Dog Training Courses
With so many people claiming to have the best training methods, which should you choose - punishment, rewards or a "balanced" approach, combining both?
There's an old saying among trainers: "The only thing two dog trainers can agree on is what the third trainer is doing wrong." That certainly used to be true in the early days of training when trainers claimed their approach to be completely original. But now, the science of learning and animal behavior has taken away the mystery of training methods, explaining how and why certain methods work.
In reality, there are really only two types of training methods: Reward-Based and Aversive-Based. While the techniques and tools used may vary widely within those methods, the underlying philosophy is always broken into one of those two categories.
AVERSIVE-BASED TRAINING
Aversive-based training methods, also referred to as compulsive methods and traditional training methods, are centered on applying and removing something the dog finds unpleasant, relying on two principles of operant conditioning:
R- Negative Reinforcement
Negative reinforcement is the process of removing or withholding an aversive when the dog performs correctly. It is considered reinforcement because it increases the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated. It is negative because something is removed when the dog performs correctly.
One common example is putting pressure on a dog's collar, while asking the dog to "Sit." When the dog sits, the pressure on collar is released. Another example of this in our own lives is the seat belt buzzer in your car. When you put your seat belt on, it stops. You have just been negatively reinforced.
P+ Positive Punishment
Positive punishment applies something aversive to decrease the chance that a behavior will be repeated. With positive punishment, an “incorrect” response produces an unpleasant or aversive consequence.
A shock from an electronic collar when a dog barks is positive punishment. It is positive because something is applied. It is punishment because the behavior stops.
Aversive-based methods often rely on an array of training equipment, including chain ("choke") collars, metal prong ("pinch") collars, and electronic ("shock") collars. Even when these types of collars are not used, punishment-based training is reliant on a collar and a leash in order to administer "corrections" with a sharp jerk of the leash.
Some trainers label their methods positive reinforcement because they praise the dog after removing the aversive. However, the praise becomes the indication that the dog avoided an aversive, which is negative reinforcement.
REWARD-BASED TRAINING
R+ Positive Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement rewards a behavior by giving the dog something he wants or likes. By applying or adding something pleasant, you increase the likelihood a desired behavior will occur again.
For example, if your dog comes when called and you give her a treat, she has been positively reinforced. She will be more likely to come to you next time you call her.
P- Negative Punishment
Negative punishment is the act of taking away something the dog wants as a way to decrease unwanted behavior.
One example is a dog that jumps and barks when the owner prepares to throw the ball. If the owner withholds the throw of the ball or, even better, walks away with the ball when the dog jumps and barks, the dog will begin to learn that jumping and barking makes the ball go away. Another example of negative punishment comes from the cable company. If you don't pay your bill, the cable company takes away your service until you perform correctly (pay your bill).
Within reward-based training, there are many different techniques, including lure/reward and clicker/marker techniques. Some reward-based trainers recommend special equipment, such as head halters or front-clip harnesses, to prevent pulling on walks while the dog is undergoing the training process. However, this equipment is generally a management tool and not a training tool, in that it is not used to teach new behaviors
"BALANCED" TRAINING: Balance is always good, right?
When faced with two extremes, we often tend to drift toward the middle, trying to find a balance between the two. To many dog owners this seems to be the most reasonable approach; No extremes, just a middle ground between the two methodologies. If the dog does something right, use positive reinforcement. If the dog does something wrong, use positive punishment.
However, who determines if the dog's "bad" behavior is the result of disobedience or a flaw in the trainer's skill or knowledge? Who decides if the trainer is knowledgeable enough to spot a potential physical limitation that might be impairing the dog's ability to perform the desired behavior? What training does that person have in recognizing signs of stress that could interfere with the dog's learning?
Here is a video of a stray dog I recently picked up late at night. The next morning, I was playing around with some training exercises, trying to get a better sense of his personality and noticed some difficulty getting a "Sit":
Without the training and continued education that has taught me to recognize potential problems, including physical impairments, I might have taken this dog's refusal to sit as evidence that reward-based training wasn't going to work.
A skilled and knowledgeable trainer adapts to the learning needs of the individual dog, has more than one way to teach a new behavior, and ensures the dog has a thorough understanding of the behavior before putting them in more difficult situations, thereby setting the dog up for success.
Dog training is an unregulated industry, so people advertising as trainers are not held to any standard that ensures they have a minimum level of knowledge and skill (unlike contractors, massage therapists and hair stylists, to name a few). This is why it is so important for dog owners to do their research before choosing a dog trainer.
Most often, if the dog is failing, it is the fault of the human, not the dog.
BEHAVIORAL FALLOUT: Why Methods Matter?
I frequently see dogs with behavior problems that are the result of aversive methods, whether at the hand of the unskilled owner or at the hands of a "professional." A recent study found that aversive methods, speficially the use of physical punishment, did not produce better-behaved dogs. Another study, published in 2009, found that aversive methods can increase aggressive behavior in dogs.
The risk of causing or exacerbating unwanted behavior is high with punishment-based methods for the following reasons:
Negative Association - All punishment runs the risk of creating a negative association to something in the environment - or the environment, itself - or the person that is handling the dog when the punishment is delivered. A recent study in Germany measured the Cortisol (stress hormone) levels of dogs trained with shock collars. In the dogs that received random, poorly timed shocks (much as would be delivered by the average dog owner), the Cortisol levels increased over 300% just by entering the room where the dogs had been shocked one month after the training had taken place. As stress is the main cause of most behavior problems, increasing a dog's stress levels runs the risk of causing behavior problems that were not present or exacerbating existing problems.
One example of how these methods increase stress involved a dog that suffered severe diarrhea at each training session with her former trainer, a man who used severe collar corrections on a prong collar, causing the dog to cry in pain. Shortly after her first training session, the dog severely bit a man who was visiting the owner, although she had shown no fear or aggression to men prior to her training.
Sensitization- Because traditional behavior modification methods involve setting the dog up to exhibit the undesired behavior and then punish it, the dog must be repeatedly exposed to the trigger that incites the behavior. The more a dog is exposed to a trigger and has a negative experience, the more likely the chance of sensitizing the dog, making the dog more sensitive to that trigger.
Positive training methods, on the other hand, work towards desensitizing the dog through carefully controlled, limited exposure. Each exposure is paired with something pleasant, often food, which changes the dog's association to the trigger. At the same time, the dog is taught an alternate, more acceptable behavior to perform when the trigger is present, such as looking at the owner instead of lunging or barking at another dog.
Suppression of Warnings - Barking, growling and snapping without making contact with the skin, even an inhibited bite that does not break the skin, are all normal communication from dogs. These warnings are designed to increase distance, keeping the dog safe. A dog that can warn and have the warning respected doesn't intend to, or need to bite.
This is not to say that the only alternative is to ignore or reward the barking or growling. Instead, these warnings should be respected, and then the owner should work with a qualified professional to change the dog's behavior in those situations.
Aversive methods can and do work on some dogs in some instances. Primarily dogs of sound temperament, bred for work, who are learning obedience and when applied by trainers with excellent timing and skill, who know how to use such methods sparingly and when not to use them. Unfortunately, with training being an unregulated industry, trainers who have such advanced skills and knowledge are few and far between.
REWARD-BASED TRAINING AND AGGRESSION.
A common misconception is that reward-based methods won't work with aggression or that reward-based trainers recommend ignoring all bad behavior, including aggression. Sound too silly to be true?
Reward-based trainers only advise ignoring behavior that does not threaten the safety of property, people or animals. Instead, they outsmart the dogs by planning ahead and preventing these problem behaviors from recurring during the training process. They do not put the dog in a situation where it reacts aggressively and then try to fix the problem. This is reacting, not training.
Reward-based trainers first teach the dog how to behave (such as walking nicely on leash, holding a down-stay at the front door, etc.), then practice those new, better behaviors at greater intensities, gradually building the dog's tolerance to the situations that normally trigger aggressive behavior. This way, the dog continues to practice good behaviors rather than aggression. It might not look as flashy on television, but produces longer-lasting results. Crash diets might work in time for the wedding, but permanent results require long-term changes in lifestyle.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILL & EXPERIENCE
Methods do matter, but the use of certain methods is not always an indication of the quality of the trainer. I have seen some highly-skilled and judicious use of aversive methods by trainers who had in-depth knowledge of when, why and how to use such methods and, more importantly, when NOT to use them. I have also seen some very badly executed attempts at reward-based methods by inexperienced trainers. The difference is that aversive methods applied without skill or sufficient understand can have serious repercussions.
Dog training is both a science and an art. For some, learning the science behind the methods is easy, but learning the art of how and when to apply various techniques and how to adjust those techniques to each individual dog is much more difficult. And there are those who can make working with a dog look like a dance, but struggle when instructing a dog owner on how to get the same results.
This is why it is so important for dog owners to observe a dog trainer in action before beginning a training program. A professional trainer will never refuse to let a dog owner observe a class and ask questions before/after. I recommend observing several different trainers for comparison. Learn how to choose a dog trainer.
With so many people claiming to have the best training methods, which should you choose - punishment, rewards or a "balanced" approach, combining both?
There's an old saying among trainers: "The only thing two dog trainers can agree on is what the third trainer is doing wrong." That certainly used to be true in the early days of training when trainers claimed their approach to be completely original. But now, the science of learning and animal behavior has taken away the mystery of training methods, explaining how and why certain methods work.
In reality, there are really only two types of training methods: Reward-Based and Aversive-Based. While the techniques and tools used may vary widely within those methods, the underlying philosophy is always broken into one of those two categories.
AVERSIVE-BASED TRAINING
Aversive-based training methods, also referred to as compulsive methods and traditional training methods, are centered on applying and removing something the dog finds unpleasant, relying on two principles of operant conditioning:
R- Negative Reinforcement
Negative reinforcement is the process of removing or withholding an aversive when the dog performs correctly. It is considered reinforcement because it increases the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated. It is negative because something is removed when the dog performs correctly.
One common example is putting pressure on a dog's collar, while asking the dog to "Sit." When the dog sits, the pressure on collar is released. Another example of this in our own lives is the seat belt buzzer in your car. When you put your seat belt on, it stops. You have just been negatively reinforced.
P+ Positive Punishment
Positive punishment applies something aversive to decrease the chance that a behavior will be repeated. With positive punishment, an “incorrect” response produces an unpleasant or aversive consequence.
A shock from an electronic collar when a dog barks is positive punishment. It is positive because something is applied. It is punishment because the behavior stops.
Aversive-based methods often rely on an array of training equipment, including chain ("choke") collars, metal prong ("pinch") collars, and electronic ("shock") collars. Even when these types of collars are not used, punishment-based training is reliant on a collar and a leash in order to administer "corrections" with a sharp jerk of the leash.
Some trainers label their methods positive reinforcement because they praise the dog after removing the aversive. However, the praise becomes the indication that the dog avoided an aversive, which is negative reinforcement.
REWARD-BASED TRAINING
R+ Positive Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement rewards a behavior by giving the dog something he wants or likes. By applying or adding something pleasant, you increase the likelihood a desired behavior will occur again.
For example, if your dog comes when called and you give her a treat, she has been positively reinforced. She will be more likely to come to you next time you call her.
P- Negative Punishment
Negative punishment is the act of taking away something the dog wants as a way to decrease unwanted behavior.
One example is a dog that jumps and barks when the owner prepares to throw the ball. If the owner withholds the throw of the ball or, even better, walks away with the ball when the dog jumps and barks, the dog will begin to learn that jumping and barking makes the ball go away. Another example of negative punishment comes from the cable company. If you don't pay your bill, the cable company takes away your service until you perform correctly (pay your bill).
Within reward-based training, there are many different techniques, including lure/reward and clicker/marker techniques. Some reward-based trainers recommend special equipment, such as head halters or front-clip harnesses, to prevent pulling on walks while the dog is undergoing the training process. However, this equipment is generally a management tool and not a training tool, in that it is not used to teach new behaviors
"BALANCED" TRAINING: Balance is always good, right?
When faced with two extremes, we often tend to drift toward the middle, trying to find a balance between the two. To many dog owners this seems to be the most reasonable approach; No extremes, just a middle ground between the two methodologies. If the dog does something right, use positive reinforcement. If the dog does something wrong, use positive punishment.
However, who determines if the dog's "bad" behavior is the result of disobedience or a flaw in the trainer's skill or knowledge? Who decides if the trainer is knowledgeable enough to spot a potential physical limitation that might be impairing the dog's ability to perform the desired behavior? What training does that person have in recognizing signs of stress that could interfere with the dog's learning?
Here is a video of a stray dog I recently picked up late at night. The next morning, I was playing around with some training exercises, trying to get a better sense of his personality and noticed some difficulty getting a "Sit":
Without the training and continued education that has taught me to recognize potential problems, including physical impairments, I might have taken this dog's refusal to sit as evidence that reward-based training wasn't going to work.
A skilled and knowledgeable trainer adapts to the learning needs of the individual dog, has more than one way to teach a new behavior, and ensures the dog has a thorough understanding of the behavior before putting them in more difficult situations, thereby setting the dog up for success.
Dog training is an unregulated industry, so people advertising as trainers are not held to any standard that ensures they have a minimum level of knowledge and skill (unlike contractors, massage therapists and hair stylists, to name a few). This is why it is so important for dog owners to do their research before choosing a dog trainer.
Most often, if the dog is failing, it is the fault of the human, not the dog.
BEHAVIORAL FALLOUT: Why Methods Matter?
I frequently see dogs with behavior problems that are the result of aversive methods, whether at the hand of the unskilled owner or at the hands of a "professional." A recent study found that aversive methods, speficially the use of physical punishment, did not produce better-behaved dogs. Another study, published in 2009, found that aversive methods can increase aggressive behavior in dogs.
The risk of causing or exacerbating unwanted behavior is high with punishment-based methods for the following reasons:
Negative Association - All punishment runs the risk of creating a negative association to something in the environment - or the environment, itself - or the person that is handling the dog when the punishment is delivered. A recent study in Germany measured the Cortisol (stress hormone) levels of dogs trained with shock collars. In the dogs that received random, poorly timed shocks (much as would be delivered by the average dog owner), the Cortisol levels increased over 300% just by entering the room where the dogs had been shocked one month after the training had taken place. As stress is the main cause of most behavior problems, increasing a dog's stress levels runs the risk of causing behavior problems that were not present or exacerbating existing problems.
One example of how these methods increase stress involved a dog that suffered severe diarrhea at each training session with her former trainer, a man who used severe collar corrections on a prong collar, causing the dog to cry in pain. Shortly after her first training session, the dog severely bit a man who was visiting the owner, although she had shown no fear or aggression to men prior to her training.
Sensitization- Because traditional behavior modification methods involve setting the dog up to exhibit the undesired behavior and then punish it, the dog must be repeatedly exposed to the trigger that incites the behavior. The more a dog is exposed to a trigger and has a negative experience, the more likely the chance of sensitizing the dog, making the dog more sensitive to that trigger.
Positive training methods, on the other hand, work towards desensitizing the dog through carefully controlled, limited exposure. Each exposure is paired with something pleasant, often food, which changes the dog's association to the trigger. At the same time, the dog is taught an alternate, more acceptable behavior to perform when the trigger is present, such as looking at the owner instead of lunging or barking at another dog.
Suppression of Warnings - Barking, growling and snapping without making contact with the skin, even an inhibited bite that does not break the skin, are all normal communication from dogs. These warnings are designed to increase distance, keeping the dog safe. A dog that can warn and have the warning respected doesn't intend to, or need to bite.
This is not to say that the only alternative is to ignore or reward the barking or growling. Instead, these warnings should be respected, and then the owner should work with a qualified professional to change the dog's behavior in those situations.
Aversive methods can and do work on some dogs in some instances. Primarily dogs of sound temperament, bred for work, who are learning obedience and when applied by trainers with excellent timing and skill, who know how to use such methods sparingly and when not to use them. Unfortunately, with training being an unregulated industry, trainers who have such advanced skills and knowledge are few and far between.
REWARD-BASED TRAINING AND AGGRESSION.
A common misconception is that reward-based methods won't work with aggression or that reward-based trainers recommend ignoring all bad behavior, including aggression. Sound too silly to be true?
Reward-based trainers only advise ignoring behavior that does not threaten the safety of property, people or animals. Instead, they outsmart the dogs by planning ahead and preventing these problem behaviors from recurring during the training process. They do not put the dog in a situation where it reacts aggressively and then try to fix the problem. This is reacting, not training.
Reward-based trainers first teach the dog how to behave (such as walking nicely on leash, holding a down-stay at the front door, etc.), then practice those new, better behaviors at greater intensities, gradually building the dog's tolerance to the situations that normally trigger aggressive behavior. This way, the dog continues to practice good behaviors rather than aggression. It might not look as flashy on television, but produces longer-lasting results. Crash diets might work in time for the wedding, but permanent results require long-term changes in lifestyle.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILL & EXPERIENCE
Methods do matter, but the use of certain methods is not always an indication of the quality of the trainer. I have seen some highly-skilled and judicious use of aversive methods by trainers who had in-depth knowledge of when, why and how to use such methods and, more importantly, when NOT to use them. I have also seen some very badly executed attempts at reward-based methods by inexperienced trainers. The difference is that aversive methods applied without skill or sufficient understand can have serious repercussions.
Dog training is both a science and an art. For some, learning the science behind the methods is easy, but learning the art of how and when to apply various techniques and how to adjust those techniques to each individual dog is much more difficult. And there are those who can make working with a dog look like a dance, but struggle when instructing a dog owner on how to get the same results.
This is why it is so important for dog owners to observe a dog trainer in action before beginning a training program. A professional trainer will never refuse to let a dog owner observe a class and ask questions before/after. I recommend observing several different trainers for comparison. Learn how to choose a dog trainer.
Dog Training Techniques
The vast majority of reward-based trainers, like myself, who have been training for 10, 20 even 40 years, started using some form of aversive methods. Whether those methods included traditional methods, such as corrections on metal choke collars, dominance-based methods, including the use of intimidation and force, or modern aversive methods, including the use of electronic shock collars, we've been there, done that. And, yes, we work with the same behavior cases as most other trainers, everything from severe separation anxiety to serious aggression and with the same breeds.
The difference is, although many of us were skilled in the use of aversive methods, we continue learning and improving our skills. We stay open-minded to the possibility that there were other ways and even better ways. And, eventually, we abandoned aversive-based and even "balanced" methods as we learned how to better teach dogs to do what we want.
The vast majority of reward-based trainers, like myself, who have been training for 10, 20 even 40 years, started using some form of aversive methods. Whether those methods included traditional methods, such as corrections on metal choke collars, dominance-based methods, including the use of intimidation and force, or modern aversive methods, including the use of electronic shock collars, we've been there, done that. And, yes, we work with the same behavior cases as most other trainers, everything from severe separation anxiety to serious aggression and with the same breeds.
The difference is, although many of us were skilled in the use of aversive methods, we continue learning and improving our skills. We stay open-minded to the possibility that there were other ways and even better ways. And, eventually, we abandoned aversive-based and even "balanced" methods as we learned how to better teach dogs to do what we want.
No comments:
Post a Comment