I read the following online the other day:
People shouldn’t object to the use of negative reinforcement! It’s just stuff like washing my hands when they are dirty or drying them when they are wet. What’s wrong with that?
This is a fairly common defense of using negative reinforcement (R-) in training. The defender points out that R- is common in life and trots out a benign-sounding example or two.
Here’s a quick review of the definition of negative reinforcement:
In negative reinforcement, a behavior is strengthened by the removal, or a decrease in the intensity of, a stimulus.–Paul Chance, Learning and Behavior, 7th Edition, 2013
Dr. Susan Friedman remarks in her Living and Learning with Animals course that negative reinforcement may be the most common learning process of all. Think of all the times we scratch an itch, shift in our seats, take off or put on clothing to be more comfortable, and perform other small movements, almost unconscious, that relieve discomfort. Not to mention the larger, more obvious instances when we escape or avoid things that are bothering, threatening, or hurting us.
(Throughout this post I am using the convention of describing certain scenarios involving aversives as negative reinforcement. However, keep in mind that we never know whether any reinforcement process has occurred until we see a behavior increase or maintain.)
Hand washing is a good example of the day-to-day kind. The analysis looks like this.
- Antecedent: There is dirt on my hands
- Behavior: I wash my hands
- Consequence: No more dirt on hands
Problem solved. Negative reinforcement doesn’t sound so bad then, right? Why should I and others argue against using it in training?
Natural vs. Contrived Reinforcement
Instances where we take action for our own comfort with a behavior that removes the aversive are called natural or automatic negative reinforcement.
Natural reinforcers are events that follow spontaneously from a behavior.–Paul Chance, Learning and Behavior, 7th Edition, 2013
The “event” in the hand washing case is having clean hands. It follows spontaneously from washing them.
However, when a trainer uses an aversive in training to reinforce specific behaviors, it is no longer natural negative reinforcement, because she has inserted herself into the process. This version is called contrived negative reinforcement.
Contrived reinforcers are events that are provided by someone for the purpose of modifying behavior.–Paul Chance, Learning and Behavior, 7th Edition, 2013
No longer does the human or animal necessarily respond with a behavior that directly relieves her discomfort. The trainer decides what behavior is required to stop the aversive stimulus. It may be something completely unrelated to what the natural escape response would be. The important thing is that the trainer uses the aversive by putting a contingency on escaping it.
This post was born the other day when I watched Zani hop onto the chaise lounge in the backyard, take a couple of steps around on it, and hop off again. It was 100 º Fahrenheit out and the vinyl was hot to the touch. Clara approached it and I pulled out my camera, expecting her to jump off as well. Instead, she settled down and stayed there for six minutes, getting up not out of apparent discomfort, but instead because Summer barked at something. I realized I wouldn’t have known that Zani would be more sensitive to the hot plastic than Clara. See #4 below.
Equating contrived, training-centered negative reinforcement with natural negative reinforcement is inaccurate.
In the movie I demonstrate five differences between the two. In contrived negative reinforcement:
- A third party controls access to the reinforcer and can set contingencies on escaping or stopping the aversive stimulus.
- The animal doesn’t generally escape the aversive one time and get to move on and do something else. The trainer usually reapplies the aversive, exposing the animal to it multiple times.
- The trainer forces the animal to stay in the area. She will generally prevent the animal from performing the natural escape response that would end exposure to the aversive. For instance, gun dog trainers who teach a force fetch with an ear or toe pinch often have the dog tethered very tightly on a bench. People who use negative reinforcement in exposure to triggers usually have their dogs on leash.
- The trainer can’t know exactly how much discomfort she is causing the animal. She has interrupted the natural sequence for the animal of “feel discomfort–do something about it.” She may cause the animal to endure a much larger magnitude of the aversive than it would have in natural negative reinforcement.
- The behavior required to escape the aversive can be anything at all. The animal often has to figure it out while in the presence of the aversive.
In the movie I show an example of a natural negative reinforcement scenario with a very low-level aversive stimulus. Something you wouldn’t think twice about if it happened to you. Then I show what happens when that low-level aversive is applied in a contrived negative reinforcement scenario. 1)By the way, I am not invoking the naturalistic fallacy or implying that natural negative reinforcement is always low-level. Running away from someone who wants to kill you could be natural negative reinforcement. Same with using an EpiPen after a bee sting to escape death from anaphylactic shock. But the people who are minimizing the undesirable effects of negative reinforcement don’t usually use these kinds of examples.
I’m keeping this post short (Edit: but see below) because most of the juicy stuff is in the movie. Seeing is probably more effective than reading.
I haven’t discussed the fallout from the use of aversives in this post. I do in several other posts and pages. (Yeah, I know, I usually won’t shut up about it.) But do take a look at the movie and consider how you would feel about the person who had the remote control in her hand.
Addendum About Natural vs Contrived–edited 8/30/15
I want to clarify some possible misconceptions about what I’m saying in this post.
I’m not saying so-called “natural negative reinforcement” is a good thing, and indeed I wish there were a better term. The naturalistic fallacy drives me crazy and I frequently write against invoking it (for instance in this related post about negative reinforcement). In the current post I am addressing the folks who use the existence of “natural negative reinforcement” to excuse training protocols of deliberate (“contrived”) negative reinforcement, and I’m doing that by delineating the differences between them.
Neither am I saying that contrived reinforcement, in the case of contrived positive reinforcement, is bad. Every manipulation we make of reinforcers (and punishers) is contrived, and that’s a major focus of my writing. Contrived positive reinforcement and earlier interventions on the Humane Hierarchy are the best things we’ve got. I wrote about that in another post: Not All “Choices” Are Equal
It can be hard to find the line of best fit regarding repeating information. I’m always learning as a writer and I blow it sometimes. But I am glad to make corrections if I have not been clear about something. That feedback is helpful and I hope readers will always let me know.
- Fallout from the Use of Aversives
- Discussing Negative Reinforcement Responsibly
- How Did the Aversive Get There? A Call for Honesty
- Let’s Talk about Aversives in Training. I’ll Go First!
- Leaving the Scene: Clarifying the Science of Negative Reinforcement
- What Does Shower Mold Have To Do With Dog Training?
© Eileen Anderson 2015 eileenanddogs.com
Notes [ + ]
|1.||↑||By the way, I am not invoking the naturalistic fallacy or implying that natural negative reinforcement is always low-level. Running away from someone who wants to kill you could be natural negative reinforcement. Same with using an EpiPen after a bee sting to escape death from anaphylactic shock. But the people who are minimizing the undesirable effects of negative reinforcement don’t usually use these kinds of examples.|