Article: Dog Psychology: The Effect Of Adverse Training Methods

[koalathebear]

I saw a link to this article at a US dog forum that I read from time to time.

Dog psychology: The effect of adverse training methods by Diane Garrod

[Staranais]

I saw a link to this article at a US dog forum that I read from time to time.

Dog psychology: The effect of adverse training methods by Diane Garrod

I think that article makes some good points, but also some over-generalisations & some outright mistake (for example, debarking a dog isn't actually punishment as it doesn't involve learning). But I'd like to see the paper it's based on before I really comment.

[huski]

I saw a link to this article at a US dog forum that I read from time to time.

Dog psychology: The effect of adverse training methods by Diane Garrod

I think that article makes some good points, but also some over-generalisations & some outright mistake (for example, debarking a dog isn't actually punishment as it doesn't involve learning). But I'd like to see the paper it's based on before I really comment.

I found the whole debarking example quite odd. How does debarking cause a dog to become fearful of you?

Always love the typical purely positive slant that implies anyone who uses prongs/e-collars/aversion all use them in the same way, and that anyone who uses them obviously lack understanding of positive reinforcement training and only train dogs through fear and pain.

Edited August 15, 2010 by huski

[stormie]

I saw a link to this article at a US dog forum that I read from time to time.

Dog psychology: The effect of adverse training methods by Diane Garrod

I think that article makes some good points, but also some over-generalisations & some outright mistake (for example, debarking a dog isn't actually punishment as it doesn't involve learning). But I'd like to see the paper it's based on before I really comment.

Agree with over generalisation. "whether staring down dogs, striking them, or intimidating them with physical manipulation," - I would say these are extreme forms of adversive training and not used by many.

I get confused about why it's ever an issue. I'm not a trainer or behaviourist, but my general understanding of dog interaction is that it involves corrections amongst each other a times. People talk about puppy licenses and say it's perfectly normal for an older dog to correct young puppies for crossing the line, sometimes with vocalisation, or a small physical correction. Surely this type of behaviour would be considered adversive? If one dog growls or nips at another to stop a behaviour and set boundaries, isn't this adversive? So if it's something dogs use between themselves as natural behaviour, surely it's not going to harm them if we mimic it?

[Greytmate]

Simply by changing your dog's environment, similar to baby- proofing your home, you can change their behavior and avoid reasons to use adverse punishment.

I laugh at PP trainers, having to 'baby-proof' their homes,because of their inability to train the dog not to steal their valuable resources.

[corvus]

For me at least, whether dogs do it to each other or not is irrelevant. Ever looked at the way dogs treat each other day-to-day when there's a history of "corrections" between them? There are boundaries and invisible lines. Often it's like there is a force field between them and play that occurs can be strained. I look at the way my two dogs interact and I think it's gorgeous. My older boy is very mild-mannered and has never really "corrected" the younger boy. They are best pals. There are no barriers between them. They climb all over each other, knock each other around, crash tackles, sleeping resting on each other... They are quite considerate of each other most of the time. It is beautiful social harmony. I have never seen it between dogs where one or both are often "correcting" the other.

That de-barking example was totally loopy.

The original study was actually referenced incorrectly. Bleh. I so hate that. It was published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science. "Aggressive response" was considered growling, snapping, lunging, showing teeth, or biting. A range of aversives were considered, including leash corrections and spraying with a water bottle. NOT de-barking! Sheesh. Just about all the aversive methods resulted in the occasional aggressive response, and some more than occasional.

The study only draws from people with dogs scheduled for an appointment with a behaviourist, so it's a bit of a problem wrt the question asked, in particular, the effect of training methods on stopping the problem behaviour. You end up with a sample of people whose dogs probably did not respond to the listed training methods very well for whatever reason. Who knows what that reason was, but we also don't know how many people used those training methods and had success so that they didn't need to see a behaviourist in the end. Anyway, what it does show at least to me is the importance of getting a behavioural assessment from a professional before trying to fix a problem involving aggression.

[sas]

You know how some reglions have extremists......this sounds like that in the dog training world...

[sandgrubber]

Hard to say anything without knowing how they did the study. The author of piece I read clearly has an axe to grind. As a rule, when someone claims a scientific study proves anything, you can bet that the person knows little about science and has their own agenda.

[Nekhbet]

I'm not even going there ... oh not all aggressive dogs need you to gain their trust either, most dont. Ahhh gotta love paper educated people that think they know everything. And how punishment is always abuse and torture ...

[corvus]

Ahhh gotta love paper educated people that think they know everything.

Considering they didn't even reference the freaking paper correctly, this is not a paper educated person that wrote that article. The Science Daily article they referenced that referenced the original paper did a better job.

[Aidan]

Simply by changing your dog's environment, similar to baby- proofing your home, you can change their behavior and avoid reasons to use adverse punishment.

I laugh at PP trainers, having to 'baby-proof' their homes,because of their inability to train the dog not to steal their valuable resources.

Is this only a problem for PP trainers?

[Aidan]

So if it's something dogs use between themselves as natural behaviour, surely it's not going to harm them if we mimic it?

That depends. Dogs can harm each other, too. People aren't dogs, nor do they understand dogs particularly well.

Punishment doesn't always do the things expressed in the article, although it can. I know the author, I disagree with many things she says (not just in the article). Diane specialises in getting dogs who live in the same home to co-exist, even if they can't be in the same room together at first. She is very good at what she does, and I would say a better dog trainer than writer or theorist.

[Greytmate]

Simply by changing your dog's environment, similar to baby- proofing your home, you can change their behavior and avoid reasons to use adverse punishment.

I laugh at PP trainers, having to 'baby-proof' their homes,because of their inability to train the dog not to steal their valuable resources.

Is this only a problem for PP trainers?

No, but it is much funnier when it happens to PP trainers. Who cares what amazing things they can train their dog to do, when they can't even have a piece of cake sitting on their own coffee table.

[Aidan]

No, but it is much funnier when it happens to PP trainers. Who cares what amazing things they can train their dog to do, when they can't even have a piece of cake sitting on their own coffee table.

Can't they? Do you think there is not a highly effective PP method for training this?

Or is this just more divisive, one "side" spreading misinformation or misunderstanding about what the other does?

[Greytmate]

No, but it is much funnier when it happens to PP trainers. Who cares what amazing things they can train their dog to do, when they can't even have a piece of cake sitting on their own coffee table.

Can't they? Do you think there is not a highly effective PP method for training this?

Or is this just more divisive, one "side" spreading misinformation or misunderstanding about what the other does?

Well I wouldn't have said it at all if it wasn't for this topic giving a one-sided view from another angle.

I am thinking of particular (highly qualified) trainers and their inability, and my own view of that. I don't know all PP trainers, and haven't seen all PP methods.

[koalathebear]

Well I wouldn't have said it at all if it wasn't for this topic giving a one-sided view from another angle.

Just thought I'd clarify just in case ...

I posted the link because it was interesting and not because I purport to agree or disagree with it or the views espoused therein. My puppy's only six months old and I'm still learning how to be a dog owner so am not in a position to offer commentary on such matters yet.

[Staranais]

Simply by changing your dog's environment, similar to baby- proofing your home, you can change their behavior and avoid reasons to use adverse punishment.

I laugh at PP trainers, having to 'baby-proof' their homes,because of their inability to train the dog not to steal their valuable resources.

Is this only a problem for PP trainers?

My home is still relatively baby proofed.

[gapvic]

Can anyone point me in the direction of more balanced articles, that advocate the use of both positve reinforcement, positive punishment, negative reinforcement and negative punishment?? Or an article that questions the validity of using ONLY positive reinforcement as a training method? I'm so confused by it all :-(.

[jacqui835]

I currently own a very sensitive breed, a doberman, but the terrier mixes I owned prior to that were very different and much less sensitive. I do not think there could be a one size fits all type approach, different dogs are going to have different responses... I use a mix, mostly positive re-reinforcement but I also believe it's important to be able to tell your dog that they have done something wrong. There is still a level of trust there, my dog knows that although I'm displeased with what he has done, I am not going to hurt him and for that reason he doesn't run away from me. But he looks so very sad when he knows he has upset me, and anything more than a stern word would be excessive because he does not challenge me. So I can leave my dinner on the table and go and get a drink in the other room and come back to find it still there. I think like everything else, it's just about taking the time to really get to know your dog so that you are then able to better communicate with them.

Just the other day I saw a family in the supermarket with a young child. The child wanted something, but the trolley was already full of everything he wanted, so the parents displayed reluctance. The mum got physically attacked by the young child, and his desired item was added to the trolley. Without any discipline, dogs and humans are also likely to attack so there has to be a balance somewhere.

[Aidan]

Can anyone point me in the direction of more balanced articles, that advocate the use of both positve reinforcement, positive punishment, negative reinforcement and negative punishment?? Or an article that questions the validity of using ONLY positive reinforcement as a training method? I'm so confused by it all :-(.

Maybe you're better off developing your critical thinking skills even further, then apply those skills to the things that you do read? I don't know if there is such a thing as an unbiased article, or if it would even be an illuminating read. You can teach a dog how to do things any number of ways, an article that explained every way to do something would be a bit of a drudgery to wade through and any core message would be hard to convey.

If you have the time and money, the Steven Lindsay books are excellent. You can get a taste of them by searching on Google Books. Steven Lindsay is a highly developed critical thinker and his work demonstrates this, plus he has the luxury of space to present many alternative views in his thick, heavy books.