Do Confrontational Dog Training Methods Really Work?

huski

I have to disagree with you there. I know many dogs who have been trained to break inappropriate behaviours with aversives, why would it pop back up if the dog has learnt that the behaviour is not rewarding?

If they are trained an appropriate behavior in addition to punishment, sure, it's possible the behavior won't crop back up. But punishment merely suppresses a behavior temporarily it does not remove or delete the behavior. It does not cause the behavior to become extinct.

huski

I think you're making quite an assumption there. Why do aversives or punishment have to involve yelling at, hurting or scaring a dog? I've used aversives and punishments with my dogs and they are far from fearful of me (keeping in mind that an aversive can include anything the dog finds remotely unpleasant, such as a vocal correction). Those aversives have never included using pain, fear or intimidation.

I do not think I am making any sort of assumptions at all. An aversive stimulus is something is unpleasant, and regardless of how unpleasant it is, it means we are still purposefully subjecting our pets to something unpleasant that they do not like. Whether it's a leash pop, a voice correction, alpha rolling, or something more severe. It's still so unpleasant that it is enough to suppress a behavior! Aversives do not need to be severe in our eyes for a negative association to become present, or for the dog to see it as severe - this is obvious for dogs whose behavior can be suppressed with voice corrections. Obviously it is unpleasant enough to suppress an otherwise rewarding behavior - so obviously is must have quite a bit 'power'. And again it comes down to the question, why resort to making our dogs feel, see, or hear something purposefully unpleasant if we do not have to?

huski

Again, why do using avesives have to create pain or fear in a dog? Your post makes me suspect you've never learnt how to use them appropriately ;) I'd never use inhumane training methods with my dogs. I'd never use fear to train my dogs. But I'm not ignorant enough to think that I've never used any training method that's not in some way aversive to them.

You're making some assumptions here that I don't know how to use punishment appropriately. I very much do, and I very much have decided that it's not appropriate and unnecessary, and that one can receive results quicker, easier, and with much less stress by using positive reinforcement and event markers. It all comes down to the fact we have choices and do not need to subject our dogs to 'unplesant' stimulus to train them.

huski

You're example is an issue of poor timing, not an issue that arises with the use of aversives and/or punishment when they are used appropriately and correctly.

No, it's an example in how there is an error in your system. If a dog is approaching and the dog being handled starts alarm barking at the same point, and you correct, you are correcting the alarm barking *and* the other dog approaching. The behavior has to be present to be corrected, and for the behavior to be present so does the other dog. You are causing further unpleasant stimulus to a dog that is already feeling stressed about a dog approaching. I don't see how it's so hard to understand you can easily make the behavior worse in a situation like this. And it also brings up the point that you are doing nothing to help ease the dog's stress OR fear when it comes to other dogs approaching - he is not magically going to feel more comfortable in the presence of another dog.

tenna

huski

I have to disagree with you there. I know many dogs who have been trained to break inappropriate behaviours with aversives, why would it pop back up if the dog has learnt that the behaviour is not rewarding?

If they are trained an appropriate behavior in addition to punishment, sure, it's possible the behavior won't crop back up. But punishment merely suppresses a behavior temporarily it does not remove or delete the behavior. It does not cause the behavior to become extinct.

or to put it another way.... it decreases the likelihood that the behaviour will be repeated

i wonder - if a behaviour was NEVER rewarded, but was punished - might that make the behaviour extinct??  because, to the dog (horse, person, chicken, goldfish, fill in the blank) it was never a successful or viable behaviour?

tenna

And it also brings up the point that you are doing nothing to help ease the dog's stress OR fear when it comes to other dogs approaching - he is not magically going to feel more comfortable in the presence of another dog.

excllent point... one i have made before about anti bark collars.  say what you like about R+ methods and systems, but they do tend to force you to be more thorough.

quick question about aversives - if i use P- to keep the dog sitting when i open the door (bottom up = door close), this is surely something "unpleasant" for the dog which he does not like.  he keeps sitting to MAKE the door keep opening, because he wants to go outside.  the possibility of NOT going outside is unpleasant for him.  i wonder how many people class that as an aversive?  the whole process of NILIF consists of witholding what the dogs wants if he does not comply - does this fall under the umbrella of aversive, and therefore unnecessary and inappropriate?

so the question is - what IS an aversive anyway??  IS the door closing enough to be an aversive?  I'm happy with P+, P-, R+ and R-..... but where does aversive fit in, and when does it stop being just aversive and start being "confrontational"?  I am not totally happy with how the article defined this.... too muddy!

surely none of these things (in the article or the thread) can really be quantified in terms of aversive/non aversive, but rather less aversive/more aversive, and where they fall on the scale differs from dog to dog.  so its very hard to argue that such and such is aversive so therefore it is inappropriate.... because a) for some dogs it doesn't reach the level of "inappropriate" and b) surely  ANYTHING we use to manipulate our dogs carries with it an aversive, or the "threat" of one (if you don't keep sitting, the door will close).  ???

Kim_MacMillan

huski

I have to disagree with you there. I know many dogs who have been trained to break inappropriate behaviours with aversives, why would it pop back up if the dog has learnt that the behaviour is not rewarding?

Because, in reality that's not how it works. Punishment, on its own, still needs punishment (even if not often) in order to keep it suppressed. If the punishment stops, the behaviour will be brought back out and used again, if another, suitable behaviour was not reinforced to replace it. It works the same way as reinforcement - in order to keep behaviours, you have to reinforce them periodically. Punishment is no different - in order to keep them away, you need to use that punishment periodically or the behaviour will crop back up. But, if you've taught a different, useful behaviour to do instead of the punished one, chances are the punished one will go away. It won't truly go extinct though - if you stop reinforcing the desired behaviour, chances are often great the older, once-punished behaviour will come back to the forefront. Punishment doesn't magically "delete" behaviours from a dog's repertoire - they are always there. Dogs, like people, choose which behaviours to exhibit based on their history, and will always have that "original" behaviour to fall back on if circumstances allow.

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't talking about using punishment/aversives alone to train a dog out of a behaviour. 

Perhaps my dogs are different to yours. If they don't see that they can get success with a particular behaviour they've won't pull it out again. They'll use what they know works instead.

spiritdogs

What, then, is your definition of aversive?  According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Aversion: Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant or punishing stimulus, as in techniques of behavior modification.  "Unpleasant" is not the same as benign, and while I grant that some things are more unpleasant than others to dogs, the very nature of aversion is to intimidate the dog into ceasing the behavior you don't want. 

But there are plenty of things we might do with our dogs that they find unpleasant. My dog finds the removal of a reward unpleasant, does that mean that we shouldn't use that method either? Should we only ever utilise training methods that our dogs enjoy 100% of the time?

And, please provide an explanation of what you consider appropriate uses of aversion.  It's not enough to tell us that trainers you know are appropriately using it if you won't give us a few examples.  Are e-collars appropriate?  Are prongs appropriate. and, if so, used how?  Get specific.

I'm in a hurry at the moment as I'm about to head off to work but I am more than happy to discuss this further later tonight. In short though, what I would consider appropriate use of aversive methods would depend on the dog, and the situation, and what that aversive was. There are IMO times when an e-collar or prong are an appropriate tool for a dog. I've seen dozens of dogs trained with prongs (as well as positive reinforcement) with great results. Just because you don't agree with using anything even remotely aversive does not mean that it's always wrong to do so.

As to timing, the timing of a punishment STILL cannot prevent the dog from making an erroneous association if the behavior that is being corrected and the appearance of some other stimulus happen simultaneously, which is why leash reactive dogs often get worse, not better, for being corrected when they transgress.  It is because the stimulus (presence of another dog) is still extant when the correction (for barking at the other dog) is issued.  The dog could figure that you don't want him to bark, but he also could just as easily figure that he is punished whenever he is in the presence of an approaching dog (with the result that he begins to really hate other dogs), thus continues to be upset and reactive when they appear.

Where did I say that a dog should be corrected WHEN it's aggressing towards another dog? I simply said that the situation is a matter of timing. IMO there is no point in correcting a dog when it's aggressing as by then it's too late and most dogs wouldn't feel the correction anyway because their pain threshold rises due to the adrenalin in their body - and in some dogs it can amp them up even more.

Dogs that have been trained with aversive methods do not always appear frightened of their handlers.  But, they do tend to develop "learned helplessness" which is one reason they look so obedient, and they are, but try teaching them to put their toys away...most correction trained dogs will sit there waiting to be told what to do, looking very obedient, but not very thrilled to offer any new behavior.  They are not as likely to try to figure it out on their own just to please you.  Rather, they are very concerned with not making any false moves, lest a punishment be issued.  And, we aren't necessarily talking e-collar shocks here.  Dogs learn to inhibit their behavior with simple leash pops, too.  But, take a look at any clicker savvy dog - it's so friggin' easy to teach them new things it would make your head spin!  Just for fun, have a look at some behaviors that aren't your typical boring heeling pattern.  http://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup#p/a/u/1/2Y2DBrqw-O8   Tricks are not useless "less than" fun for people who don't compete in Schutzhund lol - they are endless opportunities to test your ability to teach a dog new or complex behaviors.  Try teaching the behaviors in that video using aversion...pfft.

Once again you're back to assuming that anyone who uses aversives doesn't use any other training methods as well. I've used clickers in the past but prefer to just use a marker word now instead. 99% of my training is positive and I work my dog on a flat collar. I'm not naive enough though to think that nothing I've ever done with her at some point is aversive to her. 

Does this look like a dog who is scared of me or reluctant to offer new behaviours? Or working because she's been forced to? Or isn't enjoying herself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drnd5u00Kvk

Liesje

spiritdogs

As to timing, the timing of a punishment STILL cannot prevent the dog from making an erroneous association if the behavior that is being corrected and the appearance of some other stimulus happen simultaneously, which is why leash reactive dogs often get worse, not better, for being corrected when they transgress.

 

Common problem but a problem with management of the environment and the person doing the training, not the method itself.  You could say the same about positive reinforcement.  I can't tell you how many dogs I've seen that won't do a down unless it's asked to sit first or will sit as part of the down command.  The handler messed up the training.  I don't think it's any easier to mess up aversive training, it just has worse effects on the dog (IMO, sitting while downing is not as "bad" as amping up your dog on a prong collar in front of another dog).  But, like I keep on saying, no good trainer should tailor their methods based on other people's stupid mistakes.  I still use a clicker to train the sit and the down, but train these behaviors separately and from all positions.

That's quite true when you are talking about behaviors.  Dogs do pick up "behavior chains" that aren't quite what we want, even when clicker trained, if our timing is bad.  But, I would say that, especially in light of the studies that correlate aversive training methods (some of which you probably would not really think were all that aversive) with increased aggressive responses, that it is far less damaging to dogs when mistakes are made using less aversive techniques.

huski

spiritdogs

What, then, is your definition of aversive?  According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Aversion: Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant or punishing stimulus, as in techniques of behavior modification.  "Unpleasant" is not the same as benign, and while I grant that some things are more unpleasant than others to dogs, the very nature of aversion is to intimidate the dog into ceasing the behavior you don't want. 

But there are plenty of things we might do with our dogs that they find unpleasant. My dog finds the removal of a reward unpleasant, does that mean that we shouldn't use that method either? Should we only ever utilise training methods that our dogs enjoy 100% of the time?

And, please provide an explanation of what you consider appropriate uses of aversion.  It's not enough to tell us that trainers you know are appropriately using it if you won't give us a few examples.  Are e-collars appropriate?  Are prongs appropriate. and, if so, used how?  Get specific.

I'm in a hurry at the moment as I'm about to head off to work but I am more than happy to discuss this further later tonight. In short though, what I would consider appropriate use of aversive methods would depend on the dog, and the situation, and what that aversive was. There are IMO times when an e-collar or prong are an appropriate tool for a dog. I've seen dozens of dogs trained with prongs (as well as positive reinforcement) with great results. Just because you don't agree with using anything even remotely aversive does not mean that it's always wrong to do so.

As to timing, the timing of a punishment STILL cannot prevent the dog from making an erroneous association if the behavior that is being corrected and the appearance of some other stimulus happen simultaneously, which is why leash reactive dogs often get worse, not better, for being corrected when they transgress.  It is because the stimulus (presence of another dog) is still extant when the correction (for barking at the other dog) is issued.  The dog could figure that you don't want him to bark, but he also could just as easily figure that he is punished whenever he is in the presence of an approaching dog (with the result that he begins to really hate other dogs), thus continues to be upset and reactive when they appear.

Where did I say that a dog should be corrected WHEN it's aggressing towards another dog? I simply said that the situation is a matter of timing. IMO there is no point in correcting a dog when it's aggressing as by then it's too late and most dogs wouldn't feel the correction anyway because their pain threshold rises due to the adrenalin in their body - and in some dogs it can amp them up even more.

Dogs that have been trained with aversive methods do not always appear frightened of their handlers.  But, they do tend to develop "learned helplessness" which is one reason they look so obedient, and they are, but try teaching them to put their toys away...most correction trained dogs will sit there waiting to be told what to do, looking very obedient, but not very thrilled to offer any new behavior.  They are not as likely to try to figure it out on their own just to please you.  Rather, they are very concerned with not making any false moves, lest a punishment be issued.  And, we aren't necessarily talking e-collar shocks here.  Dogs learn to inhibit their behavior with simple leash pops, too.  But, take a look at any clicker savvy dog - it's so friggin' easy to teach them new things it would make your head spin!  Just for fun, have a look at some behaviors that aren't your typical boring heeling pattern.  http://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup#p/a/u/1/2Y2DBrqw-O8   Tricks are not useless "less than" fun for people who don't compete in Schutzhund lol - they are endless opportunities to test your ability to teach a dog new or complex behaviors.  Try teaching the behaviors in that video using aversion...pfft.

 

Once again you're back to assuming that anyone who uses aversives doesn't use any other training methods as well. I've used clickers in the past but prefer to just use a marker word now instead. 99% of my training is positive and I work my dog on a flat collar. I'm not naive enough though to think that nothing I've ever done with her at some point is aversive to her. 

Does this look like a dog who is scared of me or reluctant to offer new behaviours? Or working because she's been forced to? Or isn't enjoying herself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drnd5u00Kvk

I'm not assuming any such thing.  We have a lot of people on this board who use clicker training and still use punishment.  My contention is, however, that the use of punishment is seldom needed, often misapplied, and better supplanted by positive means of making your point.

If you are someone who punishes, maybe these rules will provide some food for thought - they are from Steve White, a police K9 trainer with more than 30 years experience, who now uses clicker training and positive reinforcement techniques, having been introduced to many of the concepts by reading Karen Pryor's book, Don't Shoot the Dog. http://servicedogsawyer.blogspot.com/2009/03/rules-of-punishmentfood-for-thought.html

If the only guru you ever followed was a traditional trainer, it's time to broaden your horizons and at least find someone competent to learn from who can expose you to the other side of the coin.  Many of us who have already done that have made a shift in our philosophy and are getting great results and we sleep better at night, too.

spiritdogs

I'm not assuming any such thing.  We have a lot of people on this board who use clicker training and still use punishment.  My contention is, however, that the use of punishment is seldom needed, often misapplied, and better supplanted by positive means of making your point.

I've not said anywhere that punishment should be used all the time, or that it should always be used instead of "positive" methods. Like I said, I am a reward based trainer and I rarely use punishment or aversives. I don't however agree that only using positive methods is always the best route for the dog and the handler.

If you are someone who punishes, maybe these rules will provide some food for thought - they are from Steve White, a police K9 trainer with more than 30 years experience, who now uses clicker training and positive reinforcement techniques, having been introduced to many of the concepts by reading Karen Pryor's book, Don't Shoot the Dog. http://servicedogsawyer.blogspot.com/2009/03/rules-of-punishmentfood-for-thought.html

The concept behind clicker training is not new. Many people who train police dogs and serivce dogs have been using marker training for decades. There is not however a police dog anywhere in the world who has been trained using purely positive reinforcement. BTW - that link didn't work.

If the only guru you ever followed was a traditional trainer, it's time to broaden your horizons and at least find someone competent to learn from who can expose you to the other side of the coin.  Many of us who have already done that have made a shift in our philosophy and are getting great results and we sleep better at night, too.

The trainers I've used are not "traditional" trainers. I've never put a prong or an e-collar on one of my dogs, although I've learned how to use them, and I've seen dozens of dogs trained with them and working on them happily. Did the video I posted above of my dog look like I only use punishment and negative reinforcement in training? Didn't I say above that I very rarely use punishment/aversives? When training I use NRMs, removal of the reward and very very rarely I might give a slight tug on the leash (my dog wears a loose fitting flat collar when we train). My dog offers behaviour quite regularly. She LOVES to work. Did the video I posted give the impression that she's scared of me, reluctant to work or that we use "traditional" (i.e. punishment based) training methods? I don't know how many more times I need to say I use reward based training methods and I don't know how much clearer I can make it past showing you a video of my dog in one of our training sessions.

huski

Perhaps my dogs are different to yours. If they don't see that they can get success with a particular behaviour they've won't pull it out again. They'll use what they know works instead.

Well, yes...my guys are terriers. They are known to try things long after they have been deemed "unsuccessful"....LOL. They are determined, and focused, and will try to get their way no matter what. *G* There's a reason some trainers call them "stubborn" or "hard to train". Really, though, those trainers just don't know how to work well with those types of dogs!!

But...I've seen it in every type of dog, not just terriers, so I know it applies farther than just with mine.

People are getting picky about semantics here, and though I agree being specific is important, but I think we all know, and all realize, that when I (or anyone else) say in this conversation "aversive" we do not mean something mild like removing a treat or closing a door. If we're going to get that picky and argue semantics, we're not even talking about the point of this post anymore. Could I have been more specific? Sure, but I know that YOU know what I mean. There is a difference between doing something neutral that produces an undesired result (say, withdrawing a reward), and something like a leash pop. I apologize for not being so specific, but I figured everyone knew what I meant.

And I definitely agree that punishments and corrections have their time and place, I just genuinely believe that most corrections and punishments used are completely unnecessary, do not produce the desired result, and have the possibility of causing bad side effects. There is so much evidence in the way of clicker training without punishment. So much. I just cannot, CANNOT, accept that it is necessary to punish a dog in most instances.

None of these trainers who use punishment as a main tool have answered my question - why do unpleasant things to our pets when it is not necessary?

tenna

None of these trainers who use punishment as a main tool have answered my question - why do unpleasant things to our pets when it is not necessary?

You answered that with you post here - 

And I definitely agree that punishments and corrections have their time and place, I just genuinely believe that most corrections and punishments used are completely unnecessary, do not produce the desired result, and have the possibility of causing bad side effects. There is so much evidence in the way of clicker training without punishment. So much. I just cannot, CANNOT, accept that it is necessary to punish a dog in most instances.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you refer to trainers here who use punishment as a "main tool" - I certainly do not with my dogs.

ETA: I only started getting specific Spiritdogs gave a definition of aversive as being anything unpleasant. There are plenty of things that dogs find unpleasant that we utilise in training. 

Kim_MacMillan

huski

Perhaps my dogs are different to yours. If they don't see that they can get success with a particular behaviour they've won't pull it out again. They'll use what they know works instead.

Well, yes...my guys are terriers. They are known to try things long after they have been deemed "unsuccessful"....LOL. They are determined, and focused, and will try to get their way no matter what. *G* There's a reason some trainers call them "stubborn" or "hard to train". Really, though, those trainers just don't know how to work well with those types of dogs!!

But...I've seen it in every type of dog, not just terriers, so I know it applies farther than just with mine.

My dogs are stubborn too :) Certainly behaviours that have become habits are hard to break, but it's definitely not impossible IMO. Perhaps it is if you only ever use positive reinforcement :p

Well, there isn't a person on earth who only uses R+.....but I don't think anyone claimed to do so.

I've never found anything impossible to do yet with my guys. Well....they still don't make my lunch for me in the morning, but that's more of a lack-of-thumb issue than anything *G*

tenna

None of these trainers who use punishment as a main tool have answered my question - why do unpleasant things to our pets when it is not necessary?

I don't know of a single person who posts in this part of the forum that train using punishment as their main tool, so don't be surprised if this goes unanswered.

Then why such the adamant arguing for it?

And yes, there are extremely rare moments that I have punished my dogs. And it's usually whilst they've been doing something dangerous and their activities need to stop rightthissecond or themselves or someone else may be hurt, and I know they won't respond to a "leave it" or "come" cue. I should have clarified. I would never dream of punishing my dog for say, not obeying a cue.

tenna

Then why such the adamant arguing for it?

Because I have no qualms about using punishments or aversives if and when they are appropriate for the dog. I don't agree with those who say that there is never a time where punishement/aversives could be useful or appropriate. I don't agree that they always create fear or pain in a dog, and although I use rewards based training and don't often use punishements/aversives I can still see the benefit in their use. It seems that on this forum you can never admit you see the value or use in punishments or aversives without being labelled a traditional trainer, told you use fear to train your dogs or accused of using punishment based training methods - all of which I was told even AFTER I posted one of my training videos. I'd still love to hear if anyone thinks my dog is fearful, being forced to work or doesn't have the "spark" that only dogs trained with strictly purely positive methods apparently have.

You actually said earlier that you've never yelled at, hurt or scared your dog yet you've just said that you have on occasion used aversives/punishment. If you think that punishments/aversives only serve to create fear or pain in a dog, how can you say you've used them but never created those awful feelings in your dog?