Hershey update; 53 POUNDS!!!

Sorry for the lack of updates, but the last time I weighted her she was 53 pounds! Now she doesn't need to lose any more weight, but I thought I would post some pictures of her at this weight.

An introduction to S-R Contiguity

S-R Contiguity, or the feed-forward approach as I like to call it, is the theory that learning occurs with associations that are formed when a response is paired with a stimulus that occur close together. This theory claims that learned behaviors are evoked by the stimulus, so the stimulus (S) evokes an internal or external response (R).  I'm not going to explain why this is the more correct way to explain learning when compared to operant and classical conditioning, but I am going to offer my research paper as an introduction to this feed-forward approach. By "feed-forward," I mean that a stimulus evokes a behavior. "Feed-backwards" would be the theory that a consequence "feeds backwards" to strengthen or weaken the preceding behavior, which is the way learning is currently explained in the dog training field by many trainers. 

I got a 95% on this paper due to some citation errors, but my argument wasn't downgraded at all so I made the corrections and now I present to you what I hope to be a valuable introduction to this approach. It is about non-aversive vs aversive dog training methods, and I explain both from a feed-forward perspective. Enjoy!

Aversive or Non-Aversive Methods: The feed-forward perspective

In the dog training field, there are different methods that trainers stick to in order to modify dog behavior, but there is an ongoing argument on which technique is best in order to treat all behavior problems in dogs. To see which training methods work best is impossible due to the numerous amounts of training techniques in existence, but there are two methods that can easily be compared and contrasted upon. The two that will be compared here will be classified as aversive, being methods that induce pain or discomfort, or non-aversive, or methods that do not induce pain or discomfort to the dog. It is important to look at these two methods because different stimuli evoke different responses in animals. From a feed-forward perspective, these two methods will be analyzed in order to reveal why aversive methods work for some behavior problems in dogs, and why non-aversive methods work for other behavior problems in dogs.

Non-aversive methods include positive reinforcement, such as giving a dog a food or toy reward, in order to strengthen a behavior. By partaking in positive reinforcement, the goal is to strengthen a behavior. Other forms of positive reinforcement can include tactile stimulation that the dog finds enjoyable, such as a side rub or ear massage.  Aversive methods are used on dogs by the means of positive punishment, such as applying a leash correction. By partaking in positive punishment, the goal is to weaken or eliminate a behavior. Other aversive methods include the “alpha roll,” which is when a dog is forced onto its side or back, grabbing the dog’s scruff and shaking them, and some even go as far as hitting or kicking the dog(Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009). Aversive methods can also be done by the means of negative punishment, which is taking something valuable away to weaken or eliminate a behavior.

In 2009, a study analyzing the differences between these two methods was published, revealing that some of the ways people typically deal with undesirable behavior in dogs evokes an aggressive response in them. People seeking help for their dog’s unwanted behavior at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, had to fill out a behavioral questionnaire as a part of their dog’s treatment, which included the survey used in the study. They were asked “yes or no” questions before and after their treatment regarding what they did when their dog engaged in an undesirable behavior and whether or not it evoked a “growl/bare teeth,” “snap/lunge,” or “bite” response from their dog. The most common behavioral problems that they owners wished to solve were aggression to familiar or unfamiliar people, separation anxiety, a more specific fear, or other behavior problems such as aggression to cats or barking (Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009).

Their results showed that the most popular form of positive punishment, the leash correction, evoked the least amount of bites. The forms of positive punishment that did evoke the most aggressive responses in the dogs included the alpha roll, at 31%, “stare downs”, at 30%, and hitting or kicking the dog, at 43%. The dogs that were aggressive to people were the most likely to show an aggressive response after they were “alpha rolled” or hit or kicked. The dogs that were aggressive to familiar people also were the dogs that were aggressive after they would be told “no,” in a loud or stern voice (Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009).

The forms of non-aversive methods used by the clients in the study included using food rewards and clicker training. The instances where aggressive responses were evoked were minimal, with 6% of the dogs engaging in an aggressive behavior when food was being used to trade for an object that the dog had, which was the treatment that evoked the most bites in this category. Other forms of non-aversive methods used by the participants in this study included asking the dog to perform a focusing behavior where the dog would be asked to look at the owner, or asking the dog to sit in order to earn something. Everything on the list of non-aversive treatments evoked the least amount of aggressive responses, which suggests that aversive methods evoke the most aggressive responses from dogs, and the non-aversive method evoke the least amount of aggressive responses (Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009).

Another study in 2008 found correlations between training methods and behavioral problems in the UK. People walking their dogs or visiting veterinary hospitals throughout the UK were given questionnaires asking questions about the training methods they used, and what behavioral problems their dog had. The results were put under the behavior problem categories, “control problem score,” which involved goal seeking behavior, “aggression score,” such as lunging and biting, “fear/avoidance score,” or the “attention seeking score.”  The results showed that the dogs subjected to non-aversive methods had the lowest scores in every behavior problem category, and the aversive methods had high scores in each of the categories. The surprising finding was that dogs that were subjected to both positive reinforcement and positive punishment had the biggest aggression score although, when looking at just aversive or just non-aversive methods, aversive methods were correlated to the most undesirable behaviors such as aggression or engaging in fearful behaviors (Rooney, Twells, Seawright, & Casey, 2008). Although correlation cannot always translate to causation, stimuli evoke behaviors in animals, and the treatment that animals are subjected to are all forms of stimuli. It was previously shown that aversive stimuli evoke aggressive responses (Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009)., so it is not a surprise that the dogs that were subjected to aversive stimuli had a higher aggression score. 

Although that study did not observe what behaviors were evoked by certain training methods, a study done in 2011 found that the participants who used primarily punishment-based methods to train more tasks tended to have dogs that did not interact with a stranger within their home when compared to participants who used more reward-based methods (Rooney & Cowan, 2011). A way of explaining this is that using punishment can cause a dog to have a negative association with people. This would be because aversive techniques evoke behaviors that are incompatible with approaching and interacting with people, which would manifest itself in avoidance-like behaviors or calming signals. Calming signals are behaviors that are done by dogs to either calm themselves  down, or calm  another dog down and includes behaviors such as yawning, looking away, or sniffing the ground suddenly (Rugaas, 2005). From my experience, the best way to identify calming signals are looking for behaviors that almost makes it seem as if the dog is ignoring another dog or human. Ignoring a human is incompatible with interacting with them, so a training method that evokes calming signals that make the dog “ignore” the handler is not going to make them focus on the task at hand. Non-aversive methods evoke behaviors that are more compatible with interacting with people. Food causes dogs to approach the food, and play causes dogs to engage in playful behaviors that are incompatible with fearful behaviors. If a person uses these things with a dog, the dog is more likely to engage in pre-feeding or playful behaviors with that person.

Belgian military dog-handler teams were analyzed to see how training methods affected the teams’ performance during their normal standardized evaluations. In these evaluations, the teams would go through obedience and protection work exercises and each team did the evaluation twice with 20 days in between each evaluation to ensure the reliability of the observations. They looked at the dog’s behavior by analyzing their body postures, “training-related behaviors,” and by determining how distracted the dogs were. Training-related behaviors were looked at during the obedience exercises, and they looked at mouth-licking, if they had their tongue out, yawning, lifting a front paw, replacement behaviors (such as shaking as if they had just been wet), jumping, and if the dog’s mouth was opening and closing quickly. The experimenters considered a dog distracted if their head or body was orientated too far away from their handler or the direction in which they were being guided through the exercise (Haverbeke, Laporte, Depiereux, Giffory, & Diederich, 2008). Looking at these behaviors makes sense because several of those behaviors indicate stress in the dogs, such as mouth-licking, yawning, lifting the front paw, displaying replacement behaviors, and if they were opening and closing the mouth quickly (Aloff, 2010).

It was found that handlers oftentimes punished dogs for not doing an exercise correctly by pulling on the leash, hanging the dog by its collar, verbally scolding the dog, or by hitting the dog. The maximum punishment the dogs received was 80% of the time for incorrect responses for protection work, and 60% during the obedience exercises. The handlers reward the dogs for doing exercises correctly 67% of the time for both obedience and protection work exercises. The observed rewards given to the dogs were stroking the dog, verbally praising the dog, or giving the dog a toy or treat. When looking at the teams’ performance, the dogs that received the most aversive stimulus had the lowest scores, and the dogs that received the most non-aversive stimulus had the highest scores. None of the dogs received exclusively aversive or non-aversive treatment, but the dogs in the high scoring groups were subjected to half of the aversive stimulus that the low scoring groups were subjected to. Dogs that experienced more aversive treatment also were found to high higher levels of distraction, and displayed more of the training related behaviors that are associated with stress (Haverbeke et al, 2008). Because these are stress signals that  the dogs were engaging themselves in after punishment occurred, and the dogs were more distracted as well, it means that punishment evokes stress behaviors and makes the dogs more distracted.

Because the dogs subjected to the most aversive stimuli had the worst scores, it could mean that the exercises evoked anticipatory errors of the aversive stimulus. The evaluations and training exercises have been practiced over the course of the dog’s lives while being in the military (Haverbeke et al, 2008), which means that there was time for these anticipatory behaviors to form, which would have interfered with the target behaviors in some of the exercises. In a feed-backwards perspective, the punished dogs should have done better because punishment after an incorrect behavior was more frequent than the amount of rewards given after a correct behavior, so the incorrect and punished behaviors should have weakened or extinguished, resulting in a higher score for those teams. Instead, the aversive stimulus evoked behaviors that were incompatible with the obedience and protection work exercises, which resulted in the dogs not performing the targeted exercises as well as the dogs that were subjected to less aversive stimulus.

Aversive stimulus appears to make dogs engage in behaviors that are incompatible with things that people want dogs to do, such as the military dogs in Belgium, but it can be used for protecting livestock from dogs. According to the Companion Animal Behaviour Study Group, shock collars are appropriate for this purpose only, and it has been determined that it is an effective way to get dogs to leave livestock alone even if they were reintroduced to livestock a year after being shocked for going after them (Christiansen, Bakken, & Braastad, 2001). There does not appear to be much more evidence in favor of the usefulness of aversive methods except for during these types of purposes where one is trying to stop a dog from chasing livestock by using a shock collar. This would be because shocking the dogs evoked behaviors that are incompatible with chasing, which included jumping and yelping. Certain breeds of dogs are genetically predisposed to chasing, such as herding dogs (Sherman, Reisner, Taliaferro, & Houpt, 1996), so these breeds may or may not respond to this type of training, just like how some dogs will go through the shock of an invisible fence in order to chase a rabbit out of the yard. Otherwise, aversive stimulus evokes the most aggressive behaviors, and has even been linked to disobedience and an increase in anxious and fearful behaviors so it is not considered the safest or most effective training method when the target behaviors are increased confidence and responsiveness to obedience commands (Christiansen, Bakken, & Braastad, 2001).

Non-aversive methods have overwhelming evidence that suggests that it evokes behaviors that are compatible with what is typically considered “more desirable” behavior, such as the absence of aggressive behavior. For example, it has been shown that the more a dog was put in obedience classes the less likely they were to be aggressive (Jagoe & Serpell, 1996). Some traditional trainers would argue this is because the handler has asserted its dominance over the dog, but a more valid explanation is that training a dog makes the dog engage in behaviors that are incompatible with aggression, so the likelihood of aggression developing decreases as the alternative behaviors increase that are incompatible with aggression. It is a popular belief that dominance is a key motivator of behavior in dogs, especially with aggressive dogs, but aggression has been found to be caused by anxiety or from the dog trying to defend themselves from something that they perceive to be as dangerous (Herron, Shofer, & Reisner, 2009). This is why, from a feed-forward perspective, non-aversive methods are so effective in the treatment of aggressive dogs. Feeding and play, the two most popular forms of positive reinforcement, are incompatible with fearful behaviors, and the fearful stimulus that previously evoked aggression eventually evokes pre-feeding or playful behaviors when the dog is subjected to a systematic desensitization protocol. Non-aversive methods have also been implemented in treating dogs with phobias, and was found to be 100% effective when tested on 247 dogs (Rogerson, 1997), which makes perfect sense when seen from a feed-forward perspective.

Dog trainers have been arguing about the best way to modify dog behavior. Just like how behaviorists desire a parsimonious explanation for learning, dog trainers want to know the dog training method that is going to work for every behavior problem. The research outlined here suggests that aversive methods do have some practical uses that are effective, but non-aversive methods are overwhelmingly effective in the treatment of aggression and phobias in dogs, and it contributes to a better performance in working dogs. By comparing these two methods, it has also been found that non-aversive methods result in the less human-directed aggression when trying to treat these problems, making non-aversive methods safer to use with aggressive dogs. This makes non-aversive dog training methods the most effective and safe training method for dog behavior modifications when done correctly.

 References

Aloff, B. (2010) Canine Body Language: A Photographic Guide.  Washington: Dogwise Publishing.

Christiansen, F.O., Bakken, M., & Braastad, B.O. (2001). Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second-year confrontation with domestic sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 72, 131-143.

Haverbeke, A., Laporte, B., Depiereux, E., Giffory, J.M., Diederich, C. (2008). Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team’s performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 113, 110-122.

Herron, M.E., Shofer, F.S, Reisner, I.R. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational traning methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 117, 47-54.

Jagoe, A., Serpell, J. (1996). Owner characteristics and interactions and the prevalence of canine behavior problems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 47, 31-42.

Rogerson, J. (1997). Canine fears and phobias; a regime for treatment without recourse to drugs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 52, 291-297.

Rooney, N.J, Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behavior and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 132, 169-177.

Rugass, T. (2005). On Talking Terms With Dogs: Calming Signals. Washington: Dogwise Publishing.

Sherman, C.K., Reisner, I.R., Taliaferro, L.A., Houpt, K.A. (1996). Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of 99 cases of aggression between dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 47, 91-108.