

If You Want to Know More

• Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs' performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem solving task, by Marshall-Pescini, et al
• Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task, by Prato-Previde, et al
• The relationship between number of training sessions per week and learning in dogs, by Meyer and Ladewig
• Patricia's blog post on the Meyer and Laedwig study
• The effect of frequency and duration of training sessions on acquisition and long-term memory in dogs, by Demant et al
• Training dogs with the help of the shock collar – short and long-term behavioural effects, by Schilder and van der Borg
• Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability, by Rooney and Cowan
• Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors, by Herron et al
• Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog, by Arhant et al
• Obedience training effects on search dog performance, by Alexander et al
• Clicker Bridging Stimulus Efficacy, by Lindsay Wood
• Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), by Smith and Davis

This post has been edited for clarity (see comments). It originally said: "Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Maybe instead of training the dogs, we should focus on teaching the people how to manage situations better." I think the new version is a better reflection of the study.

Beep, beep!

A few weeks ago, I got stuck behind a large truck on the highway, a rather unremarkable phenomenon, really, except the fact that I remember exactly what that truck looked like: it was a mid-sized delivery truck, smaller than a semi, but definitely not a passenger vehicle. The truck itself was white, and it was noticeably plain; there was no shipping company name emblazoned on the sides. And, as a large truck, it took a bit longer to get up to speed once the traffic light turned green. I maintained a generous but not unreasonable following distance- two seconds, probably- when it happened.

I got honked at.

At first, I wasn’t sure the beep was intended for me, but when the car behind me- the type and color lost to memory- drove past, the driver’s hand gesture confirmed that I was definitely the recipient. Even now, I have no idea exactly what I did wrong. After all, I couldn’t possibly go any faster without risking an accident.

I know it wasn’t a big deal, but it bothered me because I had no idea what I had done wrong. I was still thinking about this incident several days later when I attended an obedience trial. As I watched the handlers working with their dogs outside of the ring, I saw plenty of collar corrections. Sometimes the reason was obvious- a dog who left the handler’s side to go sniff another dog, for example- but often, I had difficulty figuring out what, exactly, the dog had done to merit a correction.

My feelings about the use of punishment in dog training aside, I just can’t see the point in a correction that isn’t connected to something. What does that teach the dog?

I know from my experience being honked (and gestured) at that the answer is, “not much.” Since I didn’t know what mistake I’d made, I couldn’t change my ways even if I wanted to. I was annoyed that I’d been singled out for no discernable reason, and I had a sneaking suspicion that the driver was crazy. More than that, my memory about the event has very little to do with my offense- whatever it was- and everything to do with the truck in front of me and the location. Even now, driving through that area reminds me of my confusion. Talk about misplaced emotions!

And if I- with my presumably larger brain and more sophisticated cognitive skills- had all that baggage, how in the world does a dog process a similar experience? How does he ever figure out what the desired behavior is? How can avoid a correction if he doesn’t know why he received it? What does he think about his handler, who for all appearances, is acting completely crazy? What weird connections does he make between the annoying and/or painful stimulus and the environment?

I will never deny that punishment in training works. It would be foolish to do so considering that the dogs I saw at the trial were working at high levels. But given my experience on the highway, I do wonder how the dogs figure it out. It must be profoundly frustrating at times, and I have to wonder how they remain sane through it all. Because if I'm honest? I’m pretty sure that if I got honked at every time I drove somewhere, I’d end up taking the bus instead.

Clicker Expo 2011 (Chicago): Kathy Sdao- What a Cue Can Do, Part 1

The fabulous Sara and Layla demonstrate "breathe."

Believe it or not, Sara actually taught Layla to take a deep breath when cued. 

Kathy’s session on developing cueing skills changed my life. Okay, maybe that’s a little dramatic, but it was possibly the best session I attended all weekend. I have to admit, I suck at getting behaviors on cue, so I knew going into it that this would be full of great information. Even so, I was not expecting to feel so devastated about my subpar skills. In a panic, I begged my way into her lab on cueing skills so I could see it in action. I'm glad I did!

In my last entry, we talked about how to get behaviors. That is the first job of a trainer, and despite my feelings to the contrary, Kathy said it is the most difficult part. Personally, I think getting the behavior itself is far more fun than the tedious process of getting the behavior on cue. This is probably why Maisy has virtually nothing on cue (at least not reliably). That’s not her fault, of course- as Kathy pointed out, the reliability of the dog reflects the reliability of the trainer.

Despite the not-fun-ness of it all, it’s important to develop reliable cues so that you can get the behavior you want, when you want it, and also so you aren’t getting the behavior when you don't want it. (This is also called "stimulus control.") Who hasn’t seen the clicker dog offering behaviors willy-nilly? It’s kind of exhausting of watch, and having one of those dogs myself, it is also kind of frustrating. Still, I created this monster, so I can’t get mad at her. It’s time to fix (um, okay, get) those cues!

Let’s start with some information on cues in general. Cues don’t make the dog do the behavior; astute readers will remember that in Kathy’s talk on shaping, she said consequences drive behavior. Those consequences- the reinforcers- provide the motivation for the dog to perform the behavior. Cues simply provide the clarity of “now would be a good time to try that behavior.”

Throughout her talk, Kathy compared the idea of cues to a green traffic light. If you’re sitting in a car at a green light, you don’t go because the light makes you, you go because you want to, and the green light is a cue that gives you permission. What’s more, you can’t go at a green light if you don’t know how to drive, so you always have to get the behavior first, and then attach the cue.

This is different from how people used to train. In the past, trainers would say a word like sit and then make the dog do it by physically manipulating or luring him into position. Kathy calls these words “commands,” which she distinguishes from “cues.” Commands carry an implicit threat: do it or I’ll make you. Cues are simply an opportunity; if the dog doesn't do the behavior, he won't be forced. However, he needs to do do it if he wants to earn reinforcement, and assuming the dog has been adequately reinforced in the past, he should be excited for that opportunity.

It is this last point that absolutely fascinated me. If cues are an opportunity to earn reinforcement, then they should be pretty awesome things, right? Trained well, a cue should be like a release word. They tell the dog, you no longer have to wait, you can do that behavior now, and when you do, I’ll click and treat you.

The cues therefore become reinforcing in and of themselves because they become what’s called a tertiary reinforcer. Primary reinforcers are things that the dog likes inherently. Dogs don’t need to be taught to like hot dogs, they just do. Secondary reinforcers are things that predict a primary reinforcer. Clicks or marker words tell the dog a piece of hot dog is coming through the process of classical conditioning. The tertiary reinforcer predicts the secondary reinforcer which predicts the primary reinforcer. The cue predicts a click which predicts a piece of hot dog. Cool, huh?

Anyone who wants their dog to do complex behaviors, or a chain of behaviors, will recognize the value in having a cue act as a reinforcer. Agility or obedience dogs often need to do a series of behaviors with no primary (food) reinforcer. Being able to reinforce a behavior simply by giving the cue for the next exercise or obstacle will help sustain motivation and ensure that the dog continues to perform over the long-term.

However, there is a catch- in order for a cue to act as a reinforcer, that cue must always predict a good thing. If you mix in corrections, the cue is then sometimes associated with unpleasant things and no longer acts as a reinforcer as a result. Therefore, Kathy said that training positively is not about fairness to the dog- it’s about giving yourself more tools. Losing a reinforcer by using punishment is a big price to pay.

Whew! Who knew there was so much to say about cues? But there’s so much that Kathy talked about them for 90 minutes, and then did two 90 minute labs about them! I only attended one of those labs, but in my next post, I’ll share her cue tips with you, as well as information about how to add a cue to a behavior. In the meantime, I can't wait to hear what you guys think. Have you ever used a cue as a reinforcer, or does this concept just blow your mind? Let me know!

Clicker Expo 2011 (Chicago): Ken Ramirez- Aggression Treatment and Context, Part 2

In part one of my summary on Ken Ramirez's talk on aggression, we discussed aggression in general. Today, I'll tell you what he said about treating aggression, starting with generalities, and moving on to specific treatments.

Ken said that you can organize all of the various techniques by placing each one into one of three categories: broad scientific approaches to learning, scientific principles, and practical procedures.

The first category, broad scientific approaches, refers to the twin concepts of learning theory: classical conditioning, and operant conditioning. I call them “twin” because, as Ken pointed out, while we can choose to focus on just one of these two approaches, “all animals learn both ways all the time.” As the old saying goes, you have Skinner on one shoulder and Pavlov on the other.

The second category is made up of the various scientific principles which have been developed in the experimental lab. Each one generally falls under either classical conditioning or operant conditioning. Under classical conditioning, we have things such as habituation, flooding, and counter-conditioning. Under operant conditioning, we have both methods that provide consequences to behavior (punishment and reinforcement), as well as redirection techniques (the Differential Reinforcement of Alternative behaviors).

Finally, our third category is made up of the practical applications and strategies borne out of one or more of these scientific approaches. Each of these techniques is “a way that a skilled and talented trainer has operationalized the science to deal with aggression.” They typically have components of both classical and operant conditioning.

Okay, let's dive into some of the specific approaches out there. This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list, but it does include some of the more common ways people respond to and deal with aggression.

Positive Punishment
Using pain or fear to “correct” aggression is a method that people often think of instinctively, probably because it's how parents, teachers, coaches, and yes, by dog trainers have responded for centuries. Done correctly, punishment works, however there are risks, challenges, and fallout to using punishment... including aggression. Seeing as how we were at Clicker Expo, Ken did not discuss punishment in depth, other than to say that trainers should understand how and when to use it. Although trainers should not throw punishment out of the toolbox altogether, they should allow that toolbox to remain on the top shelf, collecting dust.

Classical Conditioning
Falling in the category of broad scientific approaches, and having no real specialized names or operational procedures, classical conditioning is often one of the first tools skilled trainers use. Ironically, it is also the one that inexperienced ones often overlook. This is a mistake; classical conditioning, that is, changing the dog's associations to his triggers, is powerful even if it seems simplistic. Seems is the key word here; in practice, classical conditioning requires thoughtful implementation since you need to keep the dog below his threshold. Though simple, it is easy to screw up if you don't understand the science.

Look at That (LAT)
This technique was developed by Leslie McDevitt and described in her book, Control Unleashed. LAT uses a cue to tell the dog to look at a trigger in order to get rewarded. This changes the dog's associations with his trigger, and is thus largely a classical procedure, albeit one with a strong operant component. It is useful prior to a dog having a reaction to a trigger, and is quite versatile as it can be used in many situations. However, it must be trained in advance so that it can be used sub-threshold. It is not a complete strategy in itself and must be used in conjunction with other tools.

Constructional Aggression Treatment (CAT)
CAT was developed by Jesus Rosales-Ruiz and Kellie Snider. It is a negative reinforcement procedure which rewards the dog for appropriate behavior by having the trigger (human or canine) leave. It tends to work incredibly fast because it treats the root source of the problem- the dog's desire for distance. It is also highly controversial because it exposes the dog to his trigger for long periods of time. Still, Ken feels it's a useful technique when exposure to the trigger is unavoidable on a regular basis. It requires a very skilled trainer who can set up the situation correctly and direct the trigger to leave at precisely the right moment. It is also not right for every dog as it will only work when you have a thorough understanding of both the specific trigger and context in which aggression occurs. It won't work for a dog whose triggers “stack.”

Click to Calm
Emma Parson's book Click to Calm lays out an easy-to-follow program that relies primarily on redirection techniques such as the differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors, other behaviors, or lower intensity behaviors, but also capitalizes on classical conditioning. What all that scientific mumbo-jumbo means is that the trainer shapes the absence of aggression by clicking the dog when the dog's aggressive display lessens even slightly. This is a highly useful approach because, unlike other techniques, it can be used when the dog is over threshold. However, this does mean that you are clicking the dog for acting aggressively, even if it is for a reduction in aggression. It is also time-consuming and can be difficult for the unskilled trainer. Still, done well, Ken believes it can be a permanent fix.

Training an Incompatible Behavior
This encompasses a broad group of behaviors, including such techniques as “watch me” (where the dog looks at the handler instead of the trigger), U-turns (where the dog is cued to turn and go in the opposite direction away from a trigger), and recalls or whiplash turns (where the dog immediately returns to the handler). Although the behavior itself is different in each case, the goal is the same: to teach the dog something to do instead of being aggressive. If it's trained well, the dog will respond automatically, giving the trainer a chance to intervene and prevent aggression. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the underlying cause, and thus won't cure aggression. It should be followed up by other methods. 

Abandonment Training
Popularized by Trish King, abandonment training is a very specialized tool useful only for dogs whose aggression revolves around their owners. In abandonment training, the dog is on both a leash and a long line. The owner walks holding the leash, and a secondary handler holds on to the long line for safety considerations. When the dog behaves inappropriately, the owner drops the leash and leaves. In scientific terms, this is negative punishment- bad behavior makes the owner go away. Although effective, as noted, it's only effective for a small handful of dogs.

Behavior Adjustment Training (BAT)
Created by Grisha Stewart, BAT has taken the positive training world by storm. Ken really glossed over it since he isn't terribly familiar with it (he's tried at least some version of all the other techniques presented, but hasn't tried BAT yet). All he really said is that it's a negative reinforcement technique that he feels is effective.


These are not all of the ways to deal with aggression, but it is representative of the types of approaches out there. Ken said there isn't any one technique that is the answer to every aggression problem or every situation, which is why new methods are being created all the time. If you are trying to decide if a particular technique would be useful for your dog, you should learn everything you can about it first. Understand the science so you can recognize how it works and compare it to other approaches. Then, decide if it's a good fit with your dog's training history, type of trigger (is it predictable? Controllable?), specific circumstances which provoke the response, the level of risk or danger to all involved, your own experience level (and remember, Ken thinks aggression should be treated by professionals, not the average pet owner), and your own personal ethics.

Personally, I've used Look at That a lot, as well as general counter-conditioning. I've done some work with incompatible behaviors, and although that won't cure the problem, it does allow me to interrupt Maisy before things get out of hand. Maisy is not a candidate for CAT (her triggers stack too much), and her veterinary behaviorist did not think BAT would be a good fit for her, either. Likewise, Click to Calm and Abandonment Training really aren't suited to Maisy, and my ethics do not allow for punishment.

Okay, it's your turn: if you have a reactive or aggressive dog, which approaches have you tried? Did they work? If not, why do you think that was?

Clicker Expo 2011 (Chicago): Karen Pryor- Punishment and the Public

The very first session of the weekend was the opening plenary session with Aaron Clayton and Karen Pryor. To say that I was excited to see, hear, and meet one of the pioneers of clicker training is putting it mildly. I was downright thrilled.

Me, Karen Pryor, and my friend Sara.

If I'm honest, though, this was the most disappointing session of the entire weekend. Not because of what Karen had to say, but because it was too short! We only had an hour for the entire plenary, and in that time, we were welcomed, given an overview of the conference, and reminded of dog etiquette. This left her with about 15 minutes to speak, which simply wasn’t enough. I wanted more!

Still, I can’t complain about the content, because it was excellent. She had a dense power point presentation, rich in information, and although rushed, she did a wonderful job presenting it. Next time, I’ll be sure to make it to one of her full sessions. (One of my friends went to her session on creativity in animals, and her recap was fascinating. Perhaps she’ll do a guest blog? Hint, hint, Sara.)

So. Punishment and the public. Karen shared that one of the great difficulties in getting people to cross over to clicker training is that the clicker is a relatively new technology. It is based on scientific principles developed over the past 50-100 years, as compared to the more traditional techniques that have been around for thousands of years. It's the way it's always been done, the way our parents trained dogs, and the way their parents did, and their parents... That's a lot of time to overcome.

Further, the old methods are “method based,” by which she means they feel natural. They are much more dependent on instinct and reflexive action. It is akin to the so-called “whispering.” In comparison, the new technology of clicker training is what she calls “principle based.” This means that it requires the trainer to think and plan since it is based on science. As a result, it can be a bit more challenging at first.

Of course, learning how to use the clicker is worth it. As Aaron put it, positive reinforcement results in lasting learning. While we can engineer motivation through punishment and fear, it's much harder to sustain over the long-term than motivation that is based on willing partnership and cooperation. Notice that this promotion of clicker training is based on results, not any sense of moral superiority. This really hit me hard- I'm positive trainer because it “feels” better, but at best, that’s not a very convincing argument, and at worst, it’s judgmental and alienating.

In fact, not a single presentation I saw discussed the ethical implications of using the clicker over punishment-based methods. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the “discussions” about training methods on the internet. What I’ve learned from them is that many, many people believe that the ends justify the means- the “red zone dogs” need rehabilitation, and using corrections works (at least temporarily). The problem, as Karen put it, is that the public accepts punishment. This makes sense- we live in a punishment-based society, after all. So with this in mind, just what is a clicker trainer to do?

First, Karen said that we need to give up punishing the punishers. Don't get into conflicts with others about methods. Arguing and lecturing rarely succeeds in changing someone's mind, and usually just firms their resolve. Who hasn’t seen those internet discussions devolve into name-calling? Therefore, instead of treating people like adversaries, we need to treat them as fellow learners and communicate the benefits of modern training with them.

We need to educate people on the fallout that can come with punishment based methods. There has been some evidence in recent years that confrontational training methods can create or worsen aggression in our dogs. Thus, avoiding the use of punishment isn't so much a moral issue as a valuable training approach. (Beyond the issue of fallout, I think that Kathy Sdao gave the most convincing reason to avoid using corrections, but you'll just have to wait to hear about that.) Talk about the benefits of the clicker, too. It's a powerful, precise tool.

Beyond simply educating, though, we need to “shape alternatives to misbehavior.” No, not in our dogs (well, yes, in our dogs, too), but in our students, our spouses, our selves. Think of mistakes as TAG points, not correction points. TAGging means positively reinforcing people when they do things right. Sound familiar? It should- it's basically clicker training for humans. TAG points are the things we want people to do, so if you're trying to get someone to stop giving collar corrections, instead of nagging them when they get it wrong, tell them to keep the leash loose (or to use a hands-free belt, or to keep the leash hand firmly by their side, or whatever makes sense), and praise them when they do that!

Be sure to break behaviors down. Splitting criteria into achievable units works with people, too. Better, perhaps, than trying to get them to change all at once! Work on one skill at a time. Make behavior change easy for that person to attain. I don’t think that crossing over to clicker training has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If someone wants to be more positive in their training methods, do it piece by piece.

And here's the thing: it's already happening. Twenty or thirty years ago, the use of any treats at all in training was frowned upon. It simply wasn't done. Now? Almost every trainer I know that uses corrections also uses treats. It's even got a label- balanced training.

So go out. Be positive. And don’t forget that it's about more than just our dogs. It's about our relationships with friends and family, with co-workers, with people we barely know, and with ourselves. Be positive. Focus on what you want. Or, to use Karen’s words, change the world one click at a time.

Is it ever necessary to use pain or fear in training?

One of the things that I love about blogging is its interactive nature. My last post spawned a great conversation about training methods, the “right” way to train, and the role of punishment in dog training. The thread really made me think about my training philosophy, so much so that I felt the discussion deserved its own post.

Let me start by saying that I think it's impossible to use 100% positive reinforcement. Personally, I probably use approximately 85% positive reinforcement, 10% negative punishment, and 5% positive punishment. (If you're not familiar with these terms, this link does a nice job of discussing them.) This makes me a decidedly lopsided trainer, and while I do use primarily clicks and treats, I'm not afraid to use the occasional “correction.” My “corrections” trend pretty light because of who Maisy is- sensitive and anxious- but also because I believe that it is possible to train without using pain or fear.

Does this mean it's wrong if someone trains differently than me? No, of course not. If a given training method is getting the desired results, if it's fair and consistent, and if it's improving your relationship with your dog, then who am I to say that it's wrong? However, I stand by my statement: I believe you can train a dog without using pain or fear.

This does not mean that I think training should be one-size-fits-all. Frankly, I think that's impossible. Every person, dog and situation is different, and as such, needs a different approach. Further, because the dog defines what's reinforcing and what's punishing, it's impossible to make blanket statements about whether or not a technique is acceptable. For example, some dogs find being sprayed in the face with water incredibly aversive. Maisy happens to love it. If I were to try to stop her from doing something by using a squirt bottle, it probably wouldn't be very effective.

The cool thing about positive training is that there are many different ways to teach the same behavior. If I want my dog to go lie on a mat, I can shape her to do that by clicking small movements in the right direction, I can lure her to do it by tossing a cookie on the mat, or I can capture it by waiting for her to go to the mat herself. More than that, though, I can also manipulate the environment to make it more likely that she'll go to the mat by placing it in the hallway and wait for her to walk down it, or putting it in her favorite napping spot, or putting it in her crate... the possibilities are limited only by your own creativity.

I definitely believe that teaching new behaviors can be done with almost completely positive reinforcement. However, stopping an already existing and unwanted behavior is much more difficult. Personally, I call this type of training “behavior modification” but perhaps that's splitting hairs. Regardless, my approach is to try positive methods first, and if those fail, use punishment in a thoughtful, fair, and consistent manner. The punishment used should be the least invasive and minimally aversive option possible.

I think we can find pain and fear-free punishments that will stop a behavior, however, I will concede that there are situations where we might not have the time to figure out how to do that. Life-and-death situations like a dog trying to eat something poisonous or running towards a busy highway are no time to futz with a clicker. You do what you have to do in that moment, even if it hurts or scares your dog. Of course, I don't think that's training so much as damage control, and once your dog is safe, you teach a stronger "leave it" or a better recall to prevent the situation from occurring again. It should go without saying that I would do that training without pain or fear.

This leads to the question of whether it's ever necessary to use pain or fear in training. Philosophically, I'd say no, but I will grudgingly admit that there are times where using pain or fear in training is the lesser of two evils. For example, if a dog is going to lose his home because he's barking too much while his owner is gone, a bark/shock collar is probably the better option. Do I like this? Of course not. In fact, it makes me really uncomfortable to say it, because I believe there's always a “positive” solution. Unfortunately, people don't always have the time, money or knowledge to find it.

All of which is to say that while I think some training methods are better than others, I recognize that those other methods that not only work but that they might make sense in a given situation. I may not like those methods, I may think they're unnecessary, but I'm trying hard to avoid judging people who use them. I haven't walked in their shoes, and I don't know what they're up against. I will speak out against abuse when I see it, but the rest of the time, I will offer support or suggestions when appropriate. This only makes sense. After all, my goal is to be as positive with people as I am with my dog. By my own calculations, that requires offering them positive reinforcement 85% of the time!

So, let me take this opportunity to positively reinforce everyone who comments on my blog. I appreciate you all, even those of you who disagree with me. Perhaps especially those of you who disagree with me, because it forces me to examine what I've said. Sometimes it strengthens my convictions, and sometimes it causes me rethink my position. Either way, I learn and grow as person and a trainer, and for that, I am grateful.

We Have Cookies

...at least, we will soon.

Although dog training is my passion, by trade, I am a social worker. For several years now, I have worked at a program that teaches vocational skills to people with disabilities. We do this primarily on-site through a variety of contract jobs that allow our clients to get paid while developing employment skills. We also support them in community work, when it’s available, by providing job coaches.

While this model has been around for 40 or 50 years, it’s no longer sustainable, either economically or socially. Our services are expensive, so the state is looking for cheaper options, and parents want a more normalized work experience for their children. The current trend is moving towards independent community jobs, which my co-workers and I find ridiculous; while our system may not be perfect, many of my clients really don’t have the ability to work alone. Independent job placement might work for some people, but it will never work for ours.

I've always believed this, and in fact, never even questioned this line of thinking until last week. I had this conversation at work, and then went home and posted an entry about people who say positive training can’t work for certain kinds of dogs. Talk about a moment of cognitive dissonance! Here I was, professionally stuck in the very same box I was arguing against.

I’ve never experienced anything other than positive methods. When I first got Maisy, I didn’t know anything about dog training, so while I was committed to having a well-mannered canine citizen, I had no idea where to start. I signed up for a class at the first place that I found, and it was simply by chance that it happened to be clicker-based. I could have just as easily ended up somewhere that used more traditional methods.

I’m glad I didn’t. I have found that positive-reinforcement training is not only effective for a wide variety of issues, but it is also easy, fun, and most importantly, emphasizes relationships and teamwork. I simply couldn’t understand why people would want to inflict pain on their best friends if they didn’t have to.

Then I realized that in my professional life, I am the traditional method. Like traditional training methods, the model I work under is effective for the vast majority. The idea that there is something else that might work equally well, if not better, is hard to swallow- we have a long history of success. More than that, people I respect and admire believe in the way we do things. Thanks, but we’ll just stay over here, doing what we know works, while other people try out new things that may or may not pan out.

So, not only do I have a new-found understanding for the position of people who are using traditional training methods, I am also in awe of the courage it must take to cross over to positive methods. That is a huge leap of faith which requires a radically new mindset and a departure from everything- and everyone- that is familiar.

For my readers that are traditional trainers (if I have any), I think I understand you a little better now. Sticking with the familiar is comfortable and easy, and there's no incentive to try something new if what you're currently doing works. I’m certainly not looking to leave my job just because there might be a better method out there. However, I think you should know that we have cookies.

For my readers that have crossed over, I'm proud of you- and impressed. I'm sure that was a hard decision, and I’d love to hear your story. Did you have a dramatic experience that changed you forever? Or was it a number of little things that convinced you when they were all added up? Or did you just hear that we have cookies?

For my readers that are like me, who have always trained with positive methods, I have a challenge: avoid judging the others. I know how defensive I feel in my professional life when my company is criticized for the services we provide. I’ve been told that I don’t care about the people I work with, that I’m being exploitive and segregating them from the community. But I do care- I just don’t know how to do this differently. The system is set up to maintain the status quo, even while railing against it.

So, while I’m not sure what I will do professionally, I know that personally, I need to strive for kindness in my criticism, for tolerance in my teachings, and above all, I need to remember that a positive trainer is as nice to the people around her as she is to her dog. We need to share the cookies.

Ian Dunbar Seminar: Punishment, the Dog-Con System, and the Concept Formerly Known as Instructive Reprimands

Punishment is a hot button issue in dog training, and like every other trainer, Ian Dunbar has ideas about how punishment should (or shouldn’t) be used. However, he has unique ideas regarding behavior and misbehavior, ones I’d never heard before, so I can’t wait to share them with you.

But first, a definition: “punishment” is any consequence that reduces behavior. Therefore, a consequence cannot be considered punishment unless the trainer actually uses fewer as training goes on. This means that, for the average pet owner, most “punishments” are simply consequences which are painful, fear-inducing, or annoying… and completely ineffective! (I imagine they’re also confusing because the dog doesn’t understand why those unpleasant things are happening.)

The use of punishment in training is a difficult skill to master. To be done well, punishment must be immediate so the dog needs to know why he’s being punished. It must be consistent and happen every time the misbehavior does. It must fit the crime- serious enough that the dog wants to avoid it, but not so intense that it’s abusive. There should be a warning first, so the dog can avoid the punishment by changing his behavior. The dog must know what is expected of him, and if he fails, Ian says that the punishment the dog receives should instruct him on what to do instead.

This last point is interesting, and Ian contends that it’s often overlooked. I think he’s right. After all, whether it’s a collar correction for leash pulling or a time-out for playing too rough, most punishments only tell the dog which behavior was wrong, but do nothing to help the dog figure out what the correct response was. They don’t instruct the dog, and Ian believes that punishment can and should be instructive. He accomplishes this by using his voice, which allows him to use his language, feelings, and creativity in training to help the dog understand both how important it is to respond as well as providing consequences if the dog doesn’t.

He starts by letting the dog know if and when he ought to respond to a command through his “Dog-con” system, which basically formalizes when the dog may disobey. He created this system since he believes that it is rare that a person needs absolute reliability from their dogs.

The Dog-con system has three stages, each using a different version of the dog’s name prior to issuing a command. At Dog-con 1, Ian uses a dog’s nickname or a term of endearment to indicate that the command is more of a suggestion: “Hey, Huey, you wanna sit? No? Eh, whatever.” At Dog-con 2, Ian uses the dog’s real name to indicate that he expects the dog to respond. “Hubert, sit.” Dog-con 3 uses the dog’s full, formal name, and indicates that it’s show time; the dog ought to pull out his flashiest performance. “Hubert Lewis, sit!”

This concept absolutely hurt my brain when I first heard it, because when I give a cue, it’s generally because I want Maisy to do it. It took me awhile to figure out that there are times when I don’t really mean it. As it turns out, I use different cue words instead of prefacing the same word with different versions of her name. For example, whereas “come!” means “get your butt over here right now,” the variant “come on” means “when you’re ready, please head this way.” I didn’t set out to teach it this way- if I had, I would have chosen more distinct phrases- but Maisy and I both seem to understand the difference. So, I guess Ian and I are doing similar things, just in different ways.

Ian thinks 100% reliability on the first cue is impossible. Whether your dog is distracted or simply has better things to do, there isn’t a dog alive who will be perfect, even at Dog-con 2 or 3. However, instead of applying a punishment that causes pain or fear- things that are unnecessary in training- Ian uses his voice to get the dog to do what he wants. He does this using a method called repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement (RRNR). (Scientifically-minded readers will undoubtedly notice that the method is technically not punishment, a fact which Ian both acknowledged and dismissed by saying we shouldn’t get hung up on terminology. He said that the distinction is too fine to really matter.)

RRNR is actually pretty simple to implement. If the dog fails to respond, Ian continuously repeats the command until the dog complies. If the dog is at a distance, he will move closer to the dog as he repeats himself. If the dog was distracted, this helps bring the command to the dog’s consciousness, and if the dog simply chose not to respond, this lets him know that Ian was serious. Either way, once the dog has finally performed the cue, Ian will repeat the exercise until the dog responds on the first request, and then reward the dog.

Although many trainers worry that repeated cues will result in learned irrelevance, Ian doesn’t. He argues that if the dog fails to respond, the cue is already irrelevant in that moment, and you can’t make something more irrelevant. Besides, Ian makes sure that the dog does respond eventually, which means the dog will learn that the cue must be followed.

While RRNR helps instruct the dog when he fails to comply, it doesn’t work when the dog is trying but gets it wrong. When this happens, Ian will use a “specific redirection,” which tells the dog what he ought to be doing. For example, if the dog is jumping up, you tell him to sit. If the dog is lagging or forging at heel, you can tell him to “hurry” or “slow down.”

It sounds like this works well for him, but I (and others at the seminar) are concerned about doing this since cues can act as a reinforcer, which would mean you’re actually rewarding the very behavior you’re trying to punish. When someone asked him about this, Ian seemed confused, so clearly he hasn’t had this happen. Either we misunderstood how and when he uses specific redirections, or the cues Ian uses don’t have a strong enough reinforcement history for them to act as reinforcers.

At any rate, while I agreed with Ian’s feelings on punishment- it doesn’t need to hurt or scare a dog- and I felt confused by the rest. But maybe that’s just me. What do you guys think? Have you tried RRNR or specific redirection? What’s your experience been? Do you do something else entirely? I’ll be curious to hear what you think!