How do you tell if something is too punishing?

I don't think this is an OC moment. I think this is a "would love it, but not gonna work for it" moment. I don't know if an animal is learning at that point. For example, I've seen Pyry look up from barking at the sound of the treat can rattling, think about if for a few long moments, then go back to barking. If someone went down and gave him a treat, he would be a very happy dog, but when given the choice "treat or continue barking" he chooses barking sometimes and treat sometimes. He knows what the consequences are either way. As far as he's concerned, it's a win-win situation, so I'm not sure that even when learning the consequences any punishment would be involved.

Similarly, Kit sometimes eyes a treat I've brought him with great interest, but decides he won't come over to the side of the cage to take it. Sometimes this means he doesn't get it at all, and sometimes it means I put it in his bowl for later. If he comes over for it, he gets as many treats as he likes, every time. Sometimes he comes over looking for treats before I even have any, sometimes he comes over when I show him I have some, sometimes his ears come up and he leans forwards, twitching his nose, but decides a treat isn't worth getting up over, and sometimes he wants nothing to do with me and my treats and moves away.

As far as I can make out, if an animal knows what will get them the treat and opts not to do it, they didn't want the treat that badly. When Pyry or Kit show interest in a treat but decide not to do the behaviour they know gets them the treat every time, then I can only conclude that they wanted to do something else more than they wanted a treat. That doesn't mean they have no interest in treats or don't want a treat, just that they don't think it's worth doing the behaviour to get it. I don't think there is punishment if an animal chooses one behaviour over another. Am I making any sense?

I think Corvus is exactly right.  She wanted it but didn't want to work for it. 

I'm sure she knew the command, just a simple play dead.  She's done it a million time and has known it for years. 

I could tell she wanted the treat (for free) because she was gently trying to get it from me.  It's hard to explain, she does this thing with her mouth, she'll open it a little and move her muzzle toward the treat hand.  She's not mouthing at me or snapping. 

But, it's true she will definately pass up something even if she really wants it if she's got to work too hard for it.  Which, play dead is too hard in her eyes, she tried to give me some easier commands instead.  But, that's not what I asked her to do.

willowchow

I think Corvus is exactly right.  She wanted it but didn't want to work for it.

That's very possible. In a case like that, whether it was punishment or not depends on what the dog does next time.

If the dog really wanted the treat, but found that it absolutely wouldn't get it without doing the behaviour, it depends on how much (the motivation) the dog wants the treat. If the dog really wanted it, then next time, if the dog does the behaviour for the treat, you will be able to accurately assume that the last time worked as a P-.

If the dog, however, still doesn't do the behaviour the next time, the dog doesn't consider it significant motivation to do the behaviour that you want, the treat isn't a high enough priority. So in that case it wouldn't be punishment, it would be, more like a non-event indeed.

Of course there are always possibilities with each individual case. A dog might know a certain behaviour but with increasing age find it painful to do so, and eventually refuse to do it. Removal of the treat in a case like that would result in a conflict within the dog, because it wants the reward, wants to do the behaviour, but finds the behaviour quite aversive to do. At the same time you have just removed the opportunity for reward at all, and this can cause frustration, when the dog has to decide whether or not the pain/discomfort is worth a reward. Something like that comes down to knowing your dog and being a keen observer, so you know the circumstances about why the dog "doesn't perform the behaviour".

Yup, there are a few things we don't ask her to do anymore like two paws due to some arthritis issues. 

Also, later, I asked for the same command and she did it twice with no trouble.  I'm thinking the things like play dead, down (the "submissive" positions) are the one she resents doing. 

 Perhaps the treat was too high value and she was struggling to focus?  I know Liesje says that she prefers to work with medium-low value rewards so the dog can retain focus and not get distracted by the reward.  And I am sure corvus has said that her most food motivated dog is the one that has not been taught much with food treats because she just can't focus and learn when there is food about.  So perhaps this was the same thing?

Now, what I would have done is ask the dog for the behaviour and wait.  If I thought they hadn't "heard" me, I might repeat it, but that's rare and if it does happen I only repeat it once.   I might maintain gentle eye contact and give them chance to think and choose to do it.  If they don't comply, I would turn away from them and continue to wait - if they want the treat then they are going to try to figure out ways to get you to turn back and give the treat.  If that didn't work either, I would walk away and put the treat away, then try again a short time later.

IRT the OP - if we are talking about the non emotional science-y definition of punishment, then something is "punishing" if it decreases behaviour.  So if something is as punishing as it could possibly be, then it would have to stop something immediately and forever.   I would imagine that "too punishing" and "just punishing enough" are usually somewhere below that extreme, but not necessarily always. 

It's slightly confusing because the word "aversive" might fit better here.  Something could be extremely aversive and lead to a deterioration of trust, but not "punishing" at all becuase it doesn't affect future behaviour.  The dog hates it and it is ineffective.... the worst of both worlds!  Now, this could be because it was improperly applied - perhaps the timing was wrong for example.  So the dog never learned what was ACTUALLY being punished so that s/he could stop doing it and stop the aversive stimulus.

corvus, if you had to apply quite a few collar pops to Penny, perhaps they weren't that effective?  Which would mean that they weren't punishing enough [because they didn't stop the behaviour(s)]  but they were very aversive because she really hated them?  Do you think you think they were well applied, or could your timing have been better?  MIGHT it have been YOUR application of the aversive (not the aversive itself) which led to a deterioration of trust? 

I think that's true too, she was definately so excited by the treat she was not focusing at all. 

 This is where using the food purely as a reward and not a bribe is helpful - if she had no clue about that treat until the moment after she did something you liked... perhaps something you asked for, then the treat becomes a huge surprise and a bonus and by gum is it worth her while doing what you ask next time.  You never know, right?

What was the topic again? 

No, I think that's a great point, Chuffy.  And, I'm definately going to try it next time we work on her commands.  I think I'd get further actually because she will do what I ask without a treat.  But, I think then seeing the super duper treat will cement it in her mind that she was good. 

Sorry if I took this off topic-we were talking about if I had "punished" Willow when I didn't give her the treat after she didn't do the command I asked--she was too distracted by the treat!