 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Attention could be considered the most basic form of behavior and where “both classical and instrumental elements closely cooperate” mediating effective “perception and action” says Lindsay (2000). In a broader view, “attentional activities specify a dog’s intentions, reveal a dog’s motivational state” and sometimes defines what he is prepared to learn, thus “attentional activities” could be said to “reflect a dog’s overall disposition to learn” (Lindsay, 2000).
How we stimulate and control dog’s attentional behavior can have profound effect on training and behavior modification. Lindsay (2000) says “dogs pay attention to occurrences that are significant to them and learn to ignore occurrences that are irrelevant” and stimuli associated with pleasurable events or those associated with fearful events gain the most attention than other irrelevant stimuli.
To further emphasis why attending behavior is important Lindsay (2000) says, “attention is highly correlated with reinforcement (both positive and negative)” and it makes sense animals would become more attentive through experience and “since attending behavior is present in most successful learning situations” it could be considered the most “dominant class of higher-order behavior” and may effect all other classes of instrumental behavior in accordance with its frequency and probability and according to Lindsay (2000) “has been the least carefully studied.”
I am going to suggest based on Lindsay’s conclusions that training should always begin through gaining cooperative attending behavior and how this behavior is trained will ultimately have profound effects on the subsequent dog-human relationship.
How Positive and Negative Events Affect Dog’s Behavior
When we condition stimuli using classical conditioning we are setting the subject up to understand a specific expected outcome as a result, the same holds true in instrumental conditioning when we use signals to gain responses, that in turn give the subject information regarding whether reinforcement or punishment will be delivered. In instrumental conditioning, we use acquisition, reinforcement schedules and extinction to provide necessary information regarding expected outcomes or contingencies. It is with this information the subject can draw conclusions regarding their own behavior and consequences. One may use continuous reinforcement, intermittent reinforcement or differential reinforcement for other desirable behavior.
However, it is fundamentally important for dog trainers and owners to realize how predictability for both rewarding and punitive consequences may affect the learning process. It is necessary in training that we provide clear links with any proceeding antecedents and subsequent behavior otherwise; the subject may be unable to associate their behavior with the rewarding or punitive consequences. This would create a very unstable relationship, which can lead the subject to either learned laziness or even worse learned helplessness.
According to Lindsay (2000), the “lack or loss of controllability of positive outcomes affects not only subsequent appetitive training but also the animal’s ability to learn aversive contingencies’ and additionally one may inadvertently reward undesirable behavior and superstitious behavior.
Lindsay (2000) says, “…unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive stimulation” and its effects can be even more “pervasive and debilitating, when a subject is not given the opportunity to learn avoidance cues pertaining to negative reinforcement and noncontingent punishment. In addition, he says “…the loss of control over significant events via the noncontingent presentation of appetitive or aversive stimuli results in reduced operant initiative and retards associative learning processes.”
The devastating effects on dogs can include becoming “overly cautious, nervous, and insular” since they are unable to predict outcomes concerning their behavior. Additional observed behavior might include punishment passivity, pain insensitive, stubborn, failing and resistant to learning and appearing to struggle with training often resorting to withdrawal (Lindsay, 2000).
Lindsay’s Alternative Theory of Reinforcement
According to Lindsay (2000), “sharp lines of distinction between instrumental and classical phenomena do not exist except under the artificial conditions of the laboratory and not really there either.” He proposes, “successful control depends on adequate prediction and adequate prediction depends on successful control” and that when “significant events are adequately predicted and controlled, the consequence is adaptive success-an enhanced state of well-being, confidence, and power.”
Within this proposed framework, the dog can meet both his “biological and motivational inclinations” that drive his behavior and coupled with his previous reinforcement history form his “disposition to learn.” He says further the need to “predict and control” his environment will be affected by his necessary “biological, emotional and psychological homeostasis and security” and his overall goals are “survival, adaptive success, enhanced power [and]…reproduction.”
Punishment
Lindsay (2000) asks the question “what is the relationship between reinforcement and punishment.” According to Lindsay (2000), behavior analysis has defined punishment in terms of its effect it has on behavior through the presentation of positive or negative punishment and its ability to either suppress or lower the frequency or probability for the behavior to occur in the future. Lindsay proposes defining punishment according to these rules “as a suppressive event” is only describing it using the most ‘superficial and general attributes.”
Lindsay proposes using an alternative definition saying “punishment may be stated in terms of prediction and control” and says further “punishment is defined as occurring whenever a behavior fails to anticipate or control a significant event” [and]…punishment is not something done to a behavior or to an animal but rather something that the behavior itself does or fails to do” essentially punishment then “fails to appropriate an important resource or escape or avoid an aversive or dangerous situation.”
This analogy can be understood using sit, which is a common instrumental response. Lindsay (2000) says, “if a hungry dog fails to obtain a piece of food for sitting because it misses a signal or fails to sit…the dog is punished-not indirectly as the result of the withdrawal of the appetitive opportunity-but directly as the result of its failure to control the opportunity to obtain food.” This can occur using the same analogy and a dog that misses a signal or fails to complete the sit and is punished because the dog fails to control the presentation of an aversive event.
Lindsay (2000) also cautions that punishment is associated with emotional states and that punishment because of failing to predict reinforcing events will result in fear and anxiety and “failure to control the occurrence of a reinforcing event results in frustration.” In these instances, he says, “these emotional reactions facilitate adaptation in cases where prediction and control are compromised,” that fear and anxiety heighten vigilance improving future anticipation for those stimuli associated with reinforcement, and that frustration invigorates or amplifies behavioral effects directed toward the restoration of instrumental control over available reinforcers.
To some degree, anxiety and frustration contribute to ones overall learning experience, but in cases where high levels of fear and anxiety are present learning will be aversely affected. These high levels of anxiety produce unpredictability and frustration producing uncontrollability have causal effects toward potential learning dysfunctions. These types of learning environments tend to produce emotional states similar to PTSD and abnormal behavior patterns i.e. learned helplessness. A contrary environment providing a necessary amount of predictability and control over ones resources produces a more successful adaptation and sense of well-being (Lindsay, 2000).
Lindsay (2000) concludes saying “whether one views punishment from the perspective of an event produced by behavior (animal’s perspective) or as an event done to behavior (trainer’s perspective).”
How does prediction control expectancies help dogs adapt to their environment?
Prediction control expectancies and cost-benefit analysis are controlling factors for dogs when making decisions regarding approach and avoidance behavior. According to Lindsay (2000) “prediction and control expectancies share a common cognitive axis mediating reinforcement and punishment” and combined these two forces guide “purposive behavior” that includes appetitive and escape-avoidance behavior by either confirming (verified) or disconfirming when the expectancy is either an attractive outcome (reinforcing) or less (punishing) than was the expected outcome. These two predictors help dogs control significant events by taking into account any antecedents that either verify outcomes or disconfirm expectancies allowing the animal to adjust their behavior accordingly. When predictive disconfirmation is attractive, it can arouse the dog in either direction of surprise or disappointment and when the dog encounters an aversive outcome the arousal is more of “startle or relief” depending on the nature of the aversive. In the case of disappointment, the disconfirmation provides feelings associated with “need-anxiety” or if the animal is startled, the disconfirmation may be one of “threat-anxiety.” In either case, a “preparatory adjustment” of increased vigilance and autonomic arousal will be in effect until the dog has reappraised the situation and as a result “forms new expectancies and behavioral strategies based on this new information (Lindsay, 2000).
The process of disconfirmation coupled with control expectances is related to behavioral change and motivation and when dog’s efforts to control “attractive resources” their “inquisitiveness” may be enhanced or they may become “satiated” and when their efforts fail “frustrative-lose” occurs resulting in “invigoration-persistence or despair” depending on motivation, past history and context. Depending on the individuals past history in coping during “frustrative non-reward” situations with attractive outcomes the individual will either persist and try harder or with “repeated control disconfirmations” may result in a motivational change in the direction of “hope or loss-anger” (Lindsay, 2000).
Either when dogs confront aversive outcomes they react with courage or if less effort is required their behavior may shift in the opposite direction toward “threat-anger” because the aversive situation requires more effort than expected (Lindsay, 2000). Aversive situations are capable of bringing more problems for dogs that may include “disorganized efforts involving anger-anxiety loops of aggression.” Contrary to this those dogs with a “high degree of predictability and control” over their environment provides feelings of “security and safety” until an event or situation is disconfirmed. Finally, “pathological helplessness and behavioral disorganization” may ensue when dogs find attractive and aversive events as being both uncontrollable and unpredictable (Lindsay, 2000).
What do dogs learn from expectancy disconfirmation?
Lindsay (2000) says, “[b]ehavior is modified as the result of producing attractive or aversive outcomes that disconfirm previously established prediction-control expectancies concerning the relative frequency, size, quantity, or quality of those outcomes.”
What this means is when dogs have the opportunity to operate in stable environments and their prediction control expectancies are being confirmed there is no need for dogs to adjust their behavior. This type of predictive environment provides dogs with a “sense of enhancing efficacy beliefs and feeling of well-being” but does affect the dogs continuing adaptation, further behavioral acquisition or extinction (Lindsay, 2000).
According to Lindsay (2000), “reinforcement and punishment”
do the same thing by regulating instrumental behavior and providing dogs
with control over their environment they consider significant. They receive
reinforcement when they succeed in controlling both attractive and aversive
events and are punished when their behavior results in less control over
attractive and aversive events and “…both reinforcement and
punishment…is disconfirmed by either increasing or decreasing control
over the relevant attractive or aversive event.” These prediction
control expectances are always being modified to agree with the “cumulative
behavioral successes or failures of the dog’s behavioral efforts to
access available attractive opportunities and to escape-avoid aversive threats.”
The necessities for control expectancies help avoid “distressful emotional
arousal” leading to anxiety and frustration and quite possibly learned
helplessness or dysfunctional behavior associated with impulsivity or compulsive
excesses according to Lindsay (2000). A small amount of frustration and
anxiety can be helpful in learning, but excessive amounts will have deleterious
effects on learning.
It is my opinion that shelter dogs, rescue dogs and dogs that continue to live in dysfunctional home environments are probably most affected by lack of clear prediction control expectancies and this may ring true even with those dogs who have come through shelters and rescue organizations and readopted to new homes where proper education is still insufficient in issues relating to proper management, training and a clear understanding of normal dogs behavior.
Understanding how these concepts are related to both the training and behavioral environment enhances one’s ability to address and problem solve by offering alternatives to “reactive force and punishment” and according to Lindsay (2000) and I fully agree “dogs trained with behavioral methods take to learning much more actively and exhibit confidence and optimism than dogs trained with force alone never exhibit.” A trainer or behavior consultant’s preferential outcome for behavior modification should provide a better “system of communication between owner and dog” grounded in ” understood expectancies” and the establishment of a “mutually cooperative” relationship based on “constructive mediational behaviors” that meet both owner and dogs common needs. This type of approach coupled with appropriate and proper training methods forms a foundation for “interactive harmony based on realistic boundaries and cooperative exchange.”
A word about punishment & aversive control
“Punishment is an inescapable fact of life” (Lindsay, 2000) and the desire for rewarding outcomes and the ability to escape or avoid aversive outcomes provides the “yin and yang” for one’s behavior.
A brief review of the applicable theories
Mowrer’s two-factor theory of avoidance learning
Mowrer (1960) argued the simple association Thorndike had previously proposed to explain behavior associated with punishment as being far more complicated. He proposed that two distinct features are added to a training environment as a consequence for using punishment. He proposed that punishment did not simply suppress the undesirable behavior, but rather it “strengthens behavior directly associated with its termination [and]…antecedent stimuli and cues occurring prior to the onset of punishment become emotionally conditioned with fear” (Lindsay, 2000).
Mowrer was particularly interested in why avoidance learning is so resistant to extinction and how it is maintained even when reinforcement for an avoidance response would rarely be presented. In order to explain this Mowrer proposed a “two-factor theory of avoidance learning” that included the Pavlovian side, which explained the conditioned emotional responses and the “Thorndikian” side explaining “habit formation” (Lindsay, 2000).
By classically conditioning a tone and shock and after repeated trials the tone acquires the same characteristics associated with the US normally responsible for the elicitation of fearful and avoidance behavior. The classically conditioned CS is then able to elicit the same physiological responses previously associated with the US. He theorized, “animals find such emotional reactions aversive and learn to escape them in precisely the same way they learn to escape direct aversive stimulation-negative reinforcement” (Lindsay, 2000).
Kamin (1956) who “found that if the CS was continued beyond the emission of the avoidance response, avoidance learning would be disrupted…the extended CS punished the avoidance response” conducted further research in support of Mowrer’s theory (Lindsay, 2000). Further studies conducted by Rescoral and LoLordo (1965) included a pre-conditioning phase training dogs to avoid shock by jumping over a barrier and without using a CS to predict the occurrence of the shock. These two groups were later trained using two different conditioned sets of cues one included a tone regularly followed by shock (CS1) and variable delay group received the same tone (CS1) and an additional tone (CS2) but without shock. The results found the dogs receiving only the CS1 stimulus gave many more responses than the conditioned dogs using the CS1-CS2 combined stimulus suggesting the “dogs were less worried about the occurrence of shock in the presence of the CS1-CS2 arrangement” creating what they termed as a “safety signal” concluding “some variable emotional factor alleviates or potentiates avoidance responding” (Lindsay, 2000).
Mowrer (1960) further refined his theory along the lines of Tolman’s “cognitive learning theory” saying “we discard the notion that behavior itself is learned, whether as habit or as conditioned reflex; but we retain the concept of conditioning and…use it to explain how certain internal events get attached to new (extrinsic or intrinsic) stimuli” and view them as “hopes and fears” that generally help animals by guiding, selecting and controlling their behavior in ways that are more adaptively driven (Lindsay, 2000).
The cognitive theory of avoidance learning
The cognitive theory of avoidance learning was posited by Seligman and Johnston (1973) suggesting “avoidance signaling results from both emotional conditioning and cognitive information” and that “avoidance training” is dependent on “dogs acquiring an expectation that their behavior controls the occurrence of…aversive events” through the use of well timed avoidance cues during acquisition dogs are given the opportunity to avoid aversive stimulation by providing appropriate responses and with continued learning the expectancy based on their behavioral responses provides the predictive control over the occurrence of aversive events and is maintained through the confirmation of successful avoidance of aversive events (Lindsay, 2000).
As the learning phase continues with reinforcing confirmations, the dog’s confidence will increase in the presence of the previous fear eliciting stimuli and unless a disconfirmation is presented as an aversive stimulus (punishment) behavior is maintained. According to Siligman and Johnston’s cognitive theory the same type of discriminative stimulus associated with positive training can also be used to act as a signal to avoid an aversive event and during positive reinforcement “learning is based on the acquisition of a promised or hoped-for-outcome in the form of a reward” [and]…avoidance…learning is based on behavior that successfully avoids the presentation of an aversive stimulus [and]…emotional relief or relaxation” by removing, postponing or avoiding an aversive event (Lindsay, 2000).
Lindsay (2000) concludes “both positive and negative reinforcement paradigms depend on learned expectancies based on history of confirmatory outcomes” and rather than viewing them as two separate ways for learning to take place, he suggests “viewing them as two sides of a single process within a broader context of expectancy and confirmation” [which]…helps clarify the nature of learning itself, and the respective role each reinforcement paradigm plays in the learning process.”
The Safety Signal Hypothesis
I briefly described a supporting experiment conducted by Rescoral and LoLordo (1965) that suggests the use of the conditioned CS1-CS2 arrangement depressed the dogs response to shock and this experiment had concluded the dogs tested using this arrangement learned that avoidance preparation and responding was unnecessary in the presence of this combined conditioned stimulus further suggesting the “dogs appeared to feel more relaxed or safe even though the signal had no real relevance to the actual arrangement of the avoidance contingencies” (Lindsay, 2000).
According to Lindsay (2000), “dogs experience stimuli associated with relief from aversive stimulation” suggesting they view this as positive reinforcement. He further suggests “praise represents a safety signal” and during training its associative value coupled with appetitive events and presented on a regular basis it may “gradually [become] highly desirable in itself and may be treated as a kind of conditioned positive reinforcer.”
As a leading proponent for using safety-relaxation theory and avoidance learning, M. Ray Denny (1971) proposed that “avoidance responding is acquired through the antagonistic dynamics of fear and relief-relaxation” (Lindsay, 2000). He proposed the negative emotional state during a fearful event coupled with the successful avoidance or escape turn off and are replaced by relief or relaxation and in turn stimulate approach behavior and that ‘these successive relief and relaxation responses serve to reinforce avoidance behavior” (Lindsay, 2000).
According to Denny (1976), “relief and relaxation are differentiated along two primary dimensions briefly outlined in the following and for further review see Lindsay (2000, pgs. 295-296).
Relief – onset is 3-5 seconds after aversive stimuli is removed continuing 10-15 seconds – affects muscle & motor functions.
Relaxation – onset is 2.5 minutes following removal of aversive stimuli and before full benefit takes effect.
The use of avoidance training – using conditioned safety or relief cues – should be presented 2-5 seconds after removal of aversive stimuli and continued for several seconds there after.
Inter-trail exposure – the between trial time and presentation of the aversive stimuli should be at least 2.5 minutes
In addition, ‘the effects of safety appear to double when both relief and relaxation, rather than one of them, are associated with a particular stimulus’ according to Denny (1983) and cited by Lindsay (2000) who said, “safety signals take on conditioned positive-reinforcing properties” and has been further supported by Weisman and Litner (1969).
These implications may provide possibilities in changing previously learned behavior based on avoidance learning. According to Lindsay (2000) “not only does relaxation positively support avoidance learning, it also simultaneously results in its gradual extinction” and can occur by “backchaining and counterconditioning effects originating in the safe…relaxed situation” and through generalization gradually back to the original aversive event.
Tortora (1983) further tested the use of safety signals in the treatment of avoidance-motivated aggression and according to him “aggressive behavior commonly diagnosed as dominance related is often the result of dysfunctional avoidance responding” (Lindsay, 2000). The important point Tortora makes is his reference to this behavior as “dysfunctional avoidance responding” and its relationship to predictive control expectancies as discussed earlier. As is often encountered in cases of aggressive behavior one could find that in many cases a dog may employ avoidance or escape behavior in the beginning of a relational context and when the dog is either reinforced by the owners reaction or is prevented from escape or avoidance from what he perceives as an aversive event his behavior then changes from a simple stimulus reflexive response to a learned behavior. For example, if a dog is eating, a household member approaches, and the dog shows signs of aggressive behavior and the household member moves away, the dog is reinforced by avoiding what he perceives as a threat to his resource (food). This same scenario is played out with dogs that appear to guard the couch or bed, if allowed to prevent a person’s access, the dog is reinforced as a positive outcome by preventing the owner from sitting on the couch and in turn, the owner is negatively reinforced because they are prevented from gaining access to the couch.
Another example in support for the use of safety signals is based on the opponent process theory and comes from studies by Solomon and Corbit (1974) who said “the offset of any hedonically significant stimulus results in a recoil of opposing emotional reactions” (Lindsay, 2000). Simply stated, “[w]hen an aversive stimulus is terminated, the opposing pleasurable recoil provides a source of covert reinforcement, either strengthening desirable alternative behavior or inadvertently reinforcing undesirable behavior” (Lindsay, 2000).
It is for this reason why it is best to offer the animal an opportunity to perform a task that will result in positive reinforcement after the removal of an aversive stimulus. Without providing this opportunity the animal may be left with alternatives such as “running away or avoiding the owner” that would be counterproductive to establishing what is expected or preferred behavior. Concluding Lindsay (2000) says “the most effective aversive events are those that simultaneously suppress an unwanted behavior while evoking a more desirable or incompatible alternative to take its place.”
What are SSDR’s Species-Specific Defensive Reactions?
In 1960 Bolles (1960) said, “[t]here is something fundamentally wrong with our traditional interpretations of avoidance learning” and that the experiments currently being conducted were “basically wrong.” His reasoning was based on other researchers’ assumptions concerning animal learning principles by concentrating on matters unrelated to “the choice of the response” as being a serious matter of consideration. He concluded by saying, “we have become inclined to believe that we may choose any animal, choose any response in its repertoire, and strengthen that response as much as we please by the appropriate application of a suitable reinforcer.”
Bolles (1960) in support of his argument says “the learning of an avoidance response Ra is greatly facilitated if it is chosen to be one of the S’s [subjects] innate defense reactions” and that avoidance responses can only be learned if they are in fact species-specific defense reactions (SSDR).
According to Bolles (1960) responses associated with these SSDR’s are the easiest to learn during aversive stimulation, within specific contexts and “quite resistant to extinction.”
Using experiments as references he points out that when subjects are trained in avoidance responding using simple ‘one-way’ avoidance situations the subject quickly learns to avoid the shock by running to the other side of the box where shock can be avoided and the response is so easily learned that providing a “no escape contingency is necessary.” In addition studies using a “running wheel” offering the subject this option as an escape mechanism provided even “faster acquisition and better performance levels” by allowing rats to alter their location while providing them what is now considered a normal species-specific defense reaction for rats preferring to leave aversive situations than to fight.
Summarizing his argument Bolles (1960 says, “there is a clear alternative to the prevailing view that Ra can be any response in the S’s repertoire” and in support his hypothesis “states that the Ra is either a defense reaction or some very slight topographic modification of a defense reaction” and suggests the rat has two types of reactions to aversive stimuli “fleeing and freezing.”
In addition, he notes “that many animals, including the rat, have a particularly interesting defense reaction which is not really defensive at all but offensive” saying further when a rat is subjected to an aversive event (shock) they “exhibit certain unconditioned reactions…such as jumping, running, or flinching, depending on the intensity” and that these behaviors appear to be “largely under the control of the prevailing shock stimulation” and that the subject is largely bound to these types of responses. An interesting observation occurred when rats were introduced to another subject and during the presentation of the shock stimulus, the subject often attacked the other animal. Bolles (1960) suggested “the precise nature of the animal’s repertoire when being aversively stimulated is more a function of other environmental stimuli than might be thought.” He concluded, “the defensive repertoire is not inflexible by any means” but rather it is “highly adaptable to specific environmental constraints” and that animals more often choose flight when available, and often when not available the animal will freeze, but if provocation continues, the animal may attack another individual or object.
With regard to dogs, Bolles (Lindsay, 2000) suggested “[t]he trick in the avoidance situation is to punish all of the wrong responses so that the right response will occur” and Lindsay says (2000) [d]ogs being trained with forceful methods typically react systematically experimenting with various defensive posture and reactions that are prepotent to the dog as a species” and that these defensive reactions include “bolting and jumping up, to dropping down and freezing; balking and struggling to pull away, or biting the leash” with some dogs exhibiting a wide array of passive submissive displays or the extreme opposite with threats and snapping at handlers. Lindsay (2000) says further “[t]he early stages of avoidance training (really punishment training) involve systematically suppressing these innate defensive reactions and replacing them with forcefully prompted alternatives [and]…only once all defensive reactions are punitively suppressed or reduced to the obedient target response does systematic and formal avoidance training begin.”
How negative reinforcement impacts avoidance learning
According to Lindsay (2000) “negative reinforcement occurs when the probability of a behavior’s future emission is increased by (1) escape from ongoing aversive stimulation or (2) avoidance of an anticipated aversive outcome” and he points out this definition does not include “that a dog respond to any predictive stimuli foreshadowing an aversive event” calling only for an “escape response” that terminates an aversive situation and that the reinforcement is both “response correlated and response contingent” meaning “one response turns of the aversive event while another one turns it off.”
When using avoidance training (negative reinforcement) it is necessary to provide a sufficient amount of aversive stimulation to counter the motivation of the animal to want to avoid its presentation. In some instances, the competing reinforcing qualities may be worth the dog to engage in them in spite of the aversive event that may occur. According to Lindsay (2000) “[t]he effectiveness of punishment and negative reinforcement depends not so much on its pain eliciting characteristics as on the elicitation of a startle response.” He further states that “[f]ear is the central motivational substrate regulating avoidance learning” and “dogs learn to fear the presentation of the aversive stimulus or correction” and therefore learns how to avoid the aversive stimulus. Finally, according to Lindsay (2000) “[s]ince the elicitation of fear in incompatible with positive reinforcement, attractive distractions are aversively counterconditioned as something to be avoided rather than pursued.”
Avoidance Learning, Fear and Pain
According to Lindsay (2000), the relationship between pain and fear require understanding this relationship in avoidance learning. He says, [m]any conditioning accounts seem to presume that fear and pain are coextensive events” but this does not seem to be true and according to Panksepp (1998) “current neurobiological research disputes the widely held belief that fear is a “conditioned response to cues associated with pain.” Lindsay (2000) says, [p]ain…is capable of eliciting fear…the fear of pain is a strong behavioral motivation” playing an important role in adaptation, but that “fear is also a very common source of maladaptive aversive arousal” impacting the development and expression for many behavior problems.
Punishment
Punishment and negative reinforcement are often confused, punishment always offers a positive contingency between the aversive stimulus and the instrumental response, compared to negative reinforcement, “there is a negative response-outcome contingency” meaning the expected response will either terminate or prevent the delivery of the aversive stimulus (Domjan, 2003).
According to Lindsay (2000), “punishment and negative reinforcement often occur together” but by definition they are both functionally opposite. When a subject successfully avoids or terminates an aversive stimulus the behavior is negatively reinforced and is more likely to be elicited in the future. Contrary to this punishment makes behavior less likely to occur in the future through the presentation of an aversive stimulus positive punishment (+P) or through the withdrawal of a desirable outcome providing negative punishment (-P). Concluding “positive and negative reinforcement function to strengthen behavior” and punishment is used to weaken undesirable behavior.
Is Punishment Bad?
Contrary to Thorndike and Skinner’s previous positions regarding the use of punishment and its lack of effectiveness and potential fallout has more recently been criticized by behavior analysts such as Hineline who said, “reinforcement procedures are similarly temporary when reinforcement procedures are discontinued” (Lindsay, 2000).
Lindsay (2000) concedes aversive events do cause side effects, but are rather contributed to through “specific situations [and]…abusive treatment…not punishment.” According to Lindsay (2000), Sidman (1989) has written in length regarding the various side effects and problematic features associated with coercive methods of control saying, most behavior can be modified “without resorting to aversive methods.” Lindsay (2000) has little disagreement with selecting positive training methods but to “exclude punishment arbitrarily from a trainer’s armamentarium would be counterproductive and artificial.”
In light of this social reform in the dog training industry Lindsay (2000) suggests with “all due respect for the accomplishments of both Thorndike and Skinner, some of their more extreme views about punishment must be questioned in the light of scientific advances and the empirical finding derived from practical experience.” He says further the “stubborn reliance on punishment and negative reinforcement to an unequally extreme in which the use of punishment and negative reinforcement is shunned to embrace a so-called ‘positive’ approach to training and behavioral control” and that these “extreme positions…based on good intentions or not, are typically based on irrational beliefs and assumptions…not scientific knowledge and experience.” According to Lindsay (2000) to adopt, a one or the other option or method “reflects a core of misunderstanding about how dog behavior is most efficiently modified” and that these contrary views are based on a “distortion of the subject matter and basic facts.” At the time of this writing, Lindsay (2000) said despite this debate, “the majority of dog trainers and behaviorists remain pragmatic opportunists about the use of reward and punishment” saying “they do what works within the context of practical considerations and ethical standards.”
According to Lindsay (2000) there are occasions when punishment may not be avoided particularly in cases where “a dog’s unwanted behavior endangers either the dog itself or others with whom the dog comes in contact, but in most cases “humane trainers select the least intrusive punishment necessary to achieve their behavioral objectives and strive to minimize its use whenever possible” keeping in mind the use of punishment is to avoid using punishment in the future and suggests contrary to taking extreme positions, that may include “accusatory innuendo, moralizing, and half-truths” a more balanced and informed attitude regarding its practical use, misuse and abuse would be more acceptable.
Does Punishment Work?
Lindsay (2000) says, “the efficacy of punishment is not really in doubt…if science is accepted at the final arbiter of the debate” suggesting “when applied properly punishment works…quickly…in many cases…suppressive effects of punishment are permanent” citing “several hundred scientific studies demonstrating the efficacy” and according to Azrin and Holz (1966) “one of the most dramatic characteristics of punishment is the virtual irreversibility or permanence of the response reduction one the behavior has become completely suppressed.”
According to Lindsay (2000), the misrepresentation and confusion of facts coupled with “excessive moralizing” this practice may have negative effects on the dog owning public “by making responsible owners feel guilty…exercising the necessary aversive prerogatives needed to establish constructive limits and boundaries” concerning their dogs behavioral excesses and concludes many dogs benefit through the “mediation of directive training, combining a balanced application of behavior modification…not just positive reinforcement [and]…a dog’s welfare is better served by teaching the owner when punishment is necessary and how to use it effectively and humanely.”
The role of punishment and neurosis in dogs
With numerous studies confirming the dangerous effects from aversive stimulation including but not limited to “puppies exposed to excessive physical punishment…abusive treatment and stressful rearing practices” cause direct welfare and development problems for dogs including “hypervigilance and irrational fear…heightened irritability….impulsive-explosive behavior…hyperactivity…aggression evoked with minimal provocation…withdrawal and social avoidance…anhedonia (loss of sensitivity to pleasure and pain) and depressed mood.” Those cases seem to require special applications…such as intensity, predictability, and control” all factors important to both the effectiveness and side effects of punishment (Lindsay, 2000).
Often when non-contingent punishment has been utilized four key factors according to Solomon (1964) have contributed to maladaptive behavior and are outlined as follows.
1. the stimulation generates vigorous and sustained emotional arousal
2. the stimulation is unpredictable
3. the stimulation is uncontrollable
4. the stimulation is inescapable
This non-contingent use of punishment most often used by unknowledgeable owners occurs when punishment is delivered well after the offending behavior has occurred resulting in not only confusing the dog but also most often affecting the trust and affection toward the owner. Lindsay (2000) concludes that such “treatment is not punishment at all” but rather “simple irrational and ineffectual abuse that should be strictly abstained from by professional dog trainers and behaviorists.”
Are there any positive benefits?
According to Kazdin (1989) “some side effects of punishment…may actually be beneficial” and that “punitive events often help to set and enforce social boundaries, promote impulse control, reinforce social status, and provide various other generalized effects” ensuring optimal adaptation in both social and physical environments.
Coercion and Conflict
Frequently when dog trainers use coercive methods to induce dogs to perform certain behaviors conflicting motivations may occur between the choices the dog may wish to make and those the trainer wants the dog to make. It is these conflicting motivational desires that most often result in abusive treatment and ‘use of compulsion …may block or interfere with the natural functioning and satisfaction of the targeted behavioral system possibly generating some degree of internal disruption (stress) and homeostatic imbalance” thus it is necessary to provide outlets for normal “drive satisfaction” to promote “healthy emotional development and equilibrium.”
Before trying punishment, Lindsay (2000) offers these seven alternatives for changing undesirable behavior.
1. Modify the unwanted behavior into an acceptable form
2. Modify the environment so that the unwanted behavior cannot be performed
3. Redirect the unwanted behavior into a more acceptable outlet
4. Bring the behavior under stimulus control and then signal for it only
under acceptable conditions
5. Modify reinforcement contingencies maintaining the behavior (extinction)
6. Select and reinforce an alternative behavior that is incompatible with
the undesirable behavior
7. For intrinsically reinforced behavior, bring the behavior under the control
of an extrinsic reinforcer and then extinguish it
Intrinsic – part of the task itself – internally motivated having both positive and negative behavioral results.
Extrinsic – external to the task - sources other than from the behavior itself and having both appetitive and aversive consequences – usually controlled or manipulated by a trainer.
Regarding Punishment
If punishment is considered the following rules should be applied.
1. Punishment should result in the dog emitting some behavior incompatible
with the one being punished.
2. The emission of this alternative behavior should occur with the onset
of relief from punishment.
The use of punishment requires great knowledge, practical experience, compassion, refined and expert skills and most importantly self-mastery (Lindsay, 2000).
Breaking the Breaker by C.B. Whitford
The rule to follow is Do as little breaking as possible; try to encourage the dog to do the proper things and develop him as much as possible with the least amount of control. As final word to the breaker, it may be said that he should so educate himself that he will know that it is always wise, when in doubt, to give the dog the benefit of the doubt. Not only should he know this, but also he must have such complete control of his feelings as to give his knowledge effect. The breaker who spends much time in considering his own weaknesses will profit by this effort (Lindsay, 2000, pg. 305).
The use of excessive punishment
The use of excessive punishment in dog training should be avoided at all costs according to Lindsay (2000) and in the case of aggression he says “excessive punishment may suppress vital threat displays, making future attacks more difficult to anticipate and avoid safely” and “such misguided training efforts may produce a more difficult and dangerous situation to control.”
Concluding that “although punishment is an important tool for the control of dog behavior, its use should be tempered by informed judgment, ethical restraint, and compassion” and according to Lindsay (2000) “dog trainers and behaviorists…would do well to follow the spirit of the Hippocratic oath to ‘do no harm’ and to avoid methods that so obviously ‘do harm’ dogs and the human-dog relationship.”
References
Bolles, Robert C. (1960). Species-Specific Defense Reactions.
Obtained from http://users.ipfw.edu/abbott/314/Bolles.htm
Domjan, Michael. The Principles of Learning and Behavior (Fifth ed.).
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. (2003).
Hineline, Philip. Aversive Control: A Separate Domain?
JEAB: 1984, 42, 495-509.
Lindsay, Steven R. Handbook of applied dog behavior and training. 2 Vols.
Iowa: Iowa SP. (2000). Vol. 1.
Responsible Dog & Cat
Training and Behavior Solutions
Joyce D. Kesling
P.O. Box 15992
Sarasota, Florida 34277
941-921-6624 ~ 941-587-2049
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
judged by the way its animals are treated. Mahatma Gandhi 1869 – 1948
© Responsible Dog & Cat 2005
|
Home
Services
Meet the Owner
Dog Behavior Quiz
Articles
Photo Gallery
In Memory
Rescue
Contact |