eileenanddogs

Category: Escape/Avoidance

Space Invaders: How Humans Pressure Dogs & Other Animals

Space Invaders: How Humans Pressure Dogs & Other Animals

Let’s say you are standing at a party, or in your office, or on your front lawn. Someone you vaguely know walks up to you. He walks up very close, face-to-face like the Seinfeld close-talker. Close enough that you can see up his nose and smell his breath. He starts a conversation. What do you do?

You will probably have a strong urge to step back. You may or may not do it, depending on the social situation and a host of other factors. But when someone we don’t know well enters our personal space bubble, it can be very uncomfortable.

Everyone has his or her own bubble. In addition to individual preferences, bubbles vary according to age, gender, and culture. And species. The German psychologist David Katz first coined the “bubble” term in 1937. For humans, one of the well-accepted definitions of personal space is from Leslie Hayduk of the University of Western Ontario.

We can define personal space as the area individual humans actively maintain around themselves into which others cannot intrude without arousing discomfort.

Hayduk, 1987, p. 118

Dogs have space bubbles, too. As members of a domesticated species, they respond somewhat differently from wild animals. But they are still keenly aware of how close humans, dogs, and other animals are to them and respond accordingly. I am convinced that even when we are on our best behavior, dogs find us to be insensitive clods. Compared to us, they are hyper-alert to movement and body language, and they have been bred for centuries to pay attention to us. Their own language with each other, and to us, is extremely subtle. But we don’t always return the favor. If only we paid attention back!

I wrote the original version of this article in November 2016 for “BARKS in the Guild” after Susan Nilson suggested I expand on what I had written about my dog Zani and how she reacted to pressure. Little did I know the scope of the topic at that time and how much I would learn while investigating it.

In the article I investigate different types of personal space: for humans, dogs, and animals in general. I discuss the types of pressure we put on our dogs. The physical and the gestural. The accidental and deliberate. And the mismatch between the signals of our two species that can result in our being space invaders to dogs.

Animals and Space

I wasn’t stepping out on a limb when I said dogs have space bubbles. Personal space for individuals and groups of animals has been well studied. Different spaces have been defined depending on distance and what happens when the space is entered.

Some of the many terms used for an animal’s immediate personal space have been social force field, personal field, personal sphere, and personal area (McBride, 1971).

But ethologists have defined several other types of space for animals. It can be useful to think of them as concentric ellipses. Here they are from the largest to smallest.

Flight distance (or escape distance) is the distance at which the approach of another animal or human will cause the subject animal to flee. Here are what some eminent scientists have to say about that.

The primary duty of the individual, to ensure its own existence, and thus the preservation of its kind, lies in being prepared to escape. By far the chief occupation of the free wild animal, therefore, is constant watchfulness; eternal alertness for the purpose of avoiding enemies.

Hediger, 1955, p. 39
Hare making a run for it

An animal that hopes to keep alive among the dangers of freedom must be constantly on the alert It is extremely hard to get near them, simply because all animals are so busy keeping an eye open for the possible approach of enemies. As soon as one gets too close, as often happens, they take to flight. Only when this specific flight distance, which differs for each species, is overstepped by an observed enemy does flight reaction follow; i.e. the animal in a typical manner runs away from it, far enough to put at least its specific escape distance between itself and the enemy once again.

Hediger, 1955, p. 40

Dog and wolf experts Raymond and Lorna Coppinger state:

Flight is a hazard avoidance behavior, an essential component of a wild animal’s survival. There are two measurable components to flight distance: 1) how close you can get to the animal before it attempts to flee, and 2) how far away it runs.

Coppinger & Coppinger, 2002, p. 64

Fight distance (or critical distance) is the distance at which the subject animal will aggress toward a predator. It is generally closer to the body than flight distance. To most species, humans are responded to as predators.

When animals are cornered, they are unable to observe the flight distance from an approaching man The animal cannot maintain its personal area free from intrusions by flight, so it must either submit or fight. Hediger named this distance the “fight distance.”

McBride, 1971, p. 63

Social distance, on the other hand, is defined inward, toward a group of conspecifics or animals of similar species. It does not involve distance-seeking behavior.

Among animals in groups, social distance was defined by Hediger as “the maximum distance an animal will move away from the group.”

McBride, 1971

Inside the social distance, each animal has its personal space, which is defined outwards.

Gregarious animals normally move in a living space between the personal fields of neighbors and social distance.

McBride, 1971

For animals and humans, one’s personal space area is larger in front than on the sides. Flight distances are similarly elliptical (McBride & James, 1963). In humans, there is evidence that not only do we respond at a greater distance to the front of a person than to her back, but we actually perceive the person as closer if she is facing us than if she is not (Jung et al., 2016).

Invasion of personal space doesn’t stop at our skin. The ultimate invasion of personal space is bodily harm. In general, a threat is much more dangerous once it has touched, then entered our body, through ingestion or a wound.

Dogs have a delicate sense of this that we appreciate. Mentally healthy dogs who are socialized to humans generally develop bite inhibition with us for play and even when aggressing.

Domesticated Species

Hediger pointed out that the reduction or elimination of the flight or escape reaction is essential for the successful domestication of a species. That gives us an operationalized definition of domestication.

The artificial removal of the flight distance between animals and man is the result of the process of taming, defined in animal psychology as the disappearance of flight tendency in the presence of man.

Hediger, 1955, p. 41

Dogs, as a domesticated species, demonstrate this well. But dogs dwell in a variety of niches in our world. They can be house pets, livestock guardians or other working dogs, village dogs, or completely feral. Their flight distances vary greatly. Also, a dog can already be a tame and happy house pet, but we may work via behavior modification to alter his flight distance because he is overly fearful of various things.

Raymond Coppinger takes the definition of “domestication” one step further:

My argument is that what domesticated—or tame—means is to be able to eat in the presence of human beings. That is the thing that wild wolves can’t do.

Public Broadcasting Service, 2007

Proxemics: Personal Space Dynamics for Humans

Proxemics diagram

Space bubbles in humans have been well studied. Proxemics is a subdiscipline of the discipline of non-verbal communication in humans. The term was coined by anthropologist Edward Hall, and refers to the way humans arrange themselves in space in relation to others (when they have a choice). Other fields that involve personal space are cognitive spatial mapping and psychological distance.

Edward Hall (1968) wrote about interactions between humans of different cultures, in fact, observations of these are what prompted him to study proxemics.

Hall identified four zones for human interaction that can be visualized as concentric spheres. From the smallest to the largest, they are the intimate zone, the personal zone, the social/consultive zone, and the public zone. They are largely self-explanatory. Very approximate measurements could be that the intimate zone goes about 2 feet out from the body; the personal zone extends from 2–4 feet; the social/consultive zone extends from 4–12 feet; and the public zone is greater than 12 feet from the individual.

Interpersonal distance is a constellation of sensory inputs that is coded in a particular way. (Hall et al., 1968, p. 94)

Human senses help tell us what is acceptable and safe within each sphere. Kinesthesia helps determine what gestures and touch are permitted. Think of expressions such as “having enough elbow room.” What we hear can affect the zone and we also respond by adjusting our voice level. Olfaction can have strong effects on our desire to be near someone or get away.  Can we smell the other person? Are we comfortable with that? Scented body products can modify our responses—in either direction. Our eyes determine whether we are near enough to see what we need to see, and also whether our orientation is appropriate. Movement is sometimes used for escape, and sometimes to approach or optimize.

Hall also identified whether features in space were fixed, semi-fixed, or dynamic. Walls and other structures are fixed. Your dog’s fancy bed in a wooden frame is fixed. But the mats I strew around my house for my dogs to get on are semi-fixed. I move them according to where I need the dogs to be, and the dogs move them, for instance, to pile several into a bed. Interpersonal space is usually dynamic. The space between a human and her dog is dynamic as well. That mutual space moves with us, and our comfort zones (ours and our dogs’) change according to the activity and for many other reasons.

Much of this is unconscious behavior on our parts. For example, when we sit down to have a discussion with someone, we may adjust the position of our chairs. Some of this may have to do with optimizing communication, for instance, being able to see the other’s face better. But threaded through our movements is also a sense of personal space. I may behave differently if I am the host of a meeting, the guest, or if I am with peers in a neutral area. Hall noted large cultural differences not only about optimizing space but also in what situations it was even permissible to move one’s chair:

For example, a German subject (an immigrant to the United States), who treated furniture as fixed, had bolted to the floor the chair on which visitors sat in his office. This caused great consternation among American visitors. One of my Chinese subjects informed me that in China a visitor would not dream of adjusting the furniture to conform to his unwritten definition of an interaction distance unless specifically instructed to do so by his host. American students in my classes, who cover a wide spectrum of ethnic, class, and regional cultures within the United States, have been evenly divided between those who adjust the furniture to conform to an informal norm and those who do not.

Hall et al., 1968, p. 91

The Size of Personal Space

Many factors have been identified that affect our arrangements in space vis-à-vis other individuals. Some factors are environmental, such as the space available and noise in the environment. 

There is also evidence that modifying our sensory input can have an effect on personal space. One study showed that persons wearing headphones enlarged their own space bubbles (Lloyd, Coates, Knopp, Oram, & Rowbotham, 2009). Conversely, seeing that others were wearing dark glasses or mirror glasses altered the personal space of some research subjects (Yoshida & Hori, 1989).

Fear and anxiety affect personal space. In a study of humans who were afraid of dogs, the auditory signal of a dog growling (as compared to the sound of a sheep bleating) extended the subjects’ personal space (Taffou & Viaud-Delmon, 2014).

For humans, there are countless other variables having to do with personal characteristics. Hayduk (1978) lists the following as possible factors:

  • gender
  • age
  • personality
  • race
  • socioeconomic status
  • various physical and psychological situations
  • liking
  • acquaintance
  • attitude similarity
  • a history of cooperation
  • a stigmatizing condition
  • violence
  • whether the subject is approaching or being approached
  • eye contact
  • social stimulus intensity
  • whether the subject has had assertiveness training
  • the intimacy of subjects being discussed
  • whether the other person smiles

If we have the ability to do so when our personal space is at risk of being infringed, we erect temporary barriers with whatever furniture, possessions, and other objects are available (Fisher & Byrne, 1975).

There is a commonality among all these, and even though they are uniquely human, the common factor is one we share with other animals. Decisions we make regarding our personal space are connected to our safety.

Amygdala Involvement

The slightly uncomfortable feeling you get at a public gathering when someone gets too close; the downright creepy feeling you get when a man comes and sits next to you when the rest of the bus or subway car is empty; the fear and panic that floods over you if said guy pulls a knife: these are all on a continuum. The sympathetic nervous system is becoming engaged. Having our space bubbles invaded is not trivial.

There is a reason that humans, dogs, and other animals are wired to be keenly aware of the spaces between them and other individuals. It’s because it can be a matter of survival. Parts of the neurological responses involved in personal space awareness have been identified, and it’s not surprising that the amygdala is involved.

Most of the general public has heard by now that the amygdala is involved in fear responses. But neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux, who has been studying the amygdala for three decades, points our that the amygdala is not the fear center, as it is sometimes described. He considers the amygdala instead as a threat processing center. The brain circuits that control defense responses and those that give rise to feelings of fear interact, but this does not mean they are the same (LeDoux, 2015, p. vii).

LeDoux also points out that humans can be shown pictures of threats in such a way that fear is not triggered, but the amygdala is still activated, and bodily responses occur as a result.

It turns out that one of the threats the amygdala is tuned to is the approach of someone or something into our personal space. The amygdala involvement has been determined with a human study, followed by animal research. A woman with complete bilateral damage to her amygdala was found to have no sense of personal space. She reported to examiners that she felt perfectly comfortable at nose-to-nose proximity to one of the researchers with full eye contact. She understood the concept of personal space cognitively and sought to act within societal norms, but had no “sense” of it (Kennedy, Gläscher, Tyszka, & Adolphs, 2009).

Subsequent animal research showed that monkeys with bilateral amygdala lesions stayed closer to humans or other monkeys than monkeys with functional amygdalas. In addition, a preliminary fMRI test of eight healthy humans showed more amygdalar response when the subjects knew the experimenter was standing right next to the fMRI unit than when he was standing farther away (Kennedy, Gläscher, Tyszka, & Adolphs, 2009).

Our sense of personal space is part of our basic wiring.

Space Hierarchies

Recall that the study of proxemics in humans has to do with how humans arrange themselves when they have a choice. But there are certain members of human society to whom we allow less choice. The respecting or entering of space tends to be hierarchical, as Hall (1968) quoted from his Chinese acquaintance. We grant children less space than adults; babies the least of all. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to space invasion, such as when perfect strangers touch their abdomens.

Most women have noted, and it has been documented, that men claim more space, even accounting for their larger size. (La France & Mayo, 1979).  People with disabilities are often afforded less space (Kilbury, Bordieri, & Wong, 1996).

So this thing we sense so strongly—how close we will stand or sit next to another human—is largely unconscious but is also situational and hierarchical. But what we don’t seem to have is an unconscious respect for a dog’s space, unless the dog is giving out explicitly aggressive signals. If the dog is relaxing or otherwise minding its own business, we assume access.

From Humans to Dogs

In the United States, there is no law against simply entering another’s personal space. However, many crimes involve space invasion, including simple assault, menacing, harassment, battery, and sex crimes. Human rights declarations generally include rights to bodily integrity, individual self-determination, and rights to privacy.

Although considered property under historical law, pets and other animals are gradually gaining more protection and even explicit rights in some countries. But most can’t have complete bodily integrity, self-determination, and privacy because they don’t have the human-like cognition required to understand the consequences of their choices in human culture. We are accustomed to making decisions for them and it’s likely we will always have to do so to some extent. For instance, veterinary surgery and other intrusive procedures are “violations” of a dog’s bodily integrity. We don’t generally have ways to communicate with our dogs to ask their consent for such complex actions.

But I’m arguing for giving them these rights when we can. The right to personal space without thoughtless invasion. The right to bodily integrity to the extent possible. Most of us can do a much better job facilitating that for our dogs.

Space Invaders

Zani doesn’t want to be petted right now

We humans typically don’t respect dogs’ space bubbles to the degree they would probably prefer. Instead, we assume access, taking for granted that they want our petting and touching. Even when we are respectful, our species’ different ways are hard on them. As primates, we express affection by frontal proximity and hugging. For many dogs, this constitutes restraint and invasion. Additionally, as their caregivers, we must sometimes do intrusive things to their bodies or take them to strangers who do so.

Many people even assume access to other people’s dogs. People with fearful and reactive dogs have to go to great measures to prevent intrusion from strangers who see a dog and are driven to pet and touch him. It is becoming more common to at least ask permission of the owner, but few think to check with the dog, or know how to do so.

There is still a common expectation that dogs should automatically like or at least get along with all people and all other dogs. Fearful, shy, or just plain introverted dogs really suffer from this. But even the most extroverted dog still has personal space. We need to learn to respect it.

The Types of Pressure We Put on Dogs

Here are some of the common human behaviors that can easily constitute space invasions. Most are the result of our differences in size and ways.

  • Direct eye contact. (In human proxemics, eye contact is said to narrow the distance between two people and can make an approaching person feel suddenly closer. This appears to be true of dogs and other animals as well.)
  • Standing still, facing them straight on.
  • Standing tall or leaning over them, especially for small dogs.
  • Reaching out with our hands.
  • Walking into a dog’s space.
  • Petting.

I have a dog who grew up without human contact and she responded with flight to every one of the actions listed above when they came from anyone but me. I worked hard with behavior modification (for her and for me!) to make her more comfortable.

Here are some human behaviors that are even more intrusive and difficult for dogs.

  • Crowding too many animals/people in a space that’s not large enough.
  • Using molding in training: physically pressing a dog into position.
  • Using body pressure in training.
  • Confining a dog to a crate or any small space without conditioning.
  • Not allowing the dog to withdraw from human interaction.
  • Not allowing the dog to hide.
  • Keeping a dog who is trying to get away from us on a short leash.
  • Holding a dog immobile, whether for management, punishment, or medical procedures.

Many of the above involve two space invasions: restraint, then another procedure. The following is also a twofold invasion.

  • Removing an object the dog is guarding.

Resource guarding includes issues of personal space. It is a natural dog behavior that can quickly get a dog in trouble. The dog asserts possession of something, and the assertion typically becomes more aggressive as an intruder gets closer. Many humans are offended at a basic level when a dog takes possession of an item and guards it, even if the dog does not aggress. But whether we are offended or only trying to protect the dog from a dangerous object or situation, there are times we must take things away.

Then we have procedures that actually cause pain. Some are the temporary, sometimes necessary discomfort of veterinary procedures. Note once more that invasion doesn’t always stop at the skin.

  • Ear, eye, mouth, and anal exams and treatment.
  • Wound dressing.
  • Injections.
  • Surgical procedures.

Finally, there is the deliberate use of discomfort, pain, or fear in training.

  • Training using startling.
  • Training using intimidation.
  • Training using body pressure.
  • Training using pain.
  • Training using loud noises.
  • Training using flooding: the deliberate restraint of a dog and exposure to something frightening or painful.

Veterinary Visits: A Potential Triple Whammy

Clara as a scared youngster at the vet

As the owner of a formerly feral dog, I have gotten a firsthand look at how a simple veterinary visit can be terrifying to an unsocialized dog. First, she is trapped in a small, enclosed space: the exam room. Second, one or often two strangers enter the room and interact with her. Even experienced vet staff can have a very hard time not making unnecessary intrusions that raise her fear. Attempts at “making friends” that include leaning in, lots of direct eye contact, etc., are scary.

Third, add to that whatever handling of her body is necessary, including intrusive or painful procedures. With my dog, the biggest challenge is the proximity of other humans—it seems to my observation that the handling, even painful types, is less bothersome. Although she is far out from the center of the bell curve, all of these threats she feels so keenly are potential, albeit milder threats, to a more normally raised dog.

But vet visits are changing, and are becoming so much easier for many dogs. The same year that this article was originally published, the Fear Free Certification for veterinary and other animal professionals was launched. Fear Free Certified professional dog trainer Kate LaSala of Rescued By Training explains, “The Fear Free approach focuses on letting the pet go at their own pace and including the owner in the process as much as possible. This can be the owner feeding while the dog gets examined or other ways of keeping the dog comfortable, sometimes including pre-visit anti-anxiety medications. They also recommend happy visits and only doing what the dog can handle, and have excellent teaching materials on reading dog body language.”

As a dog guardian and a hobby trainer, I have seen the effect of the Fear Free movement, even in some vet practices that aren’t yet certified! More animal professionals in all fields are learning to read body language, and more pet owners are learning how to introduce their young animals to the vet clinic with visits where nothing intrusive happens and nothing goes too fast. There will be little space invasion beyond the minimum of some physical procedures, and even those can be made to be as non-threatening as possible.

Exposure Protocols

Recall Hediger’s definition of domestication as the artificial removal of an animal’s flight response. This gives us a new way to think about what we do in desensitization protocols. As a domesticated species, dogs have a truncated flight response in general to humans, which is a result of selective breeding. Even some dogs born feral can quickly gain a positive response to humans (Zimen, 1987). But anyone who works with fearful dogs is still dealing with flight distance; we are seeking to humanely reduce or eliminate their flight distance for specific triggers.

We proceed by getting a trigger within sight and incrementally adjusting distances for exposures accordingly. But keep in mind the different things that can modify flight distance. Angle of approach, speed, and auditory and olfactory information all come into play. My formerly feral dog can walk among pedestrians with a flight distance of virtually zero to her sides and a couple of feet directly in front of her. But she will get alarmed if a person 15 feet away stops, turns, and looks at her for two seconds. The pause, the squared up line of sight, and eye contact instantly enlarge her flight distance. Even if they are 15 feet away, her response is as if the human teleported right up into her face.

Having a dog on leash interferes with the distinction that might otherwise exist between a flight distance and a fight distance. Recall that the fight distance exists when an animal is cornered or restrained, and dogs learn quickly just how much a leash restrains them. So we can’t imagine nice neat concentric ellipses for flight and fight under these circumstances.

I have no doubt that we make invasions of dogs’ space that we will never even sense. Dogs, with their keen senses of smell, have a world of sensation we lack. Just as sights and sounds can expand their needed personal space, odors that carry a threat likely can as well. A friend who works with fearful dogs reports that the lingering odor of cigarette smoke brought into the house on a garment triggered escape behavior in one client dog.

Husbandry procedures such as trimming nails, grooming, checking eyes, ears, nose and mouth can be thought of as exposure protocols as well. Most of these actions are not intrinsically enjoyable for a dog and many are actively unpleasant. Using desensitization and counterconditioning to create positive associations, or at least change the association from unpleasant to neutral, can help a dog cope with these often necessary invasions.

Protecting Dogs

Although dogs seem to comprehend very well that humans are a separate species, they also appear to appreciate any efforts we make to “bridge the gap” and be more sensitive to their personal space.

Greetings

One of the best instructions I have seen regarding requests to touch dogs in public comes from Madeline Clark Gabriel in her 2011 video, “Dogs Like Kids They Feel Safe With.”

Gabriel states:

Parents and children need a whole new way to approach dogs. Asking the owner isn’t nearly enough. Children barely wait for an answer before they’re moving in on the dog, and owners often feel pressured to say yes. And nobody is asking the dog.

Gabriel, 2011

She goes on to suggest that children follow three steps if they want to visit with a dog who is strange to them:

  • Step 1: Stop and stand still before asking.
  • Step 2: Ask the owner if you can ask the dog: “May I ask your dog if it would like to be petted?”
  • Step 3: Invite the dog over with welcoming body language. Do not come towards the dog (Gabriel, 2011).

Although I’m sure there are many dog owners who would be nonplussed by such a request, this is the right direction. Think of how many dogs’ lives would be improved if children and adults asked the dog if he or she wanted to interact—and respected the answer. Also, think of the dog bites it could prevent.

Petting

My own video, “Does Your Dog REALLY Want To Be Petted” (Anderson, 2012) shows one dog enjoying petting and another one enduring it but not happy about it. It discusses using a consent test—another way to ask the dog—to see if the dog is interested in being touched. In short, the human pets the dog for a few seconds and then stops. If the dog leans in with relaxed body language, and especially if she nudges the human’s hand for more petting, she is probably happy with the touch. The person can continue petting. But if the dog exhibits stress, turns or moves away, or even if she stays in position but is neutral, we can conclude that the petting was not pleasurable to her at that time. In that case, the human should stop the contact.

Husbandry

Many husbandry and medical tasks that must be performed are unpleasant. We and the dogs have no choice about it. Desensitization and counterconditioning and lots of preparation at home can help a dog build resilience for many procedures and for handling in general. And although in our training the dog should always have the right to leave or to say, “wait a minute,” I believe those moments are best used as litmus tests. Repeated and formalized use of escape shouldn’t be a substitute for doing all possible work to create a situation the dog doesn’t want to leave to begin with.

Taking Things Away

We need to practice creating pleasant associations for the dog to our approach when she has food or another object. This will prepare us for the day when we must take something away from the dog for her safety or the safety of another.

Gear

We also need to condition any gear we use that is potentially restraining. It is humane for the dog and helpful for the owner if the dog is happy about collars, harnesses, leashes, muzzles, coats, boots, seatbelts, crates, autos, and other enclosures.

Dog Body Language

Most people tend to misunderstand or disregard dogs’ body language. There are thousands of videos on the Internet of dogs who are desperately indicating they would prefer that the humans back off, while the humans actually talk about how happy the dogs are.

If we don’t learn all we can about dog body language, our efforts to not intrude on our dogs’ space and preferences will be in vain. We won’t be able to tell if and when we are distressing them. So ongoing observation and learning about the dogs we share our lives with, and dogs in general, is crucial.

Even though Zani’s spacial sensitivity inspired this article, the little stinker can dish out the pressure, too

Everyday Interactions

Perhaps the biggest differences we can make are not the dramatic ones. They may be in the ways we can change our everyday interactions with our dogs. I got interested in this subject because I have a dog, Zani, who is unusually pressure sensitive. She is fairly resilient, but is still very sensitive about her space. To her I am that “looming guy” who stands too close, reaches toward her too abruptly, and makes too much noise.

Whatever I do, I will probably always be “that guy.” But I am learning. I have several strategies. I am proactive about helping my presence be a positive thing for her. I play games with her where she enters my space. I also condition a “happy zone” close around my own body.

But I am also learning better doggie manners. I give Zani space in whatever ways I can. I don’t walk straight at her. I use a curved path. In some situations, she prefers not to be looked at, so I don’t. I don’t thrust my hands in her face. I don’t come plop down right beside her. I try to let her initiate necessary approaches at close quarters.

I dedicate this article to Zani.

Copyright 2016 Eileen Anderson

Photo credits: Proxemics diagram and fleeing hare, Wikimedia Commons. Man hugging dog, CanStock. Other photos copyright Eileen Anderson.

This article was first published in the Pet Professional Guild’s Barks from the Guild in November 2016.

References

Anderson, E.B. [eileenanddogs]. (2012, August 29). Does Your Dog REALLY Want To Be Petted? [Video file]. Retrieved from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGDYI-s-cQ.

Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2002). Dogs: a new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution. University of Chicago Press.

Fisher, J.D.; Byrne, D. (1975) “Too close for comfort: Sex differences in response to invasions of personal space.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 32(1), Jul 1975, 15-21.

Gabriel, M.C. [madness2001]. (2011, May 16). Dogs Like Kids They Feel Safe With. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwg9NT_DLZA.

Hall, E. T., Birdwhistell, R. L., Bock, B., Bohannan, P., Diebold Jr, A.R., Durbin, M., Edmonson, M., Fischer, J.L., Hymes, D., Kimball, S., La Barre, W., Lynch, F., McClellan, J.E., Marshall, D.S., Milner, G.B., Sarles, H.B., Trager, G.L., & Vayda, A.P. (1968). Proxemics [and comments and replies]. Current anthropology, 83-108.

Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview. Psychological Bulletin85(1), 117-134.

Hediger, H. (1955). Studies of the Psychology and Behavior of Animals in Zoos and Circuses. New York: Criterion.

Hediger, H. (1950). Wild Animals in Captivity. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications.

Jung, E., Takahashi, K., Watanabe, K., de la Rosa, S., Butz, M. V., Bülthoff, H. H., & Meilinger, T. (2016). The Influence of Human Body Orientation on Distance Judgments. Frontiers in psychology7. Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00217/full.

Katz, D. (1937).  Animals and Men. New York: Longman, Green.

Kennedy, D. P., Gläscher, J., Tyszka, J. M., & Adolphs, R. (2009). Personal space regulation by the human amygdala. Nature neuroscience12(10), 1226-1227.

Kilbury, R., Bordieri, J., & Wong, H. (1996). Impact of physical disability and gender on personal space. Journal of Rehabilitation62(2), 59-61.

La France, M., & Mayo, C. (1979). A review of nonverbal behaviors of women and men. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 43(2), 96-107.

LeDoux, J. (2015). Anxious: Using the brain to understand and treat fear and anxiety. New York: Penguin.

Lloyd, D. M., Coates, A., Knopp, J., Oram, S., & Rowbotham, S. (2009). Don’t stand so close to me: The effect of auditory input on interpersonal space. Perception38(4), 617-620.

McBride, G. (1971). Theories of animal spacing: the role of flight, fight and social distance. Behavior and environment, Springer US, 53-68.

McBride, G., & James, J. W. (1963). Social forces determining spacing and head orientation in a flock of domestic hens. Nature197, 1272-1273.

Public Broadcasting Service. (2007) Dogs That Changed the World: What Caused the Domestication of Wolves? Commentary retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-what-caused-the-domestication-of-wolves/1276/.[EA2] 

Taffou, M., & Viaud-Delmon, I. (2014). Cynophobic fear adaptively extends peri-personal space. Frontiers in psychiatry, 5, 3-9.

Yoshida, F., & Hori, H. (1989). Personal space as a function of eye-contact and spatial arrangements of a group. Shinrigaku kenkyu: The Japanese journal of psychology60(1), 53-56.

Zimen, E. (1987). 13. Ontogeny of approach and flight behavior towards humans in wolves, poodles and wolf-poodle hybrids. Man and Wolf: Advances, Issues, and Problems in Captive Wolf Research4, 275-292.


If You’re Loving It, Why Leave?

If You’re Loving It, Why Leave?

Is “choice” a code word for negative reinforcement?

It can be. Seems like that’s the context where I see it pop up the most. 

I’ve written a lot about choice. Two of my major points are:

  1. Many people are confused about using choice as an antecedent vs. a consequence; and
  2. People are rarely referring to choices between positive reinforcers when they write about their animals having a choice.

But here’s another thing that gets under my skin. These days it seems like many people who use the language of choice to describe their training are referring to the fact that they permit the animal to leave as relief from a difficult task. For instance, in a husbandry session, the dog may receive a food reinforcer for cooperative behavior. That constitutes positive reinforcement if we see cooperative behavior (usually staying still or focusing on something) increase or maintain. 1)This also applies to sessions of  counterconditioning where the food is not contingent on behavior. I am setting that aside for now. The dog is allowed to leave as often as she wants. The session starts back up if she returns. The leaving constitutes negative reinforcement if we see leaving increase or maintain. But remember: escape is only a reinforcer if the activity is unpleasant.

Letting the dog leave is a good thing. But there is a big drawback if it is planned on as an expected response and built into a protocol.

Building escape behavior into a protocol can provide a disincentive to the human to make the process as pleasant for the dog as possible. Rather than working harder to create a situation where the dog doesn’t want to leave, the trainer can focus on saying that the dog is “empowered” by the ability to leave. On the contrary, some trainers, including myself, consider a dog repeatedly leaving as evidence that we have not worked hard enough at making the experience pleasant.  It’s a failure, not a goal. It means we didn’t set up our antecedents and graduated exposures well enough.

Text: What does true free choice look like in a husbandry session? I tried it. My dogs LOVED it.

Forced vs. Free Choice

I have written about forced and free choice before. Forced choice applies to our husbandry example. The dog can stick with the session and get food or another appetitive stimulus, or the dog can leave. Leaving usually leads to an environment that is bare of other positive reinforcers, or has very weak ones. We deliberately set things up that way as an incentive for the dog to stick with the session. There is no shame in that. Controlling other reinforcers is a part of positive reinforcement-based training. But bragging that escape offers the animal empowerment when the other option is bare of interesting activities is a bit strained.

Also, the presence of food can be coercive. The husbandry session may be unpleasant but the food quite good. Hence, the dog is putting up with discomfort to get the food. Again, sometimes we have to perform medical or husbandry tasks that are painful. But why start out that way if we don’t have to?

On the other hand, free choice is a choice between two appetitive stimuli: two good/fun/nice things. Two things the dog will work for. For instance, stay inside and be petted (for a dog who likes that) or go outside and play ball. Play with this toy, then that one. Dig in the yard or lie in the sunshine.

Is there a way to offer free choice between two appetitive stimuli in a husbandry session? Sure, and I tried it. My dogs LOVED it.

summer-mm
Summer watching to see if the Manners Minder will pay out

If You Really Want to Give the Dog a Free Choice…

…you have to stop controlling other options for reinforcement. Instead, offer another option. In my case, I set up for a husbandry session, but provided another reinforcement option in the form of a Manners Minder, an automated treat dispenser. 

I loaded it with the same treats I was using and placed it a few feet away. I set it to eject treats on a variable interval schedule. My intention was for the Manners Minder’s rate of treat delivery and mine to be similar. It would eject treats every so often no matter what the dog was doing (no contingency from me). But the dog’s behavior of leaving the husbandry session could be positively reinforced.

I started a nail clipping session with the video camera running. 

This unedited movie shows the very beginning, where Zani is still figuring out what the deal is. Is it OK for her to run to the Manners Minder in the middle of our session? (Yes.) Is there a good reason to return for nail clipping? (Yes, because there were gaps in the Manners Minder schedule.) Zani has a genius for optimization and was soon going back and forth. 

I was super pleased that husbandry sessions are pleasant enough to her that Zani happily came back.  If she hadn’t, that would be valuable information. It would mean I needed to work more on making husbandry pleasant for her. In the meantime, to get the job done, I could stack the deck a little in my favor via treat value or rate of reinforcement. I would have no problem with the ethics of that. In my opinion, it’s still far superior to the scenario where the dog’s only other option is escape to a boring room.

During my other dogs’ first sessions, I needed to call them back a few times. They both tended to get stuck in one place or another because of their reinforcement histories. Thinking it through, I don’t think calling them affects the balance of the two options much. The sound of the Manners Minder is a very strong cue that food is available. Likewise, my calling my dog is a strong cue for the same. I reinforced the dogs for coming back to me when I did so. They were free to leave again right away, but they usually stuck around for a nail clip or two, or until the Manners Minder produced another treat.

In the movie with Zani you can see me using the remote on the Manners Minder. I am turning the down-stay variable interval setting on and off.  But in subsequent sessions (not filmed) I just set it and let it alone. 

Link to the video for email subscribers.

Choice Doesn’t Apply Only To Negative Reinforcement Protocols (Even Though That’s When You Often Hear About It)

One of the things that often gets lost in the discussions about choice is that we offer our dogs a choice every time we give a cue for a positively reinforced behavior.  When I call my dog while she’s digging in the dirt in the yard, I have offered her a choice, whether I’m happy about that or not. And it’s a choice between two nice things. But this type of choice is often overlooked because the reason we train dogs is often to get them to do things we want. Offering a dog a choice between two appetitives can be inconvenient for the human. Whereas offering a dog a choice to leave an uncomfortable husbandry session doesn’t cost us much. We know the dog will probably come back because we are the source of R+ in the room. It seems pretty self-serving to me to promote choice primarily when it is easiest for us. 

If a trainer or a protocol focuses on choice, ask questions. What are the choices? Ask the trainer or author to operationalize them. Are the choices antecedents or consequences? What will your animal be choosing between? The trainer should be able to tell you whether both of the choices lead to positive reinforcement, or if one leads to positive reinforcement and the other to negative reinforcement (escape). 

Don’t Necessarily Try My Experiment at Home

This was an experiment. Our success with the dual reinforcement setup had a lot to do with the dogs’ history with me. Offering a powerful reinforcer for leaving a husbandry session could backfire if a dog didn’t have a strong reinforcement history for staying. I’m not necessarily recommending it. I wrote in another post about the down side of offering a dog between two positive reinforcers and how it can be tricky. That risk is very clear in my game with the Manners Minder.

Another issue is that the dual reinforcement setup as I presented it is not workable for procedures where the dog must stay still, perhaps as in a jugular blood draw. But that’s true for any method that allows the dog to leave. Most of us at some point also train the dog to stay still.

I tried this out because I was curious. I am publishing it because I want folks to see what it can look like for a dog to exercise free choice in a husbandry session. I’m continuing to do it because it makes toenail trims downright fun for my dogs.

Related Posts

Copyright Eileen Anderson 2016

Notes   [ + ]

1. This also applies to sessions of  counterconditioning where the food is not contingent on behavior. I am setting that aside for now.
But It Worked for My Dog!!

But It Worked for My Dog!!

Worked for who?
For whom did it work, again?

What happens when someone shares a “success” story about training with aversives? Here’s my response to a commenter who did so on one of my previous posts.

A Parable

Once there was a woman named Reva who had a serious health condition that needed intervention. Her intexagog was inflamed and could rupture any day. Reva looked up intexagog specialists in the phone book. She found Dr. Bleppo, who had an ad that was both slick and reassuring, and picked him. She made an appointment. He was a likable guy and radiated competence. He said sure, he could fix her intexagog right up and she would be fine again.

Reva scheduled surgery. It seemed to go well. Her intexagog was fine, she was out of pain, and resumed her normal life. She started having mood swings but didn’t put that together with the surgery. She thought maybe she had always experienced those and just didn’t remember correctly.

Whenever the subject of intexagogitis came up in discussion Reva always recommended the doctor who had operated on her. She heard some murmurings that maybe there were problems with his methods. She always responded, “But my operation was a great success!” Her friend Hector started having trouble with his intexagog, and she gave Dr. Bleppo a glowing reference. Hector contacted Dr. Bleppo on her recommendation.

But a few months after the surgery Reva found out from another specialist that the method Dr. Bleppo had used had an 80% rate of undesirable side effects. These had been well documented for years and the evidence the new doctor gave her was very strong. The side effects ranged greatly in intensity, from things like occasional tingling in the fingers to depression to damage of other body organs to death. They could appear immediately after the surgery or years later, especially if one maintained the after-surgery protocol Dr. Bleppo had recommended. The doctor hadn’t told her of any of this on the front end, just assured her of his experience and told her he could make her well again.

Even though Reva was one of the lucky ones—at this point she had only the mood changes to deal with—she felt betrayed. And now she knew that she might experience some of the other side effects later. She considered filing a complaint with the medical board, since Dr. Bleppo had acted wrongly in not informing her of these side effects and risks, or telling her of alternatives.

Hector had also gotten surgery from Dr. Bleppo, so Reva told him what she had learned. He reacted with hostility when she told him this news. He hadn’t experienced any side effects (yet). Hector continued to talk about what a wonderful, dedicated surgeon Dr. Bleppo was to all who would listen, and would bring up his own successful surgery as proof.

Dog Trainers

The world of dog training is rife with Dr. Bleppos. We don’t have a regulatory board to go to if they don’t inform us of the possible consequences of their actions, nor if they ruin our dogs with harsh methods. Most of us will move on to another trainer, but we may still not have the necessary information to assess trainers.

Training that depends on aversive methods such as prong or shock collars, intimidation, throwing things, loud noises or sprays of water or more noxious substances, personal pressure, or flooding (not letting the dog escape from a scary, painful, or uncomfortable situation) has risks. The possible fallout from these methods has been known and studied for decades and on many species. My posts 7 Effects of Punishment and Fallout from the Use of Aversives delineate the types of problems that commonly accompany the use of aversives. The latter post includes references to research. But the Trainer Bleppos either don’t know about the problems, they dis the science, or they actively keep this information from their clients.

Dog Owners

The world of dog training is also full of Hectors. Many of us have been Hector at some point. When dog owners make a financial and emotional investment in something, we want it to work. Generally, if there is any way possible to see it as working, we will do so. So the Hectors of the dog training world predictably pipe up in any discussion that is critical of aversive methods and give the example of their dog being fine.

Some dogs may be fine, or close to it. Someone with more ability to read dog body language than the person posting would likely see the behavioral responses to the use of aversives, but they might be subtle and the commenter can’t see them. Plus many dogs are very resilient and forgiving of humans. We have bred them to be.

So I can never say to a commenter who relates a punishment success story that her individual experience is wrong and her dog is not fine. Sometimes I will suspect that the commenter lacks the knowledge for a comparative assessment, or the punitive methods used might have been at a low level or she might have a robust dog. But it is not a good argument to deny someone’s experience.

What I can say, and am saying now, is that sharing such an experience does not prove the method’s safety and is very damaging. Behind the one dog who seems OK are strewn many dogs who may not recover from damage due to punitive training. I know that sounds overly dramatic, but most of the positive reinforcement based trainers I know go around picking up the pieces for those dogs and their owners. So holding up the token survivor is sadly misleading.

Misunderstandings

There are some common misunderstandings whenever I bring up the problems with aversive use. I want to address a few before the comments start rolling in, grin. Whenever someone submits a comment on my blog supporting or recommending the use of aversives, I counter it. This is not because I am completely pure in my training, nor because I think aversives don’t work, nor because I think dogs should live completely sheltered lives. It’s because aversive success stories give people permission and encouragement to use aversives. Many people are searching for this permission. I’m not going to provide it here.

On the other hand, I don’t think people should hide such usage. I’m in favor of honesty, and honesty includes delineating the drawbacks and risks of aversive use, especially when describing an apparent success. If something is noxious enough to prompt avoidance, it’s probably noxious enough to create side effects. I addressed this in my last post, Natural vs. Contrived Negative Reinforcement, with an example of what might happen when one uses a mildly aversive stimulus repeatedly in a training scenario.

Example: My Own Aversive Use

Here’s an example of how I talk about the implementation of an aversive. As part of loose leash training, I taught all of my dogs to yield to leash pressure with a combination of negative and positive reinforcement. I pulled gently on the leash, and when they responded by lessening the pressure (moving towards the tension), I marked and rewarded with food. But the initial reinforcer was the lessening of the pressure. The food may have reinforced something afterward, and perhaps helped support the generally positive response my dogs have to training. But leash pressure is aversive, and using it to train employs negative reinforcement (if there is a behavior change and the dog learns to respond to the pressure).

Now, having a dog that will yield to gentle pressure is very handy. And teaching it is not usually likely to prompt a whole lot of redirected aggression or other dramatic side effects (with most dogs). Certainly not as problematical as something that hurts or pinches or applies heavy pressure. But when I look back on the videos I took of that training, I can tell that it was just not fun for my dogs in the way most of our other training was, even though good food treats were involved.  This exercise put a damper on their enjoyment of training, and possibly a damper on their relationship with me. Why let that happen if I don’t have to?

So what if I were to recommend that protocol?  There would be people reading about it who had dogs who might suffer more from such an exercise, dogs who perhaps don’t have the huge positive reinforcement history with their owners that mine do. People who have fearful dogs who are just now getting used to being handled at all and are sensitive to proximity? There is possible fallout, even with such a “mild” aversive. So you will never see me tout its success or urge others to try it. Instead, if asked about my own experience, I’ll urge caution and describe the drawbacks.

Not every positive reinforcement method is right for every dog either, of course. And some include aversives accidentally in the way they are applied. Still, that’s different from systematically and repeatedly using an unpleasant stimulus to get or suppress behavior.

To My Commenter

I’m glad your dog did OK after you used a trainer from a national franchise. I can tell he is a beloved family member and you care for him very much. I have a suggestion: there are at least two trainers in your area who use positive reinforcement-based methods and have pledged never to hurt dogs in the name of training. They can be found by searching for trainers at your location on this list:  Membership list of the Pet Professional Guild. Both of them offer fun classes like agility and clicker training. Take your dog to such a class, just for fun. See how he likes it. Hopefully, it will be a new and enjoyable experience for both of you.

Related Posts and Pages

Graphic credit: The sad dog cartoon is free clipart from clipartpanda.com. Thanks! 

Copyright Eileen Anderson 2015

But I’ve Seen Stressed-Out Dogs During Positive Reinforcement Training Too!

But I’ve Seen Stressed-Out Dogs During Positive Reinforcement Training Too!

Thank you to Jennifer Titus of CARE for Reactive Dogs for editorial advice. All errors and awkward moments are mine alone.

Citing “stressed-out R+ dogs” in an argument is an old chestnut that comes around regularly. The writer usually describes a training session he or she witnessed where a dog being trained with positive reinforcement was exhibiting fear or stress. The goal of sharing this description generally seems to be to blur the real differences between training that is based on positive reinforcement (R+) and training that is based on escape, avoidance, and punishment. Sometimes it is a feeble attempt to argue with the ranking of methods in assessments such as the Humane Hierarchy.

Cherry-picking a moment out of any dog’s life to support a general point about methods is tempting but is not effective argument.

Summer over the threshold of stimulus aversivness
My dog Summer showing stress during an R+ training session. What can we therefore conclude about the learning process called positive reinforcement? 

The “Stressed-Out” R+ Dog

So let’s consider the stressed-out dog in positive reinforcement training. What are some possible causes of stress in an R+ training session?

When using positive reinforcement, some metrics we use to assess the skill of the trainer and the effectiveness of the training are timing, criteria, and rate (or sometimes magnitude) of reinforcement. Let’s start our analysis there.

Bad timing can cause the dog some stress through lack of clarity. The trainer is marking and rewarding some incorrect behaviors while sometimes failing to reinforce some correct ones. If she cleans up her act and stops reinforcing the wrong stuff, the dog will go through an extinction process. Depending on the trainer’s skill, this can be stressful.

Raising criteria too fast means a higher failure rate. This can also cause some frustration. So while this is in an R+ training environment, what you have when you raise criteria too fast and the dog doesn’t do anything reinforceable is, again, an extinction problem.

If the rate of reinforcement is too low, you can actually put the desired behavior on extinction. So you may get a confused dog who starts throwing behaviors out of frustration, or a dog who will wander off and do something else more reinforcing, given the choice to do so.

Another stressor can be the use of negative punishment when the dog hasn’t learned the behavior. If the dog isn’t clear on how it can earn the reinforcer, it is frustrating to have it taken away contingently as it tries other things.

Note that none of the above errors is likely to hurt, scare, or startle the dog.

Two more types of stressors possible in an R+ training session are pressure of some type, and an accidental, momentary aversive. These two can indeed hurt, scare, or startle the dog, but are not linked to the positive reinforcement learning process.

  • What I’m calling pressure could consist of anything in the environment, setup, or even mannerisms of the trainer that the dog would like to escape from. Is something too loud? Is someone pressuring the dog with his or her body? Is the dog being kept too close to something she is scared of? This type of problem comes from the unwitting inclusion of an aversive stimulus.
  • Likewise, accidents happen, as they can in any training. A trainer might step on her dog’s tail during a stay, but again, this is an aversive accident, not an integral part of R+ training.

So our causes of stress are probably either technical mistakes on the trainer’s part or the presence of an unplanned or unrecognized aversive stimulus.  Are these problems unique to positive reinforcement training? Absolutely not. They can happen in training based on aversives just as easily.

A Fair Comparison

Let’s compare apples with apples. Rather than focusing on the stressors in faulty positive reinforcement training, lets compare the net effect on the dog of R+ training vs. aversive-based training–with both done poorly. There is certainly no shortage of sloppy training done with aversive methods. I can find such a video on YouTube within a couple of minutes, and  the trainer is often touting it as a success story.

So what happens to a dog being trained with escape/avoidance and punishment when the problems and errors I described above are present? Not only is the dog startled, hurt, intimidated, or at least irritated by the training itself, she will also be subjected to the additional stress resulting from trainer errors. Or she may experience aversives in addition to the ones the trainer is purposely using.

Here’s what it could look like.

  • Bad timing: Imagine popping a dog’s collar when she is heeling perfectly, in addition to popping her when she makes an error.
  • Changing criteria too fast: Imagine using duration shock to teach a dog to jump off a platform immediately after using it to teach her to jump on it.
  • Unplanned aversive stimulus: Imagine teaching stays using your hands to force a sound-sensitive dog to hold her position while a delivery truck with a no muffler drives by.

Those make the possible stressors in R+ training look rather like small potatoes, don’t they?

A Real-Life Example of the Results of R+ Training with Errors

I will be the guinea pig. I have a video of my own training that demonstrates many of the stressors I listed above.

In this popular video of mine that demonstrates lumping, I raise criteria too fast for Zani. She gets visibly frustrated. You can see it around 2:25 in particular. She plants herself in front of me in a sit and makes what I call the “terrier frustration noise.” A sharp exhale through her nose. I don’t blame her.

In addition to the training errors that are the subject of the video, there are more. I often mark late. I mark and reinforce improper behaviors, both when she targets my bare hand instead of the tape, or does a “drive-by” and doesn’t connect at all.

My rate of reinforcement is not bad, but there are a couple of times when Zani is going through extinction, trying other behaviors, where I might have interrupted her sooner, or marked something approaching the right behavior.

My reinforcement placement is not thoughtful. I am generally tossing the treat in order to reset Zani, but think how much faster she could have gotten to the wall if I had treated in that direction instead of away from it?

Another criterion issue is my poor choice of tape color. Gray, even metallic, is not a good contrast on a tan/yellow wall. Zani probably couldn’t see it well.

Interestingly, there is a subtle aversive stimulus in the session as well, and I think we can see the effects of it on Zani’s actions.  The tape on the wall is in a tight area.  I think her reluctance to enter that small area (in other words, an aversive setup) is one of the reasons she targets the desk multiple times instead of going for the tape. She is extremely pressure sensitive and I am asking her to go by me into a tight little space. She tries to avoid it.

So in one video, we have many of the problems I listed above.

Link to the Lumping video for email subscribers.

But even with the errors in the training and the slightly aversive setup, Zani hung in there with me and was wagging her tail in the last section. She successfully learned the behavior I was teaching and got 24 tasty food treats in the three minutes of training time shown. Not a bad rate at all, considering that there were two dry spells and also that she was spending a fair amount of time chasing down treats.

So here is a thought experiment. Imagine that instead of what you saw in the video, I used aversive methods to get the targeting behavior from Zani. You can imagine a combination of physical manipulation and body pressure, or a shock collar. No food in the picture. (If you are imagining Zani falling to pieces, that’s about right.) Now add to that multiple errors of timing and criteria, and an unwise setup that creates a tight space. How is Zani doing now?

That is a much fairer comparison of the results of different training methods.

The Proper Rejoinder

Evoking the scenario of the stressed-out R+ dog in argument invites the following response:

It’s a good thing the dog was being trained with positive reinforcement then. Adding training errors and aversive situations to any protocol can cause stress. Think how much worse it would have been if the dog were being deliberately trained with aversives to start off with!

The real illogic of the comment in the title is that in most examples described it’s the addition of aversive stimuli that creates stress. Blaming stress that results from the accidental inclusion of aversive stimuli on the process of positive reinforcement training is not only illogical; it’s a cheap shot.

Conclusions from Examples

Drawing conclusions from examples is tricky, and can easily lead to the logical fallacy of “missing the point.”

A couple of the valid conclusions that can be drawn from the “stressed-out R+ dog” scenario are that some positive reinforcement trainers lack mechanical or observational skills, and that it is possible for other learning processes besides positive reinforcement to be going on when we are trying to train with R+.

What the scenario doesn’t support is the idea that there is some unknown dark side intrinsic to positive reinforcement training, or that there are characteristics of training methods that are immune to analysis through learning theory, or that stressors from lack of skill happen only in R+ training, or that training based on the use of aversive stimuli can make for a happier dog.

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

© Eileen Anderson 2015                                                                                                                               eileenanddogs.com

What Does Shower Mold Have to Do With Dog Training?

What Does Shower Mold Have to Do With Dog Training?

Am I really reaching today, or what? You be the judge!

There is a series of articles in the behavioral psychology literature that questions whether the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is important.*

These papers are often quoted by people who seem motivated to rehabilitate negative reinforcement, although the papers are generally more about nomenclature, and not whether or not negative reinforcement is humane.

Before we go on, here are a working definition of negative reinforcement and some examples:

Something is removed after a behavior, which results in the behavior happening more often.

Examples are: the buzzer of your alarm clock goes on until you get up and turn it off. You get rained on until you open an umbrella. A dog’s ear is pinched until she opens her mouth to accept the retrieve object.

Negative reinforcement can be involved in something as trivial as scratching an itch to something as serious as running for one’s life from a predator. There is a huge range of severity. It’s not all about pain.

When we consider dog training, we need to make a distinction regarding handler mediated negative reinforcement and automatic reinforcement. Stepping in and putting a behavioral requirement on the removal of an aversive is different from the myriad ways that dogs take action in their own lives to remove an aversive, be it mild or extreme.

Finally, there are some borderline cases where it is hard to determine whether the process involved is positive or negative reinforcement.

That is what I’m writing about today.

Borderline Cases

The classic borderline case is the thermostat. When it’s too cold and you go adjust the thermostat by two degrees, are your actions reinforced by the subsequent pleasant feeling of warmth, or the relief from the uncomfortable cold? People use the borderline cases to support arguments made in favor of doing away with the distinction between R+ and R-.

Those who like to argue that negative reinforcement is “not so bad” also like to bring up this example, even though it is not particularly typical of reinforcement scenarios.

I ran across one of these ambiguous situations recently in my own life and am going to share and analyze it here. Let’s see whether the fact that it could go either way makes the negative reinforcement any more benign.

Blue and white checkered tiles
Tile photo credit—Wikimedia Commons

Personal Example: My Shower

I am an indifferent housekeeper at best. I am prone to clutter, and tend to barely keep up with the dog hair on the floor and the dirt the dogs track in.

I have a bit of a problem with mold in my house, and my shower had recently gotten pretty bad, such that even with a thorough cleaning I couldn’t get it to look nice. I have tried several times in the past to change my behavior about that, but failed.

So when it got moldy again about four months ago I made a thoughtful plan and tried again. First I threw out and replaced my shower curtain liner and in-tub mat. I scrubbed the shower and tile and sprayed it with bleach. I did this repeatedly over the course of a few days until it was beautifully clean.

Then I thought about antecedents and reinforcers regarding the shower cleaning behavior and made a plan to maintain the shower and keep it clean.

I purchased two kinds of shower spray: one with bleach and one without. Both claim to keep the shower clean just by spraying on. (Bear with me. I’m not much interested in the details of housecleaning either, but they are relevant here.) My goal was to arrange antecedents to make the desired behavior as easy to maintain as possible.

I then adopted a loose schedule of using the cleaner with bleach a couple of days a week and the less noxious (but also probably less effective) one a few times a week. I wasn’t sure exactly how much would be necessary to keep the shower clean, but was ready—gasp—to do something every day if I had to.

So far I have kept up—it’s been a few months now—and the shower/tub is sparkling clean.

Question: What is Maintaining the Behavior?

Shower stall with white tile and a white curtain pulled aside
Shower photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Is it negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement?

Let’s map out our possible contingencies. We are talking about a reinforcement scenario (not punishment) because we are increasing/maintaining a behavior: spraying stuff on the tub and tile.

 Positive reinforcement version

  • Antecedent: Schedule says it’s time to spray down the shower with cleaner
  • Behavior: I spray cleaning agent on the shower tile
  • Consequence: Shower looks and smells pleasant and clean

Negative reinforcement version (avoidance)

  • Antecedent: There is the threat of mold in the shower
  • Behavior: I spray cleaning agent on the shower tile
  • Consequence: Thread of mold is relieved

So which scenario is it, and does it matter?

Can We Tell By Observation?

First, let’s think about whether there is any way that a person observing my behavior would be able to tell. Is there a special way to apply shower spray that indicates one’s motivator is to prevent mold? Or is there an indicator that one loves the look of a sparkly clean shower?

Behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement tend to be minimal. The person or animal tends to do the very least he or she can do to get the result. I believe this has shown to be true in the workplace, and can also often be observed in dogs that are trained using aversives only.

As Aubrey Daniels says:

Positive reinforcement maximizes performance, while negative reinforcement gets a level of performance that is just enough to get by, just enough to escape or avoid some unpleasant consequence.—Bringing out the Best in People, Aubrey Daniels

In the case of the shower, could we tell by watching? If we observed my behavior over time we could note whether I sprayed the whole shower or just the parts that tend to get moldy. We could also note whether I made efforts to determine the minimum amount of work it takes to keep a shower clean (or mold-free) using the methods I chose.

Also, we could try to tell whether I took any enjoyment out of the clean shower. Do I go out of my way to admire it? Do I polish parts of it to make it extra sparkly?

But since I’m a human being with many possible motivations, I think it would be a little difficult for an onlooker to tell what is driving my shower cleaning behavior. I may use minimal efforts because I want to save on cleaning supplies or I like to make a game out of efficiency. When I look at the shower, I may be looking for flaws, not admiring my handiwork.

But I know which it is!

So Which Is It?

What is driving my behavior is the threat of mold. I hate it. I remind myself to notice how nice the shower looks, but that is an incredibly weak reinforcer for me.

Even though I have worked out a system with minimal effort and virtually no elbow grease, I HATE having to spray stuff to maintain the clean shower. There is no pleasure in it for me, before or after. I am continually trying to figure out whether I can skip a day, or two, or maybe leave off the bleach version for a while. The situation is doubly frustrating because I feel like I can’t mess up. Because if the mold comes back even a little bit, it will be that much harder to eradicate. So I don’t even know where the boundary for “minimal” is, but I am sure trying to find it.

This is almost a purely negative reinforcement scenario for me.

Application to Dog Training

I have previously written about two situations in which it could be hard to tell the difference between positive and negative reinforcement in dog training. One is when training with food if the dog has been deprived. The behaviors that allow a starving dog to eat are negatively reinforced as her hunger is assuaged. Likewise, a game of hiding from your dog could involve either positive or negative reinforcement.

However, I think the most common situation where positive and negative reinforcement can be confused is when dogs are said to work for praise. Yes, you read that right. Compared to food and play, praise is a very weak positive reinforcer for most dogs, and often non-existent unless it has been deliberately paired with a primary reinforcer and/or the bond with the human is very strong. More often praise is a safety signal, a sign from the human that, “You have done the right thing and I am not going to hassle or pressure you anymore.”

So we may think our dog is working “for the joy of a clean shower” when she really is working to escape the mold. And, unlike humans, dogs tend to be a little more obvious about how happy they are with an interaction or a method, if we can just learn to pay attention.

Take-Home Lessons

Even if it is a negative reinforcement scenario, cleaning the shower is one of those fairly benign sounding applications. Perhaps I sound like a pretty spoiled person to be complaining about it. I know that I am privileged for that to even be on my radar as a problem, for sure. But you know, when searching for photos to use with this post, I got grossed out. And even though I found a couple of moldy tile pictures on Flickr that would be permissible to use, I ultimately decided against it because they were disgusting. I didn’t want icky pictures of mold on my blog.

I have been describing an “automatic” negative reinforcement process. My own actions directly remove the aversive, the threat of mold. How would I feel if someone used the threat of mold to get other behavior from me?  Easy answer. I wouldn’t like them very much. Especially since I am so easy to please with food or money, grin. Really, why on earth would someone want to use a threat instead?

These kinds of analyses of everyday activities are helpful to me. I hope they are helpful to others, and I hope I didn’t overshare. I have contemplated trashing this post several times, but then I thought perhaps it would help someone understand negative reinforcement just a little better. When one is first learning about the processes of learning, negative reinforcement methods can sneak in, seeming like magic. Look, I didn’t have to hurt my dog or give it food either! That’s one of the main reasons I write about it so much. It can be quite insidious.

Got any personal negative reinforcement stories?

Related Posts

Copyright 2014 Eileen Anderson

* This is the first in the series of articles I mentioned. Even the last part of the title indicates that the paper is about nomenclature and not excusing negative reinforcement.  Michael, Jack. “Positive and negative reinforcement, a distinction that is no longer necessary; or a better way to talk about bad things.” Behaviorism (1975): 33-44.

9 Effects of Punishment

9 Effects of Punishment

Here are nine documented possible side effects of the use of punishment, negative reinforcement, and of aversives in general.

  1. Escape/Avoidance: If you hurt or scare your dog, she will likely try to avoid you, the places you frequent, and whatever else she associates with the hurt.
  2. Operant Aggression: If you hurt or scare your dog, he may hurt you back.
  3. Elicited Aggression: If you hurt or scare your dog, she may hurt your other dog or your kid.
  4. Generalization (related to #1 and #2 above): If you scare or hurt your dog, she can become afraid of (or aggressive toward) other things associated with your actions, like locations and objects.
  5. Apathy: If you hurt or scare your dog a lot, she may become apathetic and not do much of anything.
  6. Conditioned Suppression/Learned Helplessness: If you hurt or scare your dog a lot unpredictably, she will live in a state of fear and also may not do much of anything.
  7. Injury: If you hurt your dog you could cause him injury. 
  8. Reinforcement of the Punisher: If you hurt or scare your dog regularly, your actions will easily be reinforced and become habitual. On the occasion that your actions don’t work to interrupt or decrease behavior, you will tend to escalate the hurt.
  9. Copying: If you see someone training their dog through pain or intimidation, it can influence you to do it yourself.

These are the things you risk if you use pain, fear, force, coercion, intimidation, or even startling to train your dog. The effects are not limited to training “tools” such as are featured in the picture below.

Not all of them will happen all the time. But they are all possible, and we can’t know ahead of time which dogs (and which owners) will be strongly affected by the use of aversive methods.

That’s the short version. For scientific references, check the resource page described and linked below.

Prong collars, air horns, squirt bottles, penny cans, and throwing bags
Some aversives used in dog training

Introducing the Aversives Resource Page

Here it is:

Danger sign homemadeFallout from Use of Aversives in Punishment and Negative Reinforcement: A Reference List

This resource page cites articles, most of them classics from peer-reviewed journals, on the above types of fallout. It is provided for people who need or want to investigate the original sources.

Most types of aversive fallout are so well documented that the reader can check out the original article and follow a cascade of research following it.

Besides classic sources for the above effects, I’ve listed the main studies that document side effects of painful or scary training for dogs, and also a couple of other important references. Like many of my projects, the page is ongoing.

If it is helpful to you, please share it. If I have left out something important, please let me know!

Related Posts:

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

Let’s Talk about Using Aversives in Training. I’ll Go First!

Let’s Talk about Using Aversives in Training. I’ll Go First!

A speech balloon with the words, "This method is OK because..." in it.

Today’s post is about how people often justify the use of aversives. I’m going to use my own experience as an example.

  • I am going to present a description of an aversive method I used to use.
  • I am going to list many common justifications that could be offered as reasons why that method could be OK.
  • I’m going to describe the possible fallout from the method for the dog and for the handler.

Aversives

Paul Chance, Learning and Behavior, 7th edition, defined aversives as:

Stimuli the animal would avoid, given the option.

Continue reading “Let’s Talk about Using Aversives in Training. I’ll Go First!”
How Did The Aversive Get There? A Call for Honesty

How Did The Aversive Get There? A Call for Honesty

I am mystified by one particular argument of those who use protocols for fearful or reactive dogs other than desensitization/counterconditioning (DS/CC). These other protocols often use negative reinforcement; if not that, then sometimes desensitization without counterconditioning; sometimes extinction; sometimes habituation.

People who practice these protocols intentionally expose their dogs to their triggers at an aversive level at times, as opposed to people who practice pure DS/CC, which is ideally practiced at a distance or intensity such that the trigger is not aversive to the animal.

The argument that bothers me is this:

It’s OK to expose the animal to a trigger at a potentially aversive level as long as we are not the ones who put the aversive there for them to be exposed to. We’re not adding an aversive; it’s already there.

I wrote a post a while back addressing this idea in part. I pointed out that for negative reinforcement protocols, the ethical and definitional difference is not about how the aversive got there. To say so is to invoke the naturalistic fallacy.  The ethical difference rides on whether the trainer chooses to put a contingency on the animal getting away from it, not whether the aversive is “natural.” Do they ask for or wait for a certain behavior before retreating? Because that is a choice. If the dog gets close enough to the trigger that she starts showing stress, there is always the option of getting her humanely out of there, with no requirements on her behavior from the handler.

Where the aversive came from is ethically irrelevant, since the trainer makes a choice whether or not to use it, however it got there. Most would agree that such a use is an ethical choice, to be carefully considered.

So the fact that people are still mentioning this irrelevancy about “who put it there” seems like a lot of hand waving to shoo away the real issue: choosing to use an aversive.

But wait–in case it matters–how did it get there?

How It Really Got There

My hand, my voice, my phone.
My hand, my voice, my phone.

I have a formerly feral dog with whom I have been working for a few years, gradually getting her socialized to people, and making lovely progress with DS/CC.

Even though my goal is to keep the triggers (people, in her case) under the threshold of aversiveness, I realize that I am dealing with potentially aversive situations when we go out into the world. And I arrange for and seek out those situations for her sessions. For instance, I make phone calls at times to arrange for a controlled session with a person unknown or partially known to her.

If I do this and blow it and let her get too close or stay too long, I have exposed her to an aversive. How’d it get there? Me! Entirely through my choices! I arranged it. I deliberately sought it out with her. I made the phone call, drove my dog to the meeting place, and exposed her to the trigger. I added it to her environment, or added her to an environment where I knew it to be.*

People following any protocol generally arrange for triggers to be present in this way, including people, dogs, specific things like people on bikes or scooters, or other animals. So if someone is doing any type of exposure treatment, how can they claim that they are not responsible for the aversive being there? Did the Tooth Fairy bring it? Can their dog pick up the phone and drive the car?

It is not logical to claim to have nothing to do with the aversive being in the environment if you planned it, arranged for it, or sought it out in the first place. And that includes stealth sessions. If you are out there looking for triggers to use without their knowledge, you are still the one choosing to expose your dog to them. Finding = adding.

Empathy

You can probably detect that I find this irritating, but I seek to look at it in an empathetic way.

I have been reading some posts by Behavior Adjustment Training (BAT) practitioners in particular who express that they feel attacked and beleaguered by questions about negative reinforcement and humane training attached to their protocol. I get that they feel pushed into a corner.

I can empathize with that. Here is something you believe in, and people are asking difficult, pointed questions about it. Sure, anybody would be defensive. As a blogger, I have to deal with all levels of criticism. Even the most reasonable of criticism hurts.

There are people who react to these questions with dignity, though. They say yes, they are using negative reinforcement at times if they use certain protocols. They have thought it out, see good results, usually use other protocols as well, and are ultra careful about side effects. They don’t play like the presence of the aversive has nothing to do with them. Although I may not agree about all methods these folks use, I can appreciate their transparency and honesty about the science.

But it really worries me that there are still people who claim not to be responsible for getting the aversive into the environment. If they are trying to elude responsibility for that, even though it’s completely a side issue, what else are they willing to overlook, justify, or push out of their minds?

Thank you to all the people who do their best not to adjust the science (or even basic logical thinking) to justify their own preferences.

Coming Up:

  • The Girl with the Paper Hat Part 2: The Matching Law
  • Punishment is not a Feeling
  • Why Counterconditioning Didn’t “Work”
  • How Skilled are You at Ignoring? (Extinction Part 2)
  • What if Respondent Learning Didn’t Work?

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

* I am not confusing positive punishment and negative reinforcement, here. To use negative reinforcement, there has to be an aversive in the environment to be removed or escaped. We’re talking about how the aversive got there in the first place.

5/25/14 Addendum

This post is an urge to be honest about one aspect of the use of aversives.  I believe that all trainers, regardless of method, should be honest about their training choices and philosophy. You do it: own it. That’s the message in a nutshell. And I directed it to an argument that I believe does the opposite of “owning it.”

However, one of the common responses I have gotten over the past week  is comparisons of the ranges and setups of DS/CC protocols and those using negative reinforcement, often in an apparent attempt to minimize the differences.

I have previously provided a webinar and a movie on the differences and similarities of the major protocols for addressing fear in animals, with particular emphasis on their ranges and setups.

To review a few relevant points: Debating who starts further from the stimulus is a moot point.  No matter how far away you start, you are required to go into the aversive range for a negative reinforcement protocol to work.  In desensitization and counterconditioning you have no need to cross into the range of stimulus aversiveness in order to get effective results. In R-, aversive exposure is necessary. The protocol depends on it. In DS/CC, aversive exposure is by accident and hopefully rare. That is an important distinction between DS/CC and negative reinforcement-based protocols.

The other important distinction is that you can get a positive conditioned emotional response from DS/CC. With DS/CC and negative reinforcement there are two very different types of learning going on.

 

 

Thresholds: The Movie

Thresholds: The Movie

Summer, a sable colored dog is lying down on a step with a toy in front of her. Her eyes are wide and her ears  very far back and in motion. She is reacting to a noise and looks extremely fearful. She is at the threshold of a fear response.
Summer at the instant she reaches threshold of fear

I have made a movie about thresholds in dog training. It gives a quick overview of the work that I presented in my webinar for the Pet Professional Guild. (Click here for a complete script of the video; or expand the audio (only) transcript below the video.)

The threshold webinar is still available as a recording ($10 members/$20 non-members of PPG) and I encourage anyone who is interested in thresholds to view it.

Also, I have previously published a blog post on the topic: Thresholds in Dog Training: How Many?

If you are a visual learner, the movie will probably be helpful. I spend a lot of time explaining the diagrams, and have an animation of what happens to the thresholds as we train.  The movie also has video examples of dogs and stimuli over the thresholds. (Plus it has a threshold of hearing test! How cool is that?**)

Threshold Movie Script

[Dogs barking]

>>EILEEN ANDERSON:

Have you ever heard a dog trainer use the term “over threshold” and wondered what it meant?

A threshold is the point or level at which something begins or changes. That’s the standard dictionary definition. But the interesting thing is that there are actually three physiological and psychological thresholds that are important when we are training our animals.

The first threshold we need to know about is the sensory threshold as defined in psychology. Here’s a definition: “The faintest detectable stimulus, of any given type, is the absolute threshold for that type of stimulus.” Have you ever heard the term, “threshold of hearing?” Right now during this slide I am playing a high frequency hum. Can you hear it? If not, it is under your threshold of hearing for that frequency. If you can hear it, it is over the threshold.

The sensory threshold is involved when our dogs are able to see, hear, or smell something new in their environment.

Another threshold is the threshold of reactivity or fear. This is the one people usually mean when they say their dog is over threshold. The most general definition of this threshold is the point at which the sympathetic nervous system responds when the animal is afraid. This causes chemical changes in the body and overt behaviors usually falling into the categories of fight, flight, or freeze.

Dogs who are aggressing are generally over the threshold of fear. Here are two other examples of dogs over that threshold.

[vet clinic noises]

>>EILEEN:

She’s panting, but it’s not hot.

She’s hyper vigilant.

Trying to escape, or hide.

And trembling.

This dog is practically paralyzed with fear.

But there’s one more threshold, and it’s located behaviorally between the other two. If one threshold is where the dog sees something, and another is where the dog freaks out about it, what’s in between?

The point at which the thing becomes aversive, where the dog starts to be uncomfortable with it.  This could be called the threshold of stimulus aversiveness.

Here is an example of a dog in a situation where a stimulus is over the threshold of aversiveness. In other words, she is stressed about something in her environment, but so far she is holding it together.

[Neighborhood noises: siren in distance, children talking, birds, a sudden thump]

>>EILEEN:

She repeatedly licks her lips and looks behind her.

She’s responding to my cues, but she’s worried about the noises.

In my webinar on thresholds in dog training, I made diagrams of these thresholds, and discussed where each of our common training protocols falls among the thresholds. Here is a summary of those diagrams.

The black line represents distance from or intensity of the stimulus.

All three of the protocols discussed here take place over the threshold of stimulus perception, since the animal has to perceive the stimulus to learn about it.

The combination of desensitization and counterconditioning is correctly practiced under the threshold of stimulus aversiveness.

Protocols that use negative reinforcement straddle the threshold of stimulus aversiveness. The animal is exposed to the stimulus at an aversive level, and escape from the aversive level of the stimulus is used as a negative reinforcer for appropriate behaviors.

The closest proximity to the aversive stimulus may be more or less than I show here; the important point is that negative reinforcement protocols have to cross the threshold of stimulus aversiveness to work.

Flooding takes place at or above the threshold of fear.

The thresholds aren’t always spaced out nicely. For example, if the threshold of perception and the threshold of aversiveness are very close together in space, a trainer using desensitization/counter conditioning would probably not use distance as the initial way to keep the stimulus non-aversive. The trainer would probably use a different form of the stimulus first. This configuration of the thresholds is probably common with wild animals.

Likewise, if the threshold of stimulus aversiveness and the threshold of fear are very close together, a negative reinforcement protocol would be very difficult to perform without risking flooding.

Finally, the thresholds move because of environmental factors, the animal’s stamina and psychological state, and of course as we train. This is what we hope will happen as we train.

For more information on thresholds, please see the links to my webinar and blog in the video description. Thanks for watching!


Coming Up:

  • BarkBusters: Myths about Barking
  • Surprising Progress on Thunderstorm phobia
  • Why Counterconditioning Didn’t “Work”  
  • How Skilled are You at Ignoring? (Extinction Part 2)
  • What if Respondent Learning Didn’t Work?

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

** For the auditory people, musicians, and nerds among us (I’m all three): I used an iPhone app to generate a high frequency sinusoid (15.5 kHz) and recorded it for the movie. I used an oscilloscope app to make sure that the sound was playing during that part of the movie, through my own computer anyway. It’s just below my threshold of hearing. Younger people can probably hear it, if their computer speakers can generate it.

Discussing Negative Reinforcement Responsibly

Discussing Negative Reinforcement Responsibly

R- captionI didn’t give today’s post a cute title, because this situation makes me very, very sad.

There are some strange claims going around the dog training community. They are not being made by shock trainers, although I am sure they appreciate them. Instead I am hearing them from many people in the force free community. The statements minimize the problems that can be caused by using negative reinforcement.

In negative reinforcement (R-), something that makes the dog uncomfortable, including that it may frighten or hurt the dog, is used to get behavior. The dog stays in the uncomfortable state until it performs a desired behavior. Then the uncomfortable state is ended. (The definition is contingent on a future increase in the behavior.) This linked post has examples of some of the ways that negative reinforcement is used in training, ranging from body pressure to an ear pinch retrieve.

There is truly a continuum in the severity in the applications of R-. In the human world, it can run the gamut from putting on a coat, to a staredown, to torture. Negative reinforcement happens a lot in the natural world, too, often at very low levels of aversiveness.  So people are correct if they say that some situations are more aversive than others, or that using negative reinforcement is not always a catastrophe. The trouble begins when they make blanket statements–especially blanket incorrect statements–that include all negative reinforcement.

Following are two related versions of the statement about negative reinforcement that I keep seeing.

Version 1

The reason some trainers object to negative reinforcement is that when people add the aversive, there can be fallout.

This statement omits the majority of the problems known to accompany the use of negative reinforcement and aversives in general. The fact that an animal’s response to an aversive can get generalized to the handler is only one of the many problems with using negative reinforcement.

I rewrote the statement to be more complete.

The reasons some trainers object to negative reinforcement include that it employs an aversive, the association with the aversive can be generalized, it is on the undesirable end of the humane hierarchy, it is linked with reactivity and aggression, and has other undesirable side effects for both the animal and the trainer.

The main issue isn’t whether there’s a human wielding the aversive, it’s that an aversive is being used in the first place.

If the only problem with negative reinforcement were that the animal might make an association between the icky thing and the human, all that would be necessary to make negative reinforcement acceptable across the board would be to prevent the animal from making that association.

The shock trainers must be delighted whenever they hear this statement come from the mouths of force free trainers. If it were true, all they would have to do for their training to be acceptable would be to make sure the dog doesn’t know that they are controlling the shock. (And shock trainers with skill and knowledge of learning theory take care to do just that, by the way.) Poof! No more criticism of shock!

I know that this is not the intent of the force free trainers who are defending negative reinforcement. But as long as they make blanket statements about that quadrant, it is the logical conclusion.

It also strikes me as very self centered to mention only this particular problem with negative reinforcement. Really? It’s OK to deliberately use something unpleasant to get the dog to do stuff, as long as the dog continues to like us?

Version 2

Negative reinforcement is ethically OK as long as the handler isn’t the one who adds the aversive to the environment.

On the surface, this sounds like the same thing. But in general, the people who say this are discussing ethics, not behavioral fallout. I have seen probably a dozen people write that using an aversive that is “already out there” is ethically acceptable, while adding one oneself is not. It’s a tempting rationale, but there are some real problems with it.

Let’s go straight to examples on this one.

Monsoon_Lightning_Strike,_Table_Mesa
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

  1. Let’s say my dog and I are out in the yard and it starts to storm. I notice that my dog is cowering at the door; she is scared of the thunder. Instead of letting her in immediately, I require that she sit and give me eye contact for 10 seconds. If she can do that, her reinforcement is that she gets to go in the house where she feels safer from the storm.
  2. My dog and I are again in my back yard. I have bought a new sump pump for the crawl space in my house. I turn the pump on while my dog is watching. It will run for 2 minutes as a test. I notice that my dog is cowering at the door; she is scared of the pump sound. Instead of letting her in immediately, I require that she sit and give me eye contact for 10 seconds. If she can do that, her reinforcement is that she gets to go in the house where she can get away from the pump.

Now compare the two experiences for the dog.  She is sitting there at the door trying to figure out how to get me to let her in, away from the scary noise. If the noises are equally aversive, the two situations are just the same.

I don’t see a difference ethically. The thunderstorm exposure is no more humane than the sump pump.  In both cases I chose to use an aversive and required my dog to stay longer than necessary in a situation that scared her. And I did have another option in each case, one that is almost always ignored by people defending negative reinforcement protocols.  I could have just let her in the house without requiring a particular behavior.

Natural vs Contrived Negative Reinforcement

There is a recognized difference between two types of reinforcement: natural (or automatic) negative reinforcement and contrived (or socially mediated) negative reinforcement. I have written a post about them. Paul Chance’s definition is as follows:

Natural reinforcers are events that follow spontaneously from a behavior… Contrived reinforcers are events that are provided by someone for the purpose of modifying behavior. Paul Chance, Learning and Behavior, Seventh Ed., p. 140-141

Getting inside a house is not a natural consequence of sitting and offering a human extended eye contact. Both of the above examples are contrived, even though one utilizes a phenomenon in nature, and the other a sound from a machine deliberately turned on by the human. There is no stipulation about the stimulus for these definitions, only the reinforcer.

A related example of natural negative reinforcement would be if my dog were in the back yard, it thundered, and she came in the doggie door under her own power. In this case, the reinforcer of getting in the house is a natural consequence of the dog going through the doggie door.

A Message from My Heart

Making glib claims that minimize the harm in negative reinforcement can result in dogs being hurt.

Please remember that when you make blanket claims about negative reinforcement, you are not necessarily talking about the more benign end of the spectrum or just one instance. If you have stature as a trainer, you are giving blanket permission to countless people to be cavalier about using aversives.

For whatever reason, most people are primed to believe it when told that X, Y, or Z method “doesn’t hurt” the dog. Many of us pet owners have had this experience. I would venture to say that most pro trainers have come across it in their clients. People are ready to believe that things that hurt dogs don’t hurt them. And they are ready to believe that practices that harm dogs are not harmful.

It is responsible to urge caution in the use of aversives. It is not responsible to minimize the fallout.

Regarding Comments

This is  a post about speaking truthfully when making general claims about aversives. It is not about any training method. It does not “damn” anyone who uses negative reinforcement when training their animal. It urges them not to make blanket statements about the acceptableness of R- in general or to argue in favor of its acceptance as a general practice. 

Coming Up

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

Theme: Overlay by Kaira Extra Text
Cape Town, South Africa