Twice in the past week I've been read essays blaming clicker training for misbehavior in dogs. I don't know what's behind this resurgence, but will offer my perspective on why that is foolish and dangerous.
The authors are postulating that a return to the use of aversives (under the slick marketing term of "balance") will magically create "better" behaved dogs. One post was about alpha rolls and dominance; the other was about the need for using punishment in training for competitive obedience.
Neither cited a single peer-reviewed reference or controlled study; that should be a clue to all readers that what they are getting is opinion and not fact. I will endeavor not to make the same mistake.
Let's tackle alpha rolls first. (Like the metaphor?) There's so much misconception, myth, and misinformation wrapped up in this, it's difficult to know where to start. So I'm just going to pick a place and begin.
One commonly heard rationalization for the use of alpha rolls is they establish the human as dominant - "alpha" - over the dog. That should beg the question - what is dominance? For a primer, read Dr. Sophia Yin's excellent article. For a "how to" on being the pack leader using brains instead of brawn, read this.
Wolves don't actually physically dominate one another. At least, healthy wolves don't. They don't have access to medical care so risking injury by actually fighting one another would be, from a survival standpoint, stupid. Why get into a physical confrontation, even if you win it, when an infection could kill you? The alpha wolf / dominance / roll myth has been disproven so many times I've come to the conclusion that people cling to it willfully. You can read the facts here and here (and if you don't have the Coppinger book and own a dog, for pete's sake buy it); watch video evidence here and here. Need more? Here you go: more and more and more and more.
And by the way, it may seem obvious but bears pointing out: dogs aren't wolves. So even if wolves do use physical dominance - and current research finds no evidence they do - it would be foolhardy to presume that behavior transfers to dogs, which are a different subspecies. (If you're aware of real evidence, by all means share it in the comments section below.) If we get hung up on the genus canis we are making the same mistake as anyone that assumes a horse Equus ferus caballus and a donkey Equus africanus asinus are the same because they both start with Equus. Ask anyone that has lived and worked with both and you'll get an earful of reality.
Why on earth would someone that loves their dog, and wants to be a good trainer, willingly cling to this myth? After a decade of working with people and their dogs, I think there are three likely reasons:
1 - Ignorance
Many people continue to use outdated training techniques because they just don't know differently.
Pavlov, Skinner, Breland, and Bailey have repeatedly proven for the better part of the last century that it simply isn't necessary. The data show that, even with non-professionals, it is more effective not to use punishment to train. Click here for an interesting discussion on the vocabulary used by professional trainers and behaviorists. Read this for a short overview and this for a longer and more technical presentation.
Anyone genuinely interested in becoming a better trainer will find countless resources available to get them started. It's not an easy journey, but an indescribably satisfying one.
2 - Delivering punishment is a self-reinforcing behavior to the person meting out the punishment
Go back to this link for a moment. Read slide 40: "Punishment reinforces the punisher." Read it again. Then read this and this.
Simply put, physically punishing a dog makes the person feel good. Even though it is, conclusively, bad for the dog, bad for the relationship, and doesn't actually change the behavior supposedly being punished. People feel like they are doing something, get a chemical rush out of it, temporarily suppress the dog's behavior, and pouf! Perfect recipe for repeating the deliverance of punishment. (For a full discussion of this phenomenon, read this book.) It's also worth noting that using positive reinforcement has long term benefits to the cognitive ability of the dog (or whatever species is being trained - from fish to primates).
3 - Not everything is a training problem; thus training isn't always the answer.
There was an incident at a recent obedience trial that got quite the emotional write-up. Being subject to attack or witnessing one is traumatic for all involved. What's missing from this piece is first-hand knowledge that the attacking dog was clicker trained, had never been herding (nor why that would be relevant), nor that fuzzy toys were actually used by its handler (nor why that would be relevant in a normal healthy dog with good vision). Nonetheless, the author has made the assumptions necessary to put forward her "solution" euphemistically described as a return to a balanced approach to training and thus supports her postulation that the use of "corrections" - another euphemism - and rationalizes the use of punishment in dog training.
Does punishment work? Sure; with precise timing and the right level of force, it can. But it's got a heavy price and as documented above, isn't necessary.
When a dog has a true behavior problem - is unstable, unpredictable, or just crazy (and yes, that happens) - then what is called for is Behavior Modification. There are several choices, but what's mostly needed is a professional (who can be hard to find, depending on where you live) with successful experience. We must always remember that training has its limits; we can not teach a fish to drive a car or a horse to do calculus - only what it is physically, cognitively, and emotionally capable of learning. B-Mod can make a difference... and when that fails, an owner is left with few choices. Let's be very very careful and not blame training technique when it may not be a training problem at all.
Have I ever manhandled a dog? Well yes of course I have. I'm not perfect and have done any number of things in my life that I'd rather I hadn't. Do I still use physical means when training dogs? While this invites a longer discussion of management vs. training (a worthy topic all its own), in the main, the answer is: rarely and consciously. Deliberately. With specific purpose and then immediately move from P+ back to R+. I have in fact worked with a client to use a shock collar; it took weeks of soul-searching, long and detailed conversations, and careful planning. Did it work? Yes. Would I do it again? Maybe. Would I prefer another solution? Yes.
Do I use aversives with my pack at home? While I never claimed to be a purist, neither is P+ the first tool I pull out of my metaphorical bag of tricks. You'd have to ask my dogs - aversives being in the opinion of the receiver - if I am a fair and predictable trainer, owner, and leader. I expect you'd conclude that they are happy, generally well behaved, and respectful. They are not plotting to dethrone me (and they are a lot faster and stronger than I am), and I live with a large number of dogs that never fight - for the simple reason that I ensure they never have something to fight about.
I'm not perfect and neither are they, but then training is never truly done, is it?
The authors are postulating that a return to the use of aversives (under the slick marketing term of "balance") will magically create "better" behaved dogs. One post was about alpha rolls and dominance; the other was about the need for using punishment in training for competitive obedience.
Neither cited a single peer-reviewed reference or controlled study; that should be a clue to all readers that what they are getting is opinion and not fact. I will endeavor not to make the same mistake.
Let's tackle alpha rolls first. (Like the metaphor?) There's so much misconception, myth, and misinformation wrapped up in this, it's difficult to know where to start. So I'm just going to pick a place and begin.
One commonly heard rationalization for the use of alpha rolls is they establish the human as dominant - "alpha" - over the dog. That should beg the question - what is dominance? For a primer, read Dr. Sophia Yin's excellent article. For a "how to" on being the pack leader using brains instead of brawn, read this.
Wolves don't actually physically dominate one another. At least, healthy wolves don't. They don't have access to medical care so risking injury by actually fighting one another would be, from a survival standpoint, stupid. Why get into a physical confrontation, even if you win it, when an infection could kill you? The alpha wolf / dominance / roll myth has been disproven so many times I've come to the conclusion that people cling to it willfully. You can read the facts here and here (and if you don't have the Coppinger book and own a dog, for pete's sake buy it); watch video evidence here and here. Need more? Here you go: more and more and more and more.
And by the way, it may seem obvious but bears pointing out: dogs aren't wolves. So even if wolves do use physical dominance - and current research finds no evidence they do - it would be foolhardy to presume that behavior transfers to dogs, which are a different subspecies. (If you're aware of real evidence, by all means share it in the comments section below.) If we get hung up on the genus canis we are making the same mistake as anyone that assumes a horse Equus ferus caballus and a donkey Equus africanus asinus are the same because they both start with Equus. Ask anyone that has lived and worked with both and you'll get an earful of reality.
Why on earth would someone that loves their dog, and wants to be a good trainer, willingly cling to this myth? After a decade of working with people and their dogs, I think there are three likely reasons:
1 - Ignorance
Many people continue to use outdated training techniques because they just don't know differently.
Pavlov, Skinner, Breland, and Bailey have repeatedly proven for the better part of the last century that it simply isn't necessary. The data show that, even with non-professionals, it is more effective not to use punishment to train. Click here for an interesting discussion on the vocabulary used by professional trainers and behaviorists. Read this for a short overview and this for a longer and more technical presentation.
Anyone genuinely interested in becoming a better trainer will find countless resources available to get them started. It's not an easy journey, but an indescribably satisfying one.
2 - Delivering punishment is a self-reinforcing behavior to the person meting out the punishment
Go back to this link for a moment. Read slide 40: "Punishment reinforces the punisher." Read it again. Then read this and this.
Simply put, physically punishing a dog makes the person feel good. Even though it is, conclusively, bad for the dog, bad for the relationship, and doesn't actually change the behavior supposedly being punished. People feel like they are doing something, get a chemical rush out of it, temporarily suppress the dog's behavior, and pouf! Perfect recipe for repeating the deliverance of punishment. (For a full discussion of this phenomenon, read this book.) It's also worth noting that using positive reinforcement has long term benefits to the cognitive ability of the dog (or whatever species is being trained - from fish to primates).
3 - Not everything is a training problem; thus training isn't always the answer.
There was an incident at a recent obedience trial that got quite the emotional write-up. Being subject to attack or witnessing one is traumatic for all involved. What's missing from this piece is first-hand knowledge that the attacking dog was clicker trained, had never been herding (nor why that would be relevant), nor that fuzzy toys were actually used by its handler (nor why that would be relevant in a normal healthy dog with good vision). Nonetheless, the author has made the assumptions necessary to put forward her "solution" euphemistically described as a return to a balanced approach to training and thus supports her postulation that the use of "corrections" - another euphemism - and rationalizes the use of punishment in dog training.
Does punishment work? Sure; with precise timing and the right level of force, it can. But it's got a heavy price and as documented above, isn't necessary.
When a dog has a true behavior problem - is unstable, unpredictable, or just crazy (and yes, that happens) - then what is called for is Behavior Modification. There are several choices, but what's mostly needed is a professional (who can be hard to find, depending on where you live) with successful experience. We must always remember that training has its limits; we can not teach a fish to drive a car or a horse to do calculus - only what it is physically, cognitively, and emotionally capable of learning. B-Mod can make a difference... and when that fails, an owner is left with few choices. Let's be very very careful and not blame training technique when it may not be a training problem at all.
Have I ever manhandled a dog? Well yes of course I have. I'm not perfect and have done any number of things in my life that I'd rather I hadn't. Do I still use physical means when training dogs? While this invites a longer discussion of management vs. training (a worthy topic all its own), in the main, the answer is: rarely and consciously. Deliberately. With specific purpose and then immediately move from P+ back to R+. I have in fact worked with a client to use a shock collar; it took weeks of soul-searching, long and detailed conversations, and careful planning. Did it work? Yes. Would I do it again? Maybe. Would I prefer another solution? Yes.
Do I use aversives with my pack at home? While I never claimed to be a purist, neither is P+ the first tool I pull out of my metaphorical bag of tricks. You'd have to ask my dogs - aversives being in the opinion of the receiver - if I am a fair and predictable trainer, owner, and leader. I expect you'd conclude that they are happy, generally well behaved, and respectful. They are not plotting to dethrone me (and they are a lot faster and stronger than I am), and I live with a large number of dogs that never fight - for the simple reason that I ensure they never have something to fight about.
I'm not perfect and neither are they, but then training is never truly done, is it?
