Positive reinforcement based training for me means that I will employ solutions in my practice that focus on helping my learners, both human and canine, understand what I want them to do and reinforce them for doing it. I use management to prevent practice of undesirable behaviors while I’m teaching alternative desirable ones in their place. I play detective to try to learn why a dog engages in a behavior because, as Dr. Susan Friedman, professor emeritus in the Department of Psychology at Utah State University, likes to say, “all behavior serves a purpose”. Armed with this information, I can then influence the dog's behavior though changing the antecedents (the things that happen before a specific behavior occurs), and the consequences (the things that the dog likes and predicts will happen after a specific behavior occurs).
For those who are not in the industry, a quick tutorial on terminology here is warranted. Positive in this case does not mean “good”, it means “added”. So Positive Reinforcement means I added something. Reinforcement means by adding the consequence, the behavior happens more often in the future. So Positive Reinforcement means adding something to influence the dog to do the behavior more in the future. This would require giving the dog something they liked.
There are other trainers who will provide consequences that the dog doesn’t like to to affect their behavior. In technical terms, this is called Positive Punishment. (I know the term is confusing, but positive in this case means adding a consequence - just like it does above with positive reinforcement.) Punishment is achieved by adding a consequence the dog doesn’t like that causes the behavior to occur less in the future. (In Learning Theory, there are two more quadrants, Negative Reinforcement - removing something the dog doesn’t like that causes a behavior to happen more in the future, and Negative Punishment - removing something the dog likes that causes a behavior to happen less in the future,, but we’re not going to focus on these here.)
I often see posts going aground in support of the use of aversive tools. One of these is shock collars (sometimes referred to as e-collars or electronic collars) for training dogs. On one hand, I’m encouraged to hear posters say these devices should only be used for “some dogs”, the “hard to train dogs”, in very limited and specific situations. I’m hearing that the starting place should always be positive reinforcement (pairing a behavior you like with something the dogs likes). This has not always been the case and makes me happy to see the dog training industry is moving towards the positive side of the training continuum.
That said, we’re not as far along as I wish we were. When I hear the argument that some dogs in specific situations require punishment, I always wonder why I don’t hear this used argument in zoological settings. Trainers in zoos and aquariums are often tasked with teaching large and potentially dangerous animals to cooperate in invasive and uncomfortable procedures without sedation or restraint. Things like blood draws, where animals present a part of their body against the bars of their enclosure, or through the bars, for this procedure. I once saw a rhinoceros being given a sonogram vaginally through the bars of her enclosure. This involved the veterinarian holding a wand that she inserted up to her armpit to get the image. The veterinarian said this was necessary because it was not possible to get the image through their thick skin. The rhinoceros volunteered for the procedure by positioning herself where asked and remained in place without any medical intervention or restraints. She could have just walked away, but didn’t. These animals were not punished into submitting to these procedures. They were taught to do these things willingly. Today, zookeepers are often able to do routine health exams and procedures (i.e., checking teeth, trimming hooves, vaccinating, etc.) collaboratively, meaning the animal is taught do work with the trainers and veterinary staff so they don’t have to be sedated. A problem with sedation is, once the medication is administered, but before it fully takes effect, the animal can injure themselves. In addition, an animal may appear fully sedated, but staff may discover that they are in fact not, once they enter the enclosure, putting the staff at risk of injury. Teaching animals to do specific husbandry behaviors makes these procedures easier and safer for all involved. I’ve yet to hear of a time using a shock collar was a better option. I’m not a zookeeper but wonder about how shocking a tiger into submission to do a blood draw would work out. I think the outcome of making the animal do the behavior out the threat of pain and fear could backfire in a really big way. And what about the tiger’s mental state, wellbeing, and the resulting association made with the staff? This seems ill advised at best, or dangerous at the very worst.
I also wonder why virtually all the governing organizations I’m aware of (AVMA, ACVB, IAABC, APDT, PPG, CCPDT, and so many others) who follow the overwhelming scientific evidence, do not advocate for the use of shock collars. As a matter of fact, this tool has been outlawed in some places in the world. I’ve often seen arguments by trainers who report using shock collars that not everyone should use this tool. But because of their own knowledge and experience, they are the exception. When I hear this, I always think they are saying they know more than all the scientists and behavior professionals studying tools and methods. I personally have literally thousands of hours of training and behavior education and experience, but I would never presume to know more than those with this level of experience and education. As a society, we have used shock in some applications to teach humans. Over time, this has been phased out because it was found to be less effective as hoped and was detrimental to the learner’s wellbeing. The same has been found to be true for non-human animals, including dogs. I appreciate trainers have to make choices in their training practice and sometimes reach the upper limits of their knowledge and abilities and may reach for a tool that feels familiar but is aversive.
I’ve heard countless of talks where the speaker has said “Punishment is reinforcing for the punisher”. I think this is a powerful motivator. In addition, I once heard the great Bob Bailey (if you don’t know who this is, you should look him up. He is probably the most experienced modern-day trainer of our time, maybe ever.) tell a story about being the first marine mammal trainer for the United States Navy. He said while training wild captured dolphins, he was under a lot of pressure to teach behaviors to a high level of reliability on a predetermined timetable while in the open ocean at great distances. They could have easily just said “see ya” and returned to their native habitat. He said he would have used any method that would have worked to get the job done. He said he used positive reinforcement methods because it frankly worked better. Bob kept data on each and every training trial so he had the information to support his opinion. I would argue the things he taught these dolphins far exceeds anything a dog trainer would need to teach a dog and at a greater distance.
Those of us in the industry would agree punishment works. It can be both benign or intrusive/invasive. An example of benign punishment might be blocking a dog from moving forward. In this way, you’re punishing moving forward. Getting a dog (or any animal) to cease what they’re doing when they are highly motivated to do it, would require a high level of intervention. A tap on the shoulder (as the shock collars are often described) would not likely be enough. If the dog made the association that after the “tap on the shoulder” or audible warning (another feature shock collars may have), the dog didn’t stop what they were doing, a more painful stimulus would follow. This means the sensation or sound would need to be paired before you need it. This then means the tap or sound are warnings, or said another way threats, that something they really don’t like is about to happen.
I often hear that the one of the settings of a shock collar causes a sensation that feels like a TENS Unit. I have no reason to believe this isn’t true. These collars have evolved, like all electronic devices. I’ve personally used a TENS Unit and found them not to be painful. Although it may be nice to know that there are settings that aren’t painful, this setting would not likely change a dog’s behavior. Unless, of course, it was associated with a setting that the dog does find painful. The lower setting could then be a warning that if the dog doesn’t change their behavior, then the more painful consequence would follow. Trainers who report they use these devices often say to avoid the “cheap” models and only choose the ones at the top of the line because of the risks of malfunctions. Dogs can be severely injured (you can find these pictures online yourself if you’d like to see them. Some are gory so I will spare you the photos) by collars that malfunction or are not used as designed. People using them need to understand their use, have excellent timing, and know the risks of injury and behavioral problems. If their timing isn’t spot on, the dog may not understand what they are being punished for. Trainers who use these devices regularly complain that they can be misused.
My big question to all of you who would choose to use these on a dog is, if they’re such a great teaching device, why aren’t we using them on our two to three-year-old children? Using the logic I usually see applied to dogs, this would seem like a great way to keep our little ones safely in our yards when our HOAs don’t allow us to have a fence, or teach them to immediately come back to us when they walk away. If you’ve raised a child, or are currently raising one, how do you handle these situations now without the use of a shock collar? Maybe management, supervision, and training? Even if you choose to use physical punishment, I doubt you’d employe the use of a shock collar to motivate or inhibit your child. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences, but the current scientific research overwhelmingly supports that children can be taught without the use of pain and intimidation. As Susan Garrett, an international agility competitor who has an online training school where she teaches hundreds of people how to improve their performance through positive reinforcment techniques, likes to say, “positive is not permissive”. Furthermore, I occasionally see articles online about a parent using a shock collar to teach their young child to behave. In every case, they were arrested for child abuse. Where does society draw the line between teaching and abuse when it comes to children? According to licensed psychologist, Dr. Jaclyn Halpern, “Punishment can turn into abuse when a caregiver is unable to self-regulate”.
The National Library of Medicine defines child abuse in several ways. “Physical abuse is the intentional use of physical force against a child that results in an injury. This could include acts such as hitting (with a hand or an object), kicking, shaking, burning (with hot water, a cigarette, or an iron), restraining a child (by tying them up), depriving a child of air (by holding them underwater, for example), or any other act in which an adult is using force to physically hurt a child.”
Using this definition, a shock collar is unlikely to cause injury, but it most certainly causes pain and is designed to hurt. If it didn’t, it would not likely change the dog’s behavior. Of course dogs are not given the same considerations as children.
When thinking about other human applications for shock collars, one is staff training. Would using a device like this help my staff do their jobs better by ensuring they worked hard to avoid making mistakes? Maybe, but I also suspect I’d have fewer people willing to work for me. How would our human clients feel about us using a painful stimulation when they made a mistake in a class or training session? Would they be willing to continue to train with us? Unfortunately, your dog didn’t have any say about choosing the trainer, their methodology, or the tools they may choose to use. May I assume that those who use this device would prefer it be used on themselves, too, when they make a mistake? Remember, when someone else is in control of the controller, you won’t know precisely when the painful stimulation is coming and not everyone has perfect timing. Hopefully, you’ll understand exactly what you did to receive the shock so you don’t have to receive very many to learn what not to do. Are you old enough to have had corporal punishment used in your school? How well did it work? Did it speed up the learning or cause you to be more careful (possibly slowing down the response) out of fear of making a mistake? I don’t many people who would choose for painful punishment to be used as part of a training plan to teach them a behavior. Of course, I’m sure there are exceptions. I think at the heart of the argument is the idea of wellbeing. Trainers willing to use shock will argue the greater welfare is achieved through its use. The old, “the end justifies the means” argument. Those on the other side of the argument, of course, disagree.
My “balanced” training colleagues (those who will choose to use an array of methods and tools including those that inflict fear and pain to train) will likely respond that I’m not fully versed in the use of these devices and should open my mind and my toolbox to their use. I’ve actually studied their use so I could understand how they are used, but It’s true, I’ve never used one in my training practice, myself. Here’s my question, as I’m expanding my toolbox, should I also add air horns, kicking, hitting, hanging, using a whip, etc.? Which ones of these are useful and should be in my toolbox for occasional use for that one specific dog in that one specific situation, and which ones should never be used? I doubt most “balanced” training professionals use ALL the methods and tools available. They are making decisions based on their knowledge, skills, and ethics, just like I am. Everyone has to draw a line somewhere and they’ve chosen a different place from mine. I am unabashedly a positive reinforcement based dog trainer. I will go to great lengths to find positive reinforcement solutions for the wellbeing of the dogs I work with and their families. When I’m at a loss to find a solution, I consult with others who have more experience with the issue, or refer to a behaviorist, or Veterinary Behaviorist. And I’m constantly learning to do my best to help my clients. There are resources for folks available who need them. As in all fields, no one individual knows all there is to know. I would argue experts who use positive reinforcement in our field are plentiful, easy to find, follow and learn from.
Animal training has come such a long way even in the 20 years, a relatively short time, I’ve been in the field. And I’m encouraged it will continue along the positive reinforcement path. There are great trainers finding new and creative solutions that are being adopted by those in both the positive reinforcement and balanced training camps. As most trainers say, learning is not linear. It is to be expected that will be setbacks while the overall learning is moving forward. This is as true for individual trainers as it is for their learners. My challenge to those who are struggling to find more positive answers is to look toward those leading the way in our field. They are plentiful and easy to find. As the behaviorist Kathy Sdao often says, “punishment is seductive”. Look for positive reinforcement solutions, they’re out there. Don’t be seduced by the punitive side of dog training.
© Laura Hills 2023 www.thedogsspot.com
