Aidan

Thank you for taking a deeper look at this. -P can involve the reinforcer that is maintaining the target behaviour, but there are two important points: 1. it doesn't have to be that reinforcer, just a stimulus that is removed that results in punishment 2. the stimulus is taken away as a consequence of the unwanted response Haha, don't be silly! Good question. Sometimes we can't answer this sort of hypothetical question without making some assumptions. I'll fill in some extra details. Let's say we're working on 'roll over' (it fits with the info given), we've been doing this for a while when suddenly the dog gets up and walks off. Trainer puts food back in the fridge and starts washing the dishes. These are a few of the possibilities: 1. the dog was satiated - in which case withdrawing the food is meaningless 2. the dog was distracted by something going on outside and goes to check it out - in which case withdrawing food is probably meaningless 3. the dog was distracted by a noise, but realising that the food is no longer on offer, returns to work and does not get up and leave when working on this behaviour in future sessions - in which case withdrawing the food was negative punishment. 4. the dog pops up into a sit (previously reinforced with food) half a dozen times while working on 'roll over' - in which case you are probably looking at an extinction procedure I'm not sure if this answers your question or not? It may also answer Corvus' question?

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure I didn't use the terms "positive" or "negative" This is true in many fields. We just have to do the best we can when it matters.

Thanks Corvus. There will always be some who are simply not interested, and others who want to keep "sharpening the saw".

I agree, many clicker trainers tend to miss the negative reinforcement procedures that are happening regardless of their intentions, particularly with reactive dogs (my specialty). Although I have to ask, are you referring to anything in particular about either of those posts? I have used +R purely in the technical sense, and when referring to the definition of extinction, I have deliberately not made the distinction, except where appropriate, because extinction (operant extinction) can apply to either positive or negative reinforcement. Do you think others might erroneously assume that I am using it [+R] as a popular term to describe a training style? I have learned to be particularly cautious even when writing for a popular audience because most of my writing is peer-reviewed. You scientists are a pedantic lot and over time I have learned that it is for a good reason. You don't maintain these standards simply because you enjoy it!

I think I can see why you think I refer to extinction as a "reinforcement quadrant". In the earlier discussion you said that "withholding a treat until the correct response is given" was -R (your typo) and I said that it was positive reinforcement. OK, so when a dog gives you a response and you give it a treat that is +R, right? (Assuming the response increases, of course) Whenever you use +R you are always withholding the treat until the correct response is given. How else can you do it? Whether that "withholding the treat" is extinction or not depends on whether the reinforcer you withhold is maintaining whatever behaviour is happening until the reinforcer is given to the dog. Unless we can find something else that is maintaining those behaviours, we tend to assume that it is. It is definitely not -P, not by any accepted definition.

I have never referred to extinction as a reinforcement quadrant. I have continued this discussion here: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=176397

Clearly you are misunderstanding my argument. I have never said that extinction is a reinforcement quadrant! I have been very clear throughout the entire discussion that extinction is the failure to reinforce a previously reinforced behaviour (if you like, a "failure to use an expected reinforcement quadrant"). The "quadrants" are all consequences, the environment provides a consequence to the organism. Extinction is a failure to provide an expected, reinforcing consequence (in broad, layman's terms). This is why it is not a "quadrant". In order to diminish behaviour you can use either +P, -P or Extinction. Are you understanding that Extinction is not the result of -P? I take this quote from the article I linked to earlier (http://www.animalbehavioranswers.com/id117.html) "But there’s another process that sounds a lot like extinction. Negative punishment sounds, at first blush, so much like extinction that some people have decided that extinction is really the same thing. But they dismiss it too soon. " In the example used in the original discussion you were making this same mistake, throwing an extinction procedure into the -P quadrant by referring to it as -P when you had not taken away a stimulus contingent upon the unwanted response (but instead had withheld the reinforcer that was maintaining the unwanted response).

Too right jdavis, someone on this forum was trying to tell me that extinction training is part of the reinforcement quadrant schedule..............never mind! Are you referring to me here? http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...75380&st=60 I'm not sure what you think "extinction" refers to, but it has a very specific technical definition which sets it apart from punishment. Any behavioural science text-book will verify this. Here is a plain english article aimed at dog trainers written by a board certified behaviour analyst that you might find interesting: http://www.animalbehavioranswers.com/id117.html

You have exactly what has been reinforced, a dog who walks out in front of you and will stop when you stop. You can increase the criteria now, what exactly is it that you would like her to do? If it is to walk at heel, then you need to stop when she forges ahead, before the leash goes tight. If you don't mind where she is so long as the leash is absolutely loose, then stop when the clip on the leash is not hanging down. This article might have some tips for you: http://positivepetzine.com/node/345 "Broken Ankle Downhill Loose Leash Walking"

Dogs who have learned bite inhibition can and DO demonstrate it when threatened and biting in defence. That is not a blanket statement that applies to all dogs, but it is a statement of fact.

:D

In a quiet, neutral location I (as a stranger) clicker train the dog to touch my hand with their nose. I then introduce new people. If there is any chance of a bite I will use a target stick instead, it makes very little difference (I don't know why, I think it's just that the dog makes the choice to approach and the outcome is predictable and safe). If necessary you can have visitors do the same, but I do not exaggerate when I say that within a couple of sessions many shy dogs just get over whatever problem they had with strangers. If Koolietas is following this thread she might vouch for that, having seen it happen at least a couple of times in my classes. In other cases I use an approach/retreat protocol, but that would not be indicated by what you have described.

Dogs can often learn to pull when walking with other dogs. They learn to get away with it when the owner becomes inconsistent due to the extra work it takes to maintain loose leash walking with two dogs.

Does "no" mean anything? The only way to answer this would be to use it on it's own, then observe to see if there is actually a reduction in this behaviour or not. Otherwise you might as well be saying "look at the birds" You're basically just putting it on cue. Yes, she knows that ‘no’ means stop whatever you are doing. OK, good, so she looks at you reasonably quickly when you use it provided you get in early enough? Do you have friends with an aviary? I think it's always better to start off with something "too easy" and get a ton of repetitions there, build up the exact behaviour or behaviours that you want, then start increasing the difficulty once you have exactly what you want. Personally, if this were my dog I'd have her looking at me without thinking immediately when cued and doing that until release, and also heeling past the birds. So I would start somewhere with no birds, then move to the outside of an aviary, then I'd go to the car-park by the beach and have someone try to eat a bag of chips at whatever distance necessary from me (No really, I'm serious) If you use corrections then add them after this.

Some good tips in that one.

Dog trainers call it "classical conditioning" - making an association. You pair the GL with "good thing" so that he experiences those "good feelings" when wearing it. Does it work? Absolutely! But if your dog is so shut down while wearing the GL that you can't play the game it is pointless. I teach dogs to "put the GL on themselves". If you put the GL on them, even just for a short time, and they don't accept it willingly you're already on the back foot. You can condition them to wear the GL without complaining, but your job just got much harder. Harnesses are used by pulling dogs (sledding, weight pull etc) because they are comfortable to pull in and allow the dog to pull harder. They do not CAUSE pulling, per se. Some harnesses do, however, discourage pulling (to some extent). PF has mentioned the Sporn, there are also harnesses which attach at the front which give you some lever advantage. I like to use a clear target, a family member with food is good, and I back up the moment he starts to pull and keep backing up slowly. Reward "easing up" at first, he doesn't have to turn around, he just has to stop pulling. It takes good timing and a bit of finesse, and you have to be consistent with it pretty much for life. I too recommend that you see someone who can teach you the skills, whatever skills they teach.

Train them separately, set yourself and your pups up for success.

Does "no" mean anything? The only way to answer this would be to use it on it's own, then observe to see if there is actually a reduction in this behaviour or not. Otherwise you might as well be saying "look at the birds" You're basically just putting it on cue.

Just be careful not to confuse two completely separate issues. Right now Erik is what, 9 weeks old? A little growl and a nip back when being pinned at this age is not something you would want to draw conclusions from. He will be testing the boundaries for a long time yet, and assuming Kivi's development was normal there's little reason to doubt that Kivi will know how to handle it. As for you mother's dog, you already know the problem. Unless you follow the same path you will end up in a different place. Not to mention the fact that you have an older dog who will play a large part in Erik's development.

When a previously reinforced behaviour is no longer being reinforced, the animal will often escalate the behaviour before it starts to diminish again. Put more simply, when something stops working for a dog, they have a little tantrum or a sook.

It's generally a rate of reinforcement / criteria issue and that is the first thing to look at. Sometimes cueing a well known behaviour can settle things down a little, and give you a chance to consider the situation. I try to avoid extinction bursts if I can.

:D ... if you are consistent early on it sticks, sometimes very quickly.

Leave the room and shut the door behind you.

My GSD is like this also, which is not uncommon so I had never thought to do anything much about it. When my daughter was born I had some reason to change it so I thought I would start by not letting her OUT of the car if she was whining (which was when it was worst anyway). I discovered it was really easy to get her to stop whining loudly, but really difficult to stop that quiet "whistling" they do. It's almost cute though so I've compromised on that. The next step was to get her to stop whining before I would open the back door. Now I'm working on not getting out of the car myself if she is whining. Next will be not turning the car off... you can probably see where I'm going with this. If her whining while travelling was really bad I would probably tackle it more directly, maybe get my wife to drive while I sit in the back and teach a shush cue but I'm happy that I've knocked off the worst of it for now.