Tag Archives: punishment

10/13/12

The #@*$ing Four Quadrants (Dunbar)

This post is part of the series in response to Dunbar’s 2012 Australian seminars. See index.

 

Dunbar has a clear opinion on the four quadrants of operant conditioning: Ditch them!  Dunbar feels we have entered into a time of ‘quadrant worship’ when, in reality, the quadrant was only ever designed to be a memory aid. The quadrants have also led to a division in the dog community, with half the people worshipping positive rewards and negative punishment (i.e. “positive trainers”), and the other half worshipping negative rewards and positive punishment.

 

Here’s a little theory:  In the quadrants, positive means “you give” and negative means “negate” or take away.

Dunbar used this table to illustrate the quadrants:

Start Stop
Reward Positive Reinforcement Negative Punishment
Punish Positive Punishment Negative Reinforcement

 

Dunbar thinks this is a complicated way of viewing things.  He says that the dog doesn’t assess anything other than “did the environment get better or worse?”  He believes dogs have a binary outlook to life.  They see things as good or bad. Continue reading →

04/24/12

Ian Dunbar on Punishment

This post is part of the series in response to Dunbar’s 2012 Australian seminars. See index.

Ian Dunbar chooses to look at punishment in a different way to most modern trainers.

 

When we look at things that are punishing (or are supposed to be punishing) then we can ask two questions:

  • Is it punishing (does it reduce the behaviour’s frequency)? and
  • Is it painful or scary?

 

 

From here, there are four possible scenarios:

  • Punishment that is painful or scary, and changes behaviour, is effective but undesirable (that is, it is not desirable to hurt or scare dogs).
  • Punishment that is painful or scary but doesn’t change behaviour is abusive.
  • Punishment that is not painful or scary and doesn’t change behaviour is nagging. It’s annoying, a nuisance.
  • Punishment that is not painful and not scary, but is effective, is desirable. This is where Ian Dunbar chooses to work.

 

Rhodesian Ridgeback puppy climbing into dishwasher.

A dog shouldn’t be punished for wrong doings when you haven’t taught them it’s wrong!

In this way, Ian Dunbar advocates verbal punishment.  Verbal punishments can be used to enforce trained behaviours, and is more about tone than volume. Continue reading →

11/9/11

McGreevy on Punishing Dogs

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Again, this article refers to operant conditioning principles.  I suggest anyone without prior knowledge of operant conditioning to refer to Crystal at Reactive Champion’s post on operant conditioning.

Punishment is anything that reduces the frequency of behaviour.  Positive punishment is when something bad is added (e.g. rattling a can of stones if a dog barks), and negative punishment is when something good is removed (e.g. when your puppy mouths you and you exit the room).

RuthlessPhotos.com

These are both called punishments as they reduce the frequency of behaviour.  Negative reinforcement is related, as this involves removing something bad to act as a reward (e.g. a dog who doesn’t like being confined could be rewarded for calm quite behaviour in that confine by being released from that confine).

However, punishment in dog training is often only referring to an aversive introduced to suppress behaviour.

McGreevy did not advocate the use of punishment when training dogs.  He felt that punishment (or causing dogs to feel threatened, pained, uncomfortable, disappointed, or fearful) was simply ‘not good’ for dogs.  Furthermore, punishments can sometimes have long-term consequences, as dogs are often sensitive.  (He summarised it as, “It’s hard to unteach fear.”)  Dogs can also associate some of their emotions from punishments with people, which can be undesirable.

Punishment, however, is unavoidable.  McGreevy explained that putting a dog on a collar almost always is negative punishment (taking the dog away from good things), but trainers can still seek to use as little punishment as possible.  Punishment does not have to be abusive, it is just feedback to help a dog understand that some behaviour is unproductive.  Mild punishment (like a no reward marker) can be effective in reducing behaviours, but it is also risky as it can lower motivation.

Punishment should be used as little as possible, or else the dog may develop learned helplessness.  He described punishment as being ‘a step towards habituation’.  Punishment, when used, often leads to the need for more punishment.  Additionally, use of positive punishment for anxiety-related behaviours could escalate the animal’s distress.

McGreevy rejected the use of check chains, calling them frustrating, painful, and dangerous.  He congratulated the dog community for largely rejecting their use.

Overall, McGreevy did not have anything revolutionary to saying about punishments, but I hope this still provides some interesting thoughts regarding dog training.

 

Further reading: Ian Dunbar on Punishment

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.