![]() ![]() I have seen probably a dozen people write that using an aversive that is “already out there” is ethically acceptable, while adding one oneself is not. But in general, the people who say this are discussing ethics, not behavioral fallout. On the surface, this sounds like the same thing. Negative reinforcement is ethically OK as long as the handler isn’t the one who adds the aversive to the environment. Really? I t’s OK to deliberately use something unpleasant to get the dog to do stuff, as long as the dog continues to like us? Version 2 It also strikes me as very self centered to mention only this particular problem with negative reinforcement. But as long as they make blanket statements about that quadrant, it is the logical conclusion. I know that this is not the intent of the force free trainers who are defending negative reinforcement. (And shock trainers with skill and knowledge of learning theory take care to do just that, by the way.) Poof! No more criticism of shock! If it were true, all they would have to do for their training to be acceptable would be to make sure the dog doesn’t know that they are controlling the shock. ![]() The shock trainers must be delighted whenever they hear this statement come from the mouths of force free trainers. If the only problem with negative reinforcement were that the animal might make an association between the icky thing and the human, all that would be necessary to make negative reinforcement acceptable across the board would be to prevent the animal from making that association. ![]() The main issue isn’t whether there’s a human wielding the aversive, it’s that an aversive is being used in the first place. The reasons some trainers object to negative reinforcement include that it employs an aversive, the association with the aversive can be generalized, it is on the undesirable end of the humane hierarchy, it is linked with reactivity and aggression, and has other undesirable side effects for both the animal and the trainer. ![]() I rewrote the statement to be more complete. This statement omits the majority of the problems known to accompany the use of negative reinforcement and aversives in general. The fact that an animal’s response to an aversive can get generalized to the handler is only one of the many problems with using negative reinforcement. The reason some trainers object to negative reinforcement is that when people add the aversive, there can be fallout. The trouble begins when they make blanket statements–especially blanket incorrect statements–that include all negative reinforcement.įollowing are two related versions of the statement about negative reinforcement that I keep seeing. So people are correct if they say that some situations are more aversive than others, or that using negative reinforcement is not always a catastrophe. Negative reinforcement happens a lot in the natural world, too, often at very low levels of aversiveness. In the human world, it can run the gamut from putting on a coat, to a staredown, to torture. There is truly a continuum in the severity in the applications of R. (The definition is contingent on a future increase in the behavior.) This linked post has examples of some of the ways that negative reinforcement is used in training, ranging from body pressure to an ear pinch retrieve. The dog stays in the uncomfortable state until it performs a desired behavior. In negative reinforcement (R-), something that makes the dog uncomfortable, including that it may frighten or hurt the dog, is used to get behavior. The statements minimize the problems that can be caused by using negative reinforcement. Instead I am hearing them from many people in the force free community. There are some strange claims going around the dog training community. They are not being made by shock trainers, although I am sure they appreciate them. I didn’t give today’s post a cute title, because this situation makes me very, very sad. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |