This is my opinion, based on my experiences with dogs over the past 20 years and my understanding of behavioral science (which is pretty damn good!) So if you strongly disagree with me, write your own blog about it.
Among dog trainers we seem to have been divided into camps based on our underlying philosophy and the techniques we typically choose. One camp, the one that I’m proud to be part of, is focused on the use of positive reinforcement as a primary training tool. Note that I did not say purely positive. I am not that and never claimed to be. I would label myself as primarily positive reinforcement. Another camp has claimed the name of “balanced” trainers, implying that those focused primarily on positively reinforcement are apparently “unbalanced”. If you didn’t know any better you would probably guess that balanced is good and unbalanced is bad, but you would be very very wrong. It’s a problem of definition. Then there are those referred to as “traditional” trainers that use a variety of 0ld-fashioned methods, often not at all supported by behavior science. But I’ll leave them out of this for now and focus on the distinctions between “primarily positive reinforcement” and “balanced”.
The term “unbalanced” certainly sounds bad. Maybe I have a mental illness or am unstable? I imagine that too many pomegranate martinis or too many glasses of pinot noir might have the effect of making me “unbalanced”! But not my training method. I certainly don’t feel lopsided when I train. I feel like I have a full arsenal of methods and techniques at my disposal and am very confident that my lean towards positive reinforcement gives me everything I need in training.
So what is the opposite of primarily positive reinforcement? Before we can discuss that we all need to be using the same language, the language of learning theory. Here’s a short and simple tutorial on the proper terminology of learning theory. There are 5 possible consequences to a behavior. Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, and nothing (no consequence one way or the other). Positive means adding something and negative means taking something away. They have nothing at all to do with value judgments of good and bad. These are used as if they were mathematical terms (addition and subtraction). Reinforcement is intended to increase the behavior it follows and punishment is intended to decrease the behavior it follows. Note this says “intended”. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. By combining these terms we get the 4 quadrants that people often talk about: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment. If you put the definitions together then you get the following. Positive reinforcement means adding something with the intention of increasing behavior. Negative reinforcement means taking something away with the intention of increasing behavior. Positive punishment means adding something to decrease behavior. Negative punishment means taking something away to decrease behavior. And no consequence would lead to extinction, the decrease and eventual loss of a behavior. People often leave that out because it doesn’t fit nicely into the 4 quadrant model.
So if I train by primarily positive reinforcement then what are the other options? Negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment are left. Negative reinforcement is always a tricky one. Most trainers don’t really understand it and even my students, after an entire semester of study, don’t always get it right. I’ve seen it defined and described incorrectly in many books, blogs, and posts. Another way to think is negative reinforcement is “escape/avoidance training”. Your dog can escape from or avoid something unpleasant if he does what you want. The problem with negative reinforcement is that first there must be an aversive applied so that it can then be taken away. This is the process behind using an ear pinch to train a retrieve. The ear pinch is applied, and when the dog does what the trainer wants (opens his mouth and takes the dumbbell) the pinch is released. The dog learns that taking the dumbbell makes the pain go away. So in the future he is more likely to take the dumbbell when it is presented to escape or avoid the ear pinch. But he also learns that his trainer is willing to use pain to get what he wants. If I were a dog, I would not ever totally trust someone willing to hurt me like that. Plus, the dumbbell is now paired with a painful stimulus (the ear pinch). In classical conditioning we have just created an unpleasant emotional response to the dumbbell. So negative reinforcement can lead to two big problems. First, the trainer must do something unpleasant to the dog and second, the dog associates the behavior with the unpleasant thing.
Go ahead! Try an ear pinch on your cat and let me know how your retrieve training works. Dogs are too tolerant sometimes.
Then we move to punishment. Remember, punishment is designed to decrease behavior, so if you are focused on things you want to decrease or stop, and you are primarily approaching training from that perspective, you would indeed be primarily punishment. Positive punishment is adding something unpleasant to decrease a behavior. So if a dog is giving another dog a warning growl and you pop on the leash (let’s say attached to a pinch collar) you have just applied positive punishment. Again, there are going to be problems. First, you just tried to decrease an important bit of information that your dog gave you (he felt threatened or worried enough to growl). By punishing the growl you may well eliminate it, and your dog will now go directly to physical attack in the future. Great. Plus, you again classically conditioned an aversive with a behavior. Seeing other dogs leads your dog to be corrected. Since he was already leery of other dogs, or else he would not have growled, your added correction convinced him that other dogs really are bad. They cause him to get in trouble. So you may have punished out the warning signs, but you just made the problem much, much worse through the use of positive punishment. If there were a sarcasm font I would use it here when I say “Great job!” The rule in training is to never make things worse, and in this scenario, you did.
Negative punishment isn’t quite as bad, though it can certainly be misused as well. In negative punishment you take away something to decrease behavior. The ultimate negative punishment for humans is jail. Taking away something (freedom) in order to decrease behavior (crime). Sarcasm font again “We all know how well THAT works!” But sometimes very short time-outs can be useful in training. These are not, however, the same as using environmental control and management to prevent unwanted behaviors. For example, crating a puppy when you’re not home and can’t watch him so he doesn’t have accidents and chew things up. These techniques come first as a way to avoid the situation that leads to the unwanted behavior. Punishment comes after the behavior (remember, it’s a consequence not an antecedent).
In the above photo the crate is being used as management, not negative punishment.
Being “balanced” actually suggests that you are equally likely to use both reinforcement and punishment in their positive and negative forms. And therein lies a big part of the problem. Punishment has a host of serious side effects, even when done “correctly”. It has a much stronger likelihood of unintended unpleasant fallout than does reinforcement. That’s not to say that you can’t go horribly wrong with reinforcement based training, people can and do. But their mistakes are typically less stressful to the dog and less serious in nature. Too many cookies might lead to a fat dog. Too many leash corrections might lead to a collapsed trachea. The damage to the relationship between human and dog is much more likely with punishment than reinforcement. I am definitely not saying we should let our dogs run wild and free so they can enjoy their lives without human intervention. Dogs need to be trained to get along in human society. I am saying that it can be done with minimal to no use of negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
My goal is to be a good enough trainer that I minimize the need for aversives in training. If I say that I need to use aversives then I am advertising my failing as a trainer. If I am educated, aware, and proactive, my dog should not “need” me to introduce unpleasant events in training. Trainers often punish because they don’t know the other options or how to use them effectively. For example, if someone says “so what should I do, throw cookies at the dog?” that indicates a clear lack of understanding of the sophisticated and complex use of reinforcement. People punish because that is how they learned and it has worked well enough for them in the past.
Even if it works, which punishment can, that doesn’t mean it’s the most effective or efficient method, and it definitely doesn’t mean that, ethically, it is the right thing to do. The means-end argument suggests that “the ends justify the means”. But that can lead you down a bad road very very quickly. So saying “I used punishment and it worked” should not be justification for the punishment. Shooting the dog (ala Karen Pryor) would work too, but we don’t recommend it.
I also hear people say that punishment used “correctly” is more effective and humane than reinforcement used “incorrectly”. I disagree quite strongly. If a father physically abuses his child and the child now obeys, would you say that the abuse was justified and appropriate? It must have been correct because it worked, right? Of course not! We know that’s ridiculous because abuse can never be justified by the outcome. While I’m not saying all punishment (or negative reinforcement) is abusive, there is quite a bit that crosses the line. Granted, the line between abuse and punishment is a fuzzy one, and that is a big part of this problem. One person’s punishment is another’s abuse. In his book Willpower (a great book that I highly recommend) Roy Baumeister talks about a “bright line”. A clear and obvious rule to follow. We don’t have a “bright line” to distinguish punishment from abuse.
I must be very sensitive. It bothers me at a gut level to see dogs that are stressed, shut down, anxious, or fearful. But this clearly does not bother everyone. Some argue it is simply part of the training process, or it is just what the dog must learn. Or that life is going to be unpleasant sometimes, so the dogs need to learn to deal with it. Poor dogs. I can’t help them and I really want to. It sometimes makes me really hate people. Especially people who have information and knowledge about modern training, but choose to use old-fashioned harsh methods anyway. If you really don’t know better, but you learn, grow and change, that’s fabulous. But if you simply argue that anything different from the way you’ve always done it is wrong, that’s a problem.
So back to “balance”. If my dog could, at any moment, be subjected to reinforcement or punishment, I’m pretty sure I know which he would choose. I worry about the inconsistency that underlies the concept of “balance”. My dog never knows what might be next. There could be cookies and toys and games or there could be leash pops, ear pinches, or a shock collar. Imagine spending your life in an uncertain state. Today might be a good day where you get reinforced with things you love. Or it could be the day you get punished. You just never know which is coming next. To me, that sounds like the perfect recipe for stress, instability and lack of “balance” in the dog. Lots of uncertainty and conflict.
I want my dogs to be stable, happy, and confident. I want them to find me a source of consistency and security. If I alternate between reinforcement and punishment they can never be 100% trusting of me. So “balance” in training can actually have a very bad outcome for the dog. Don’t be fooled because it sounds reasonable! When people feel the need to make up new definitions of words so they sound more acceptable, you can guess there’s an underlying problem with what they’re doing, and they’re trying to find a way to make it sound better.
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 8, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Sumac
Great article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
May 8, 2013 at 5:10 pm
ksammie3
I’m really glad you wrote this. I’ve been trying to write up a blog post about the term “balanced trainer” for a while and I can’t seem to get my thoughts on the subject in order.
When I first heard the term, I found it confusing. What “balance”, exactly, was being implied? A friend of mine and I discussed the word. She said, without any knowledge of what “balanced” actually implied, that she would think that the dog would be “balanced” as in not stressed, but working happily. When I first encountered the term, I thought of it as balancing one’s personal training goals with what is truly reasonable for the individual dog.
The term has a deceptively “good” sound to it.
May 8, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Geoff Stern
“Being “balanced” actually suggests that you are equally likely to use both reinforcement and punishment in their positive and negative forms”
Not quite. It means that you *may* use +P or -R if you think it’s appropriate. The probability or frequency of their use isn’t equal to using some other approach. For example, I do use +P — compulison — but very, very infrequently, and for very specific situations wherein I want to attenuate a behavior for safety reasons. So we’re talking about something relatively rare.
May 8, 2013 at 7:22 pm
ksammie3
I would say that the vast majority of people use the word “balanced” to mean either an equilibrium, or a certain proportion of something is present.
For instance, if I balance my dog’s raw diet, I am including a certain proportion of muscle meat, bone, organ meat, veggies, oils, and supplements. I would not say that my dog’s diet is balanced if I usually left out, say, the bones, and only put them in once in while, maybe just to clean teeth on occasion. In order for the diet to be balanced, the bone needs to be there in the correct proportion, most of the time, as part of the overall diet.
Since “balanced” trainers identify themselves as trainers who consider +R, -R, +P, -P to be “necessary” with certain dogs in certain circumstances, that “balance” does imply either an equilibrium, or that all four are going to be included, in certain proportions, most of the time (like a balanced diet).
If neither of those are meant by “balanced”, then I would submit that “balanced” is actually not the most appropriate word to describe training that incorporates any or all of the four quadrants, if and when, and in whatever proportion the individual trainer deems appropriate.
I realize that the name has been appropriated, and that is not going to change. I tend not to use it, though, as I really do consider it to be a euphemism.
May 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Kirsten Rose
Good article.
May 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Moonshine
Beautifully put. My only issue is with the use of the terms “punishment” and “reinforcement” as it would apply to rehabbing a large aggressive dog with some help from an e collar when it comes to dog-to-dog interactions.
Let me make myself clear first, e collars are typically not used properly whatsoever and are absolutely used as negative punishment by the majority of individuals.
That being said: In my experience, when used properly, the e collar has been ultimately a positive reinforcement tool for my 145 lb mastiff, who was abused by a man, his kids and another alpha male for over 6 months of his first year of living. I do not use this as a punishment tool. I’ve used it as a behavioral guide while he’s off leash so he doesn’t take a dog’s approach the wrong way and go over the edge. I’ve had to deprogram him essentially from the aggressive reactive instincts he acquired during his first 3-9 months, and the e collar has been a huge help for him and more of a reinforcement that “we don’t go down that road” than a punishment at all. He was a very difficult boy to figure out, however after 2+ years of positive reinforcement training and living with 3 other stable pups, he’s come a long way and doesn’t fear a thing other than scary inanimate object blowing in the wind. Gotta love mastiffs…
May 8, 2013 at 8:06 pm
k9infocus
I’m sorry but no, you cannot try to change the meaning of the terms to fit what you want. They mean what they mean. I have no idea how you are using a shock collar, but it is either negative reinforcement or positive punishment, both of which can have significant behavioral fallout, even if used “properly” and even if they seem to “work”. Your description of “behavioral guide” is pretty vague but I’m guessing you are shocking your dog. This type of process scares the hell out of me! The chance of classically conditioning even more reactivity and aggression is high. It’s your choice, but I think it’s a terrible one.
May 8, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Beth Goodbody
As someone that uses mostly +R and calls herself a balanced trainer I find the division silly. I don’t care if someone else wants to train their dogs with rainbows, fairy farts and pretty little ponies as long as those tools are used correctly and the dog is able to live a full life. Same is if someone else wants to train with an e-collar, choke chain or prong. When used correctly they can allow dogs to live full lives. YMMV.
May 8, 2013 at 8:47 pm
k9infocus
Clearly, I disagree.
May 9, 2013 at 12:19 am
Beth Goodbody
And that is the wonderful about living in the USA. At this point we can disagree and each voice our thoughts. My dogs lead very full lives and I use whatever tools I need to for them to lead that sort of life. I’m sure your dogs lead full lives too being trained in the manner that you chose.
May 9, 2013 at 12:25 am
k9infocus
So you fall into the “whatever works” category. I think that’s a dangerous approach. Lots of unpleasant things work, but why use them?
Deborah Jones Ph.D. Associate professor of Psychology Kent State University at Stark http://www.k9infocus.com
Sent from my iPad
June 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Jamie Robinson
Do you honestly think that “living a full life” includes the unpredictableness of aversive methods? This is one of those arguments that aversive trainers, especially shock collar trainers use to justify their methods. That only their methods can allow a dog to be off leash reliable, or that only their methods can cure a red zone dog, etc etc. But every day, there are 1000’s of dogs being “cured” of aggression, reactivity, and fear with force free methods.
Your choice of words says a lot more about how you really feel about force free trainers then your choice of methods or your need to justify that a full life means haveing to deal with intermittment or continual pain and the unpredictability of when that pain will arrive.
Force based methods are infinite (to paraphrase Ian Dunbar). There are so very many things that need to be “corrected” and each one of them must be when using force because the dog can’t generalize punishment. Humans have a very hard time generalizing punishment. But force free methods are finite since you are not dealing with “stop” you are dealing with “go”. Do this and this and this and all these things are very rewarding. That can be generalized, pain cannot.
May 8, 2013 at 9:30 pm
k9mythbuster
Excellent post. Interestingly, I’ve yet to hear any trainer refer to themselves as a punishment trainer. They all consider themselves “balanced.”
When I started training almost 15 years ago, I considered myself a “positive reinforcement” trainer, while still relying on verbal corrections, leash corrections, prong collars and other aversives when I didn’t know what else to do. Once I started learning about stress and how it affects behavior and learning, AND once learned about shaping, I never needed to use those tools again.
In my opinion, trainers use such methods because they don’t know what else to do. The difference between us and them is that we could put aside our egos long enough to hear what others had to say.
May 9, 2013 at 1:09 am
Beth Goodbody
I’m sorry that I can’t hit reply under your iPad comment. But, if it means keeping a dog in the home and having a full life after other methods have not worked, then yes, whatever works, unpleasant or not. Just like I used positive reinforcement when training the grad students in the lab I ran. And if that didn’t work, I did what I had to to make my point and keep everyone safe.
May 9, 2013 at 1:20 am
k9infocusDeb Jones
Beth, you read my blog so you know how strongly I feel. Why try to argue with me that it is sometimes necessary to punish in the mythical “lifesaving scenario” when I clearly disagree. Write your own blog on the topic to promote your views.
May 14, 2013 at 8:32 am
Nikki
You can explain to your grad students why they are being punished and they understand that you have tried other approaches (however I would argue it’s not positive reinforcement at fault if you are not giving them a reinforcement they desire, not that you can give more but it isn’t the method at fault). Your dog doesn’t. Their bad behavior is just expression of their emotions and responses to their environment. They have no control over their life.
In this age, there is so much we can do to find dogs more appropriate homes. However I have a hard time believing that there are situations in which a cannot be trained to be safe without positive punishment or negative reinforcement. As has been said many a time before, it’s a reflection on the trainer’s ability and knowledge, not a failure of the method.
I would also address your wording. I would like to recommend this article: http://www.suzanneclothier.com/blog/i-had You don’t have to do anything, you chose to.
May 9, 2013 at 3:21 am
Amanda
I am a positive reinforcement trainer and have learned a lot over the years. I have to say one dog has required an “e-collar” I disabled the shock and kept the beep. The only time I used it was to recondition her fence jumping from prey drive. I know she was bothered by the sound. I couldn’t find another solution, since she would never exhibit the behavior when I was close enough to physically catch her. After months of beeps and treats when she responded it finally worked and She stays in the yard. I would love to know a better way to handle that scenario. Her recall was perfect if she wasn’t chasing a rabbit or a squirrel.
May 10, 2013 at 11:06 am
Ken McCort
When I stopped being “balanced” and started to really understand the behaviors animals offer because thats what works for them (genetically and from prior learning) my ability to train animal of different species really opened up. When my focus changed to motivation rather than what I wanted, I found out I could actually change and control behavior by manipulating the antecedents, environment and reward. What an epiphany!
Wonderful blog Deb, you are someone I have always admired for your insight and dedication to training so that animals wanted to cooperated rather than because they had to do it or else.
May 10, 2013 at 8:25 pm
kevin ballance
Oh man, I just love you and your blog. What a wonderful message! More people like you – passionate about not being cruel to animals but with the ability to articulate why it doesn’t work – need to speak out in this way. Maybe we could actually effect some change. Thank you so much!! 🙂
May 11, 2013 at 4:14 am
Carolyn
Wonderful Deb, Wish the whole dog owning world could just understand the message in this blog post. Thank you for speaking for dogs everywhere. 🙂
May 11, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Roxanne Frechette
Brava Deb!!!
An articulate and informative essay; as usual. Keep them coming.
May 13, 2013 at 2:55 pm
But Every Dog is Different! | eileenanddogs
[…] wrong and you’ll get there twice as fast! Many other writers have addressed this fallacy. (Deb Jones has a great post about it.). I will merely say here that this view ignores the scientific […]
May 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Dawn
excellent blog! I often ask my clients if they would use a vet/dr/teacher that has been in their field and never did continuing education. just because something used to work, doesn’t mean it is the best way. that is the reason for research and continuing education. there may be outdated tools in the medical field that get the job done, but with negative side effects, bigger scars, more pain, etc.. I guess then what I am reading from some trainers is that as long as the Dr. knows how to use them… why not…. at least as humans you have a choice and understand the side effects or lasting effects, dogs do not. No reason to use pain.. and no way you can call a shock collar positive reinforcement!
May 13, 2013 at 9:00 pm
genevievebergeron
If you wanted your kid to be a surgeon but he just wasn’t getting the grades he needed to in school, no matter how much you praised him and positively encouraged him, would you then use a shock collar or smack him in order to force him to do well in school?? That is what people sound like to me when they say they had to resort to aversive tools like shock or prong collars. People expect their dogs to be able to achieve any behaviour they want – like ignoring a rabbit or winning agility titles. Does anyone ever consider they are asking their dog to accomplish something they just don’t want to do or don’t have the ability to do????? I know many of you are going to just counter argue that I am suggesting you should give up on your dog. But I am not, I am suggesting you should accept your dog for who he is instead of resorting to shock and prong collars. Assuming you are using +R correctly and with perfect execution, if you dog isn’t accomplishing what you want, you should stop demanding it of him – NOT grab a shock collar or use +P.
May 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
grady2
Thank-you. Very informative!
May 16, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Neil Hutchins VTS CDTI©
Reblogged this on neilhutchins.positively Blog and commented:
My name is Neil Hutchins, and I am an ‘unbalanced’ trainer 🙂
May 16, 2013 at 5:11 pm
ritaippolito
Great article…your explanation of the 4 quadrants +1 is excellent and lucid. I also enjoyed your replies to some of the comments!
May 16, 2013 at 11:03 pm
KT n Bu
Interesting topic always. It’s a good reminder to be consistent no matter what your approach.
May 21, 2013 at 3:37 am
Kathy
Great article! I have a friend who is struggling with the ear pinch idea right now since she “can’t get her dog to stop mouthing the dumbell”. I think when people have an aversive method in their back pocket, it can stop their creativity in solving problems without them.
For me it is simple. I don’t hurt, intimidate or frighten my dog to try to win at dog sports. Period. If I am trying to train something, I HAVE to find another way. I am not compromising my personal value system for ANYTHING.
December 3, 2013 at 4:15 am
Know more About Traditional (Outdated) Methods | The Dog Coach Francis
[…] My name is Deb and I’m an “unbalanced” trainer (Deb Jones) […]