Everyday dog training methods and their effect.

sparkle said:

The key word is ***** MAY****** have.

which does not equate to ****WILL**** have.

Too often people construct verbiage along with a agenda or ignorance that suggests or indicates that if one uses positive punishment or negative reinforcement such usage ****WILL***** a have negative welfare effect implications that do not justify the means of using such operant’s of conditioning.

Click to expand...

The point of the study is not about the laws of learning theory and its definitions. The laws/definitions do not define aversion.

The point of the study is to highlight that the average dog guardian is ineffective with aversion and aversion adds no long term benefit or is problematic for the average dog guardian. You don't need to read into the study a subconscious message to reason that average dog guardian should avoid aversion...it's virtually intuitive. Unless of course you're speaking of a Utopia where the average dog guardian perfects the use of aversion, but we don't live in that Utopia.

KBLover said:

If excitement is an emotion, it shouldn't be listed with behaviors, imo. Everything on that list follows this (they are all behaviors or behavior chains).

Click to expand...

The difference is emotion is involuntary behavior. The dog jumps because he's excited. Operant behaviors are voluntary. The dog jumps because his guardian cued "jump". Jumping on guests just happens to be one expression of excitement. Some dogs raise their hackles, bark, pace, or their jaw vibrates...these are all expressions of over-the-top excitement. So are they lumping?...yes. But if they were to list all expressions of excitement it would add more tedium than necessary.

Besides, you can't really reward or punish an emotion, correct? (Since it's not an operant behavior, I believe you taught me this ) So it seems even more out of place on a study about the results of reward/punishment/"miscellaneous" -based methods.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can not reinforce emotions. But you can change an association. And the distinction that should be made here is simple...fear based aversion does not lend itself well to classically condition behavior we do want, especially from the average dog guardian.

Not to mention that it seems to avoid/ignore a whole leg of the P side of the scale, Negative punishment (i.e. withdrawing something the dog would find/is finding to be rewarding in response to a behavior). This seems only oriented around P+ since it's focused on aversives, but that's only telling half the "punishment story" imo.

Click to expand...

As ineffective as negative punishment is, I'd ignore it too. I don't think the results would demonstrate anything of interest studying negative punishment other than it sometimes works and it sometimes has no effect whatsoever. I believe all the average dog guardian needs to understand is that positive reinforcement works very well, and positive punishment can exacerbate the problem at hand, and offers little (if any) to no long term benefit.

KBLover said:

Is negative punishment any more ineffective than positive punishment?

Click to expand...

I don't know, you'd have to test it in its given application.

I mean, if P+ can actually create problems or make them worse, how much worse off is P- methods?

Click to expand...

Lets be clear, physical, scary, painful, harmful P+ makes problems worse. P+ doesn't have to be any of these things, but it is the topic being discussed, however, I don't know any convenient way to use these adjectives to describe P-. So I'd agree P- is not worse than P+ in context.

While I agree the R+ almost always works on dogs, I wouldn't say P- is any more ineffective than P+, except on dog by dog basis.

Click to expand...

I don't think the study attempted to illustrate the effective use of learning theory. What the study attempted to illustrate, and perhaps it's too obvious, is that the average dog guardian is not effective with methods x, y, and z. Your average dog guardian couldn't even define P- if they had to.

I mean, if I get up and leave for 10 minutes because Wally refuses a command, then I come back and give that command again and get instant and eager compliance - was P- ineffective?

Click to expand...

I'd say it's to be determined. One trial doesn't illustrate anything to me.

what negative side effects would me getting up and leaving create - other than it just not working?

Click to expand...

To a velcro dog, perhaps abandonment IS scary to them.

(And then, if he did it in response to the aversion, wouldn't that be closer R- instead?)

Click to expand...

The difference between P+ and R- is the target behavior and duration of the aversion. They are always opposite.

"average dog" (what would that be, anyway - just curious?)

Click to expand...

To me? Has a tail or once had a tail but that part of the body it is/was attached to wags, has four paws or once had four paws, barks-except if it is a Besenji, has a furred body even on the microscopic level, and likes to sniff bums.

- but P- is rather effective on him if only to "tell" him he failed to earn the reward.

Click to expand...

I think if you've had a long, mutually beneficial relationship with a dog, P- can be effective, especially if used in conjunction with a no-reward-marker. Absent of that long, mutually beneficial relationship it's a waste of good training time. My opinion only.

Of course, P- works when the dog understands the requested behavior - but that would also seem to apply to P+ since no punishment can actually gain behavior.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd say P+ works better for known behaviors than P-. Say you want sit (a known behavior). Which is more effective? If I sit!, and the dog sits (P+), or walk out the room for a failed cue, I return, and the dog sits? IMO, the one that saves me time is more effective, but I have to define my criteria for you to understand that point.

KBLover said:

But don't most owners have some kind of good relationship with a dog, other than the utterly clueless and the utterly hostile type owner? Wouldn't most owners have dogs that would actually care if their people stopped interacting with them?

Click to expand...

You forgot the ignorant. I do believe the majority of dog guardians are well meaning people, who seek a mutually beneficial relationship with their dog; but I would also say the majority of dog guardians are absolutely ignorant about what a dog is. And although most dog guardians do want a dog that interacts with them, not all dog guardians appreciate the many number of ways dogs attempt to socialize with their people.

Interesting you mention a strongly given command (I'm guessing that's what you were intending - i.e. a harsher/louder/very firm tone of voice), because that used to freeze Wally up and start him to shaking. That's why I went with P- type approaches instead.

Now, I can actually do that - somewhat - but it still shakes him. He gets visably more worried, starts moving slower/looking away (calming signals).

Click to expand...

I have the same dog. I could kick my dog in anger and she'd be looking for a toy to play with afterward. This terrier likes that stuff. But raise my voice and she's emotionally crushed. And guess what? I'm the type of person who naturally insists on things with a raised voice. That's a problem. Using differential reinforcement I had to teach her that my raised voice was really, really rewarding. Along the way I also had to compromise with some patience and learn my sarcastic voice pleased us both. Go figure.

I'm not saying P- can't be effective, I'll use it too to some effect; I just know that I, like many other guardians, want behavior now, not minutes from now. If I cued a sit and my dog didn't sit, my preference is to insist on another sit. If that didn't work, I'd lure a sit, and try to figure out why she didn't sit later. That's what I choose to do. If P- works for you, and you have the time, who am I to tell you any differently?