On The Effective Use Of Punishment

[Cosmolo]

I think thats important too- punishment isn't instructive, so therefore, you can't just deliver a punishment and expect the dog to work out the alternative on their own. If i use a punisher, i always want to ensure the dog knows what they can do instead. Again it depends on the dog too- some dogs need more help to work things out in any training, others do not need as much.

Some dogs are super sensitive, some are insensitive and everything in between. This is where the skill of a trainer comes into play IMO- to be able to go from dog to dog and automatically adjusting what you're doing and how you're training to suit. This is where any stock standard training can go wrong because dogs are so so different from each other

[poodlefan]

I think that prior to the use of punishment, the handler also needs to be utterly confident that THEY aren't part of the issue.

Look at the old way pups were toilet trained. "Rub their noses in it" was pure punishment, usually delivered well after the pup might have connected that punishment with the undesired behaviour and with the pup "blamed" for doing the wrong thing when the right thing may not have been clear to it.

It takes a lot of confidence in your ability as a trainer to be sure that the dog knows exactly what was expected of it, had been conditioned to offer it and CHOSE not to comply.

Few handlers I've seen can afford to be routinely that confident. Vickie, I agree that agility is an area where dogs are punished for handler errors.

ETA: I agree that you have to deal with the dog in front of you. To those who have always used punishment as a routine part of training, I say try a more challenging breed/dog and see how far it gets you.

Edited January 3, 2010 by poodlefan

[corvus]

BUT i find it sad that the word punishment has now become loaded with such negative connatations- its fast becoming a 'dirty word'.

Sorry Cosmolo, but I find that comment to be a little on the bizarre side. Who associates the word "punishment" with good things? Why would you? It's like saying "It's sad that violence is a dirty word these days". Of course it is, because it describes something that is universally unpleasant. You can't escape that. No one likes to be punished, so why would they ever view just the word punishment without that dislike colouring their view of it?

In addition to what Zug Zug said, I think that many people simply don't have the adequate skills at interpreting dog body language to be confident they have all the rules covered. I mentioned in another thread a dog that is afraid to do a lot of things because of the way its owners behave, but the owners themselves adore this dog and have no idea of what they are doing to him. I think that they represent the majority of the dog owning public. I can't say how many times I've told someone specifically how not to behave around my hare and they do exactly what I told them not to without even realising it anyway. People just aren't aware of these things a lot of the time. You can't blame them, and they aren't stupid or heartless, they are just oblivious. I could not count the number of times someone has been surprised when their dog has snapped, even though the poor dog has kept up a running commentary of their increasing feelings of upset for the last 30 seconds.

[Cosmolo]

And the same could be said to those that never use punishment Trainers should be willing to change and adapt- from day to day and in the long term too. I'm not the same trainer i was 6 months, 6 years ago and i like that- there is always more to learn.

[Cosmolo]

Corvus, i can understand why that sounds silly

But what i mean is that now, i think many people equate punishment, not just with something unpleasant, but with abuse or extremist punishment.

I see clients who tell me they don't want to use any punishment because they have had a bad experience- recent one was a dog going blue on a slip lead.. Thats not what i think of when i think punishment and i hate that other people do because of such an experience. In the same way- i have others tell me they will not use food to train because they had previous bad experience- bribery, constant food treats etc.

So i dislike people thinking the word punishment = abuse, and dislike training with food= bribery. A tool used incorrectly does not make a bad tool! Some tools are harder to teach to some people and no tool is suited to every dog.

Maybe its my background as well- punishment to me is a consequence that makes behaviour less likely to occur. I know the 'jargon' annoys some people but tahts really how i think of it- its not an emotionally loaded word for me.

[Diva]

I think that prior to the use of punishment, the handler also needs to be utterly confident that THEY aren't part of the issue.

...and that they aren't reacting out of emotion.

I've seen too many people use punishment out of frustration, without having thought it through. I've seen people mis-use/mis-time reinforcements as an expression of their emotional state too, and that's also bad training, but it's not as hard on the dog.

I acknowledge positive punishment has its place in training but I am very careful of it as a tool both because of it's potential to damage and because I think it calls to the worst part of our natures. As a species we love to punish and blame even when it's counter to our long term aspirations, and many people will escalate punishment even when it's clearly not working.

[huski]

Pax - I've trained things using a NRM and not using them at all. The NRM tends to work well for us. Daisy knows that it means 'oops, try again'. It's just another way of marking behaviour IMO. I use it for the same reason I use 'yes' to mark behaviour that I want to see, instead of just giving her the reward. At the end of the day it works for my dog and I can't see what is wrong with using it

Corvus I disagree that it's possible to only use positive reinforcement. Is pausing instead of giving a reward not withholding it? Do the trainers give the animal the reward even when they get it wrong, just with a pause in between? I also disagree that anyone who uses anything other than P+ just "isn't clever enough" to do otherwise. Why the implication that if you use anything other than P+ you are somehow lacking as a trainer?

[Diva]

. Is pausing instead of giving a reward not withholding it? Do the trainers give the animal the reward even when they get it wrong, just with a pause in between?

I still have trouble viewing witholding the reward as a punishment without some mental gymnastics.

When my dogs know the training game, if they don't get rewarded they try harder or try something else, trying to work out what the criteria is. I don't see behaviour diminish, unless perhaps I have the reinforcement schedule wrong for that dog or they are satiated/tired- but that's not punishment to me.

[Erny]

When my dogs know the training game, if they don't get rewarded they try harder or try something else, trying to work out what the criteria is. I don't see behaviour diminish, unless perhaps I have the reinforcement schedule wrong for that dog or they are satiated/tired- but that's not punishment to me.

It's about seeing the unwanted behaviour diminish, not "behaviour" in general.

Unless you're saying that even though you don't reward them, they continue to give the wrong behaviour (time after time; session after session). But somehow, I don't think that's what you're saying.

[huski]

. Is pausing instead of giving a reward not withholding it? Do the trainers give the animal the reward even when they get it wrong, just with a pause in between?

I still have trouble viewing witholding the reward as a punishment without some mental gymnastics.

When my dogs know the training game, if they don't get rewarded they try harder or try something else, trying to work out what the criteria is. I don't see behaviour diminish, unless perhaps I have the reinforcement schedule wrong for that dog or they are satiated/tired- but that's not punishment to me.

I guess that depends on your definition of punishment.

What does withholding the reward tell the dog? Does the dog find it unpleasant? Does it make them a bit frustrated? Does the behaviour they "got wrong" diminish?

[Staff'n'Toller]

When my dogs know the training game, if they don't get rewarded they try harder or try something else, trying to work out what the criteria is. I don't see behaviour diminish, unless perhaps I have the reinforcement schedule wrong for that dog or they are satiated/tired- but that's not punishment to me.

It's about seeing the unwanted behaviour diminish, not "behaviour" in general.

Unless you're saying that even though you don't reward them, they continue to give the wrong behaviour (time after time; session after session). But somehow, I don't think that's what you're saying.

I think Diva means drive, not a specific behaviour.

[Diva]

It's about seeing the unwanted behaviour diminish, not "behaviour" in general.

Unless you're saying that even though you don't reward them, they continue to give the wrong behaviour (time after time; session after session). But somehow, I don't think that's what you're saying.

Yes, I know it's about dimishing unwanted behaviour, I clearly wasn't being very clear.

Nevermind, I think I'll just stick with my definitions.

[PAX]

Pax - I've trained things using a NRM and not using them at all. The NRM tends to work well for us. Daisy knows that it means 'oops, try again'. It's just another way of marking behaviour IMO. I use it for the same reason I use 'yes' to mark behaviour that I want to see, instead of just giving her the reward. At the end of the day it works for my dog and I can't see what is wrong with using it

Huski, you have a hard breed to train and I give you heaps of credit for acheiving what you have with Daisy. I'm sure the NRM works for you, I bet Daisy is indifferent, but whatever, you are both happy training and that's what counts.

I sometimes use a NRM for a known exercise, I say 'what happened?' or 'oops' but the only difference to my dogs is they don't get the reward. I think the NRM is for my benefit and not theirs. Often (when I can keep my mouth shut) I don't use it and the training results are the same if not better.

Maybe you could give it a go and let Daisy be the judge.

[huski]

Pax - I've trained things using a NRM and not using them at all. The NRM tends to work well for us. Daisy knows that it means 'oops, try again'. It's just another way of marking behaviour IMO. I use it for the same reason I use 'yes' to mark behaviour that I want to see, instead of just giving her the reward. At the end of the day it works for my dog and I can't see what is wrong with using it

Huski, you have a hard breed to train and I give you heaps of credit for acheiving what you have with Daisy. I'm sure the NRM works for you, I bet Daisy is indifferent, but whatever, you are both happy training and that's what counts.

I sometimes use a NRM for a known exercise, I say 'what happened?' or 'oops' but the only difference to my dogs is they don't get the reward. I think the NRM is for my benefit and not theirs. Often (when I can keep my mouth shut) I don't use it and the training results are the same if not better.

Maybe you could give it a go and let Daisy be the judge.

She's not too bad, she's (surprisingly) easy to train with the right motivation Although I guess I don't know any different

It probably is largely for my benefit, as I like to try and be as clear and consistent as possible and I guess it's also a force of habit.

I've also found it useful to use a NRM when she's a distance from me and I want to mark that she made a mistake as quickly as possible i.e. (random example, not something we have a problem with) she drops in a sit/stay. I guess I could rely on my body language to indicate she got it wrong, but it's kind of the same thing in my mind.

The other day when I was training her to pick up the dumbell, I put it down and she walked up to it and touched it but didn't pick it up. At this point, she'd picked it up and bought it to me quite a few times but not totally reliably. I gave a NRM and she picked it up and gave it to me (which I marked with a yes). Before that, if I didn't give a NRM, she touched it and looked back to me to see if she'd got it right. Now I'm a very inexperienced trainer and make a lot of mistakes, but I know that the times I gave her a NRM made it that much clearer to her about what I wanted.

[PAX]

Well that's great but they way we would train it is, she would be busting to get it, you would not need to NRM for not getting it, you would be fighting her to be steady getting it...lol.

Horses for courses.

[huski]

Well that's great but they way we would train it is, she would be busting to get it, you would not need to NRM for not getting it, you would be fighting her to be steady getting it...lol.

Horses for courses.

I've never taught it before, I read Shirley Chong's method and based what we did off that, and just marked and rewarded for any behaviour towards the dumbell to start with. So it was all free shaping. If there's a better way to do it I'd love to know for next time!

I wouldn't know how to train it so she would be busting to pick it up when she still wasn't 100% sure if that's what she was supposed to do. Certainly, she is very excited about getting it now she knows what to do with it. Being such an inexperienced handler I was just totally excited when she picked it up, and I saw the light bulb go off in her head like "Oh, so THAT'S what I need to do to get the food?"

I tried to share my excitement with everyone else in the house by showing them what she'd learnt to do in such a short time, but they didn't quite get it

Edited January 3, 2010 by huski

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I think that prior to the use of punishment, the handler also needs to be utterly confident that THEY aren't part of the issue.

...and that they aren't reacting out of emotion.

I've seen too many people use punishment out of frustration, without having thought it through. I've seen people mis-use/mis-time reinforcements as an expression of their emotional state too, and that's also bad training, but it's not as hard on the dog.

I acknowledge positive punishment has its place in training but I am very careful of it as a tool both because of it's potential to damage and because I think it calls to the worst part of our natures. As a species we love to punish and blame even when it's counter to our long term aspirations, and many people will escalate punishment even when it's clearly not working.

This, exactly. The debates often focus on the damage to the dog. Less often do you hear about the ways in which it reinforces the deliverer of the punishment tho' Karen Pryor examines it in her most recent book. It's the "why am I really doing this and is there a better way?" questions that should really give cause for pause.

[Bullbreedlover]

I think the list illustrates perfectly why the use of punishment is so difficult - and so hard to teach.

In particular, I think the combination of point 5 (punishment should not be associated with the handler) and point 6 (it should happen every single time) really makes this a difficult thing to do properly.

I've moved away from punishments. Just too hard for me to 'get' - whereas the positive/reward-based stuff is simple and easy to follow, and you can make mistakes you just fix them and you haven't unduly distressed your dog.

I do use an 'ah-ah' marker when she/we get things wrong. And I will remove her from a situation (e.g. a nice-smelling tree) if need be. But I have to say I am relieved not to be expected to use check chains anymore. I have seen them used quite violently by quite a few people, and it is a slippery slope IMO. It never helped me much as a learner trainer - just made me feel mean and spoilt the fun for both of us.

But I am a learner. If I knew more about the correct (non-violent!) use of punishment then I may feel more confident with it. But I would still hesitate to teach it to newbies in class. Too hard to follow the rules in some cases - especially when so many first-time trainers are dealing with their own frustration while they (and their dogs) learn the ropes.

To define punishment depends on whether or not the behaviour given is less likely to occur again- so alot will depend on what training you have done with the dog previously, what reward schedule they are used to etc.

I don't mean to imply that the general public should embrace punishment BUT i find it sad that the word punishment has now become loaded with such negative connatations- its fast becoming a 'dirty word'.

Just for the record, i don't mean to confuse anyone through the language i use- its just the way i explain myself. I think we probably are all talking about the same things though.

ETA I think one of the issues with punishers is when they get used by extremists- a sure fire way to colour everyone's view of the word punishment and the use of it in training.

I think thats important too- punishment isn't instructive, so therefore, you can't just deliver a punishment and expect the dog to work out the alternative on their own. If i use a punisher, i always want to ensure the dog knows what they can do instead. Again it depends on the dog too- some dogs need more help to work things out in any training, others do not need as much.

Some dogs are super sensitive, some are insensitive and everything in between. This is where the skill of a trainer comes into play IMO- to be able to go from dog to dog and automatically adjusting what you're doing and how you're training to suit. This is where any stock standard training can go wrong because dogs are so so different from each other

I think that prior to the use of punishment, the handler also needs to be utterly confident that THEY aren't part of the issue.

Look at the old way pups were toilet trained. "Rub their noses in it" was pure punishment, usually delivered well after the pup might have connected that punishment with the undesired behaviour and with the pup "blamed" for doing the wrong thing when the right thing may not have been clear to it.

It takes a lot of confidence in your ability as a trainer to be sure that the dog knows exactly what was expected of it, had been conditioned to offer it and CHOSE not to comply.

Few handlers I've seen can afford to be routinely that confident. Vickie, I agree that agility is an area where dogs are punished for handler errors.

ETA: I agree that you have to deal with the dog in front of you. To those who have always used punishment as a routine part of training, I say try a more challenging breed/dog and see how far it gets you.

I think that prior to the use of punishment, the handler also needs to be utterly confident that THEY aren't part of the issue.

...and that they aren't reacting out of emotion.

I've seen too many people use punishment out of frustration, without having thought it through. I've seen people mis-use/mis-time reinforcements as an expression of their emotional state too, and that's also bad training, but it's not as hard on the dog.

I acknowledge positive punishment has its place in training but I am very careful of it as a tool both because of it's potential to damage and because I think it calls to the worst part of our natures. As a species we love to punish and blame even when it's counter to our long term aspirations, and many people will escalate punishment even when it's clearly not working.

Good posts.

All I have wanted to say but just havent had a chance.

But I have read every post.

I hate the word punishment. That is for someone who has broken the law.

A dog is only being taught what we want it to learn.

Effective correction is what I try to enforce. After all I am trying to teach them what I want.

Perhaps people should define what their punishment is

[Kavik]

I use NRM for a couple of things - weave pole entries and when training difficult entries on the dogwalk.

I found that it helped Kaos to understand quickly that what he did was not correct and to come back and we would try again. I use "whoopsy' in a neutral tone. He comes back to me quickly and happily afterwards and positions himself to give it another try. Correct entries were marked with 'Yes' and I found he was quicker and more confident once he picked this up. I have only done the difficult entry training on the dogwalk once, using a pole for him to wrap around, and was amazed at the increase in confidence in running the dogwalk once he got the correct entry.

I don't use NRM for missing jumps.

[Aidan]

Just a point about withholding an expected reinforcer (e.g not giving a treat, or not opening a door): if the reinforcer is maintaining the behaviour and is now NOT being given (withheld) for the same behaviour, that is an Extinction Procedure. It is not a punisher.

Extinction procedures do not require the response to be diminished or strengthened, although either may happen (typically, on an "extinction curve"). If the response does diminish, it is still not due to punishment.

The "Quadrants" give the impression that there are only four mechanisms for changing operant behaviour. This is not true, they are simply the four possible "consequences". Extinction is a failure to provide a previously given consequence so it cannot be placed within the quadrants, but it exists and is different to a punishing consequence.

Negative Punishment occurs where behaviour is diminished as a result of taking something away. The "something" does not need to be a functional reinforcer (but often is). The organism must have "had" the "something" in the first place.

The grey area (not really a grey area but it does cause confusion) is where an "opportunity for reinforcement" is removed. In this case you do something that is functionally identical to putting the dog in a time-out, except the dog is left where he is and you leave the room, taking your ball with you. In this example the dog didn't have the ball, but he did have the opportunity to earn it up until he did whatever he did that made you leave so suddenly taking it with you.