If You Fail to Plan….

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.” Dog training is perhaps a very unusual exception.

Dogs are so amazingly adaptive, forgiving of the mistakes we make.  Dogs learn despite our errors.  Present them with the most convoluted, confusing training system and somehow they get it.  Had Ben Franklin observed dog training, he may have said, “If you fail to plan, plan to struggle.”

Planning is an essential skill.  I have as part of my Awesome Dogs C.O.R.E. skills. C.O.R.E. is not a protocol – it just stands for “Components Of Reliable Execution.”  It is a reminder that there are certain basic things that are the bedrock of effective, efficient training. Good trainers do these things.  Pet owners need to know their value so they can hire professionals that do them well.

Each time someone faces problem behaviours, they want a solution.  Exercises should address the problem by providing a path to a clear end goal.  A plan is not a soundbite, a suggestion or flippant piece of advice.  Protocols are not plans.  Cycling through ideas is not a plan.

People all over the world offer suggestions.   They range from someone saying they read an article on the “Top Ten Amazing Ways To Get Your Dog To STOP JUMPING!!!!”  It’s the person who stops you and says, “You know what you ought to do with your dog?”  It’s the person who watched that television show and feels compelled to share the latest miracle solution.  It’s also the person who reads a lot of books and jumps from one new thing to another, never stopped to fully assess if any have merit or risks.  Throwing stuff out there as a suggestion is not the sign of a plan.  It’s simply regurgitating information which may or may not be appropriate – even if it may come from a place of good intentions.

plan on chalkboard.jpg

A plan is goal, expressed in a series of steps that suits a specific dog and their family. A plan is the roadmap.  It shows the route and plots the steps to be taken to reach a specific destination.  It’s the pencil and the piece of paper, working out the BEST way to get there while avoiding detours and determining the best means of transportation.  Planning a trip to Toronto should be more detailed than saying, “Go east.”  You could fly, drive or take the train.  Or if you happen to be starting in Montreal, you might actually have to “Go west.”

Similarly, plans allow us to work through the dog’s training journey.  All dogs learn in the same manner.  It is a myth that different dogs learn differently. Not all dogs need to learn the same thing and not all families want the same thing.  A plan allows for preferences such as these.

Planning is in my opinion an ethical responsibility.  It indicates that we care to hear what a family wants to achieve.  It considers whether training suggestions might flare up other existing problems.  It values a client’s time and money.  We expect families to do right by their dog.  So we must do right by the families.

What are the attributes of a good plan?   First, they address the problem.  A roadmap to New York does little good if you want to go to Toronto.  Similarly, a solid plan for a leash reactive dog isn’t the best route for an anxious one.

Good training plans for success by setting a clear achievable goal or destination.  That goal is then broken down into steps – or criteria.  Criteria are the levels or steps throughout the training plan.  Good training splits these steps into tiny splinters of progression.  Each step needs to be clear and measured.  A trainer who says, “Reward the dog for being close,” has not created clear criteria.  It would be like saying, “Turn somewhere ahead.” Saying, “Reinforce the dog when it is within 30 cm of your legs,” is concrete.  How big is 30 cm?  Look at a ruler and you’ll know exactly.

Good planning addresses details.  Types of reinforcers are chosen with care.  For example, a toy might be ideal for teaching a dog to go over a jump.  You can toss it into the distance, into the grass, and not have the headache of waiting while the dog searches out crumbs of food.  Food is excellent for reinforcing a dog for walking in heel.  It allows for high rate of reinforcement drills, feeding the dog by your leg.  Plans also consider where the reinforcement ought to be given.  It can support and enhance the process.  Done poorly, it can slow you down.

Plans create the basis for clear instruction and reduce chaos.  Eyeballing and emotionally charged reactions are reduced.  We really cannot complain that clients do not follow instructions when the plan is sloppy.  No one can follow poor, arbitrary, loose instructions – not the dog and not the person either.

Let’s look at the usual suggestion given to families with dogs that jump up on people.  A common suggestion is this:



“Teach the dog an incompatible behaviour. If he learns to sit, then he cannot be jumping when he is sitting.”

While that seems very sound, it isn’t a plan.  It’s a wish, and not a very thoughtful one at that.  Different families will interpret and execute these instructions in different ways.

One family will tell the dog to sit each time it jumps. The end result will be a dog that jumps – a lot – because each time they jump the person tells them to sit and then hands out a cookie.  Others will ask for the sit when the dog is out of control. They will wind up sit nagging.

Another family might hunker down and get to work.  Diligently they will dispense cookies to all friends and family.  People will be instructed to, “Give the dog a cookie each time he sits.”  The dog will wind up charging every person it sees.  To sit for strangers, you have to get to strangers.  Perhaps that deals with the jumping, but it also leads to a lot of lunging, darting and pulling on lead.

Finally, some might successfully teach the dog to sit for every stranger. They will be happy until the dog keeps sitting for the veterinarian trying to get a rectal temperature. Hopefully that client has a good sense of humour.

All of these are plausible interpretations of “teach a dog to sit instead of jumping.”  The problems are ensue are avoidable had there been a plan.

Discuss with the family what they actually want.  Many people do not want the dog at the door when guests arrive.  Teaching the dog to go to a mat, when cued by the presence of someone at the door, and to stay on that mat until released  That goal might have been more appropriate.

On the street, most families want their dog to ignore strangers and keep walking, politely, on leash.  The goal may be, “When cued by the sight of a person, move to within 20 cm of the owner’s leg.  Continue to stay in that location until released.”

During free time when the dog can socialize, few families want a sit.  What they want is the absence of jumping.  Standing, sitting and lying down are all appropriate.  A training plan can work that into the mix.  It will involve working through time based criteria, building duration.

Once the destination is set, the work of breaking down the steps begins.  Decide on which cues will be used.  Think through type and position of reinforcement.  Plan how to proof skills, adding in layers of distractions.  A good plan will keep in mind that every training sequence will also create various associations.  Pavlov is a monkey on your back. He can mess with the best laid out plan.  You can also nudge him so that the associations created are the ones you want.

That’s a lot of planning.  It does not even begin to touch additional skills such as chaining or sequencing behaviours.  Teaching takes skill.  I’m not sure when we started thinking that throwing a pile of suggestions at someone was good teaching.  Amassing a pile of strategies and cycling through them shows very little skill.  Good trainers have method to their madness – a plan.

The beauty of a plan is that it addresses the individual needs of the family.  Roadmaps are created. Do clients need to know how to write a training plan?  Of course not.  But they do need to know that one is important.  They should be free to ask for an overview at any time.  The steps need to be expressed in such a way that they can easily understand what to do.

Reaching the Holy Grail of Training

Years ago, I taught our Kiki a formal recall using targeting.  Systematically I proceeded to work through the exercise.  Much to my delight, Kiki developed the most fantastic competition recall.  People gasped at her speed and enthusiasm.  Her formal recall never failed us over the years.  You could say that it had behavioural momentum.

Domjan, in The Principles of Learning and Behavior describes behavioural momentum as, “response persistence in extinction.”  In non-technical language, behaviours with momentum are enthusiastic, despite distractions.  They are highly resistant to extinction.  Behavioural momentum is the Holy Grail of dog training.

behavioural momentum copy

Behaviours with momentum are like boulders rolling down a hill.  Considerable effort is required to stop them.  By contrast, weak behaviours are like pebbles.  The slightest bump in the road and they get derailed.

Sluggish responses are an indication of poor behavioural momentum.  Dogs that are easily distracted have poor momentum.  When sniffing a blade of grass is more appealing than coming when called, recall behavioural momentum is low.  If you wonder if your dog enjoys doing what you ask, then you might have a behavioural momentum issue.

When owners ask for reliable manners, they are asking for behaviour momentum.  They want a dog that walks politely and ignores squirrels.  They want a dog that keeps four paws on the ground, even when visitors approach.  They want fast, immediate recalls.

People want solid, reliable, strong behaviours they can count on.  There is no magic.  Behavioural momentum combines operant and classical conditioning.  Pavlov might always be on your shoulder.  For too many, he’s snoozing, periodically waking to create an unexpected association here or there.  We forget about him and he dozes off again.  Wake him up.  Intentionally create behavioural momentum by using a fast rate of reinforcement.

“Behavioral momentum is directly related to the rate of reinforcement (see Nevin & Grace, 2000).  A higher rate of reinforcement produces behavior that has greater momentum and is less susceptible to disruption.”  The principles of learning and behavior – Domjan

Crazy fast reinforcement triggers two types of learning.  The dog learns the skill through positive reinforcement.  The fast reinforcement creates a positive association to the behaviour.  When dogs love executing learned skills, distractions are less tempting.  That is crazy powerful stuff.

b momentum copy

Food is a natural fit for creating momentum.  Food offers ease of use, speed of delivery and speed of consumption.   Anything that slows the rate of reinforcement can interfere with creating momentum.  Slow reinforcement leads to frustration, boredom and wanderitis.  It is the road to “I’d rather be doing something else.”

How fast is fast?  The following video shows my Karma working with a high speed of reinforcement.  A reasonable goal for initial training is ten reinforcements per minute (or about a third of the reps in the video.)  Reinforcements should come quickly enough that the space between repetitions is devoid of wanderitis.

Slow reinforcement tanks momentum.  The temptation to prove that we can quickly wean away from “treats” can lead to slow reinforcements.  We employ a litany of protocols, “real life” reinforcements, games, variable reinforcement schedules and Premack.  While there is nothing wrong with some of these things some of the time, they are slow reinforcements.

Sluggish, sloppy outcomes tied to poor momentum convince people that positive reinforcement is not reliable or effective.  There’s a real tragic irony in there.  Tactics that we use to convince people to use positive reinforcement may slow reinforcement, sabotaging reliability and enthusiasm.  Weak results convince people that positive reinforcement did not work well enough.  Aversives can trickle back into the dog’s training.

Behavioural momentum is within anyone’s reach.  Both are possible when operant and classical conditioning neatly combine.  Enthusiastic, persistent responses tell us there is no place the dog would rather be.  There is no behaviour they’d rather be doing.  If we say, “sit,” the dog responses with “I thought you’d never ask.”

Creating behavioural momentum is the trainer’s choice to use food to its full potential.  We can choose to decide, today, that we will not only teach behaviours, we will teach so the dog loves doing them.  We owe the dogs that.  If we create behavioural momentum, there will be no doubt in our mind that the dog wants to do the things we ask of them.

There is no greater feeling than knowing you have reliable behaviour from a happy dog.  It really is a Holy Grail worth pursuing.  Wake Pavlov up and get him to work.  He is not just a tag-a-long.

Reading Research: Does Size Matter?

Following up from Reading Research part one where I review key aspects of the book Experimental Psychology by Myers and Hansen, I thought it would be interesting to tackle the question, “Does size matter?”  Of course, by size, I mean the sample size in a research study – often referred to as “n.”

Many introductory books make the point that small sample sizes are a red flag.  Small samples might provide flawed information.  A small group might be comprised of unique or unusual individuals – subjects who do not reflect the majority of the population.

Yes, Skinner, undoubtedly one of the most well known names in psychology did experiments with only a few subjects.  His work is held in high regard for being tightly controlled.  Much of his work has held up over many decades.

skinner

That presents quite a discrepancy to resolve.  Large samples are purportedly good, yet Skinner’s exceptionally controlled research used small samples.  Assuming that both premises are true, an explanation must exist.

Generally, large samples are beneficial.  One reason is that large samples are more likely to reflect the whole of the population.  There is another reason illustrated by the following example.

Let us pretend that we want to know if a dog training technique is better than another is.  We randomly divide the dogs into two groups.  Group A learns a task with our technique.  Group B learns with a different technique.  We train each group of dogs and compare the results.  This research design is called a two independent group design.

Statistics analyze the data. A standard t-test is a probable choice for this study.  Each statistical test makes assumptions in its calculations.  Standard t-tests assume that the data we are collecting creates a normal curve (bell curve.)  Without enough participants, there isn’t enough data to make a solid, fully formed bell curve.  As the diagram below shows, without a fully formed curve, it is impossible to compare if the curves are similar or different from one another.  Standard t-tests generally require at least twenty subjects in each group – but thirty is better.

normal curve

There are other forms of research.  Some researchers prefer to focus on details.  These details can be lost when data is pooled or averaged.  Instead of blending the results of many subjects, “small n” researchers focus intently at the individual responses of a few.

Such an approach can offer key insights.  For example, if we measured how dogs learn new skills, blended results might create a gentle sloping curve.  Individual results could paint a jagged process – breakthroughs and setbacks.

average graph

There are a number of low n experiments including ABA; Multiple Baseline Design; Changing Criterion Designs and Discrete Trial Designs.

Here are a couple examples to show how some of these processes work.

In an ABA design, the subject acts as both the experimental and control group.  Assume that we want to test a new anxiety treatment.  A baseline is measured during phase one (The first A in ABA).  Treatment is then given during the second phase (B).  Finally, treatment is discontinued (A).  ABA design allows us to see if the treatment has an effect.  We can also see if results disappeared when treatment stopped.  There are many variations of the ABA design such as ABABA, ABACADA and so on.  The reversals allow researchers to see if the order of treatment is having an impact rather than the actual treatment.

Discrete trials are common in conditioning experiments.  For example, we might want to know if dogs discriminate sound better with one ear versus the other.  In other words, we want to know if dogs are left or right “eared.”  Dogs learn to discriminate a tone.  Probe tones are presented to the left or right ear.  The dog’s responses – how quickly they discriminate on either ear is measured.  Comparisons are made.  A response is measured over many treatment conditions.  In this case, hearing is measured across a number of manipulations.  Humans who participated in a similar experiment each performed over 2000 trials.  The sample might be small, but the volume of data is massive.  It requires meticulous record keeping and data analysis.

The question should not be “does size matter?”  That is an overly simplistic question.

Of course, size matters.  Bigger is not always better when it comes to sample sizes.  What matters is whether the size of the sample works with the type of study and the statistical analysis used.

The various types of research are like tools.  A hammer is no better or worse than a screwdriver.  Using a hammer to drive a screw is fraught with problems.  It is similar with studies.  Different types of research serve a different purpose – they need to be used correctly.  Keep looking at sample sizes.  Also, look to see if that sample matches the type of research.  It can be helpful to grab a few studies, look up the sample size and look up the type of study.  Start becoming familiar with the jargon.

I would highly recommend Experimental Psychology to anyone wanting a deeper understanding.  My blogs are just highlighting a few small sections.  Well worth the investment.

Part one on reading research:  Internal Validity can be found here.
Part three – coming soon.

Reading research – 8 classic red flags

Ten years ago, few trainers had access to research studies.  These days with Google University, we have moved into the era of research wars.  It is a battle of quantity, novelty and link littering.  Unfortunately, few seem to be reading past the abstract soundbites to see if the study in question is any good.  Even more problematic are lure of pop psychology magazines with sexy titles, articles that probably misinform more than educate.

Every professor and textbook on the subject of research sends a consistent message.  Read research with a critical mind.  Not all studies are well executed.  Peer reviewed academic papers are no exception.  Sometimes journals will publish research with poor design to inspire further research.  Looking at study design is scientific, not sacrilegious.

As readers of studies, we can take steps to improve our research reading abilities.  We can face our own biases directly.    Do we militantly tear apart research that goes against our point of view, while offering leniency to findings that feel warm and fuzzy?  More importantly, do we know how to read an analyze research?

I won’t pretend to be a research expert.  Rather, over the next series of blogs I will be highlighting what I have learned from Experimental Psychology by Myers and Hansen.  It is a worthwhile investment for anyone wanting to flex his or her mental muscles.

One core concept of research is internal validity.  As the name implies, we need to assess if a study is valid on the inside.  External validity, by contrast, would look at whether results apply to “the real world.”  Lesson number one is that internal validity should not be sacrificed for external validity.  If a study is not valid on the inside, there is nothing of substance to apply to the “real world.”

Campbell identified eight “Classic Threats to Internal Validity.”  They apply to research involving experimentation.  This includes true experiments and quasi-experiments.  True experiments have strict parameters or rules.  Quasi-experiments are not bad, just different.  In both researchers manipulate a variable and then measure the effect it has on another variable.

IV isolation

For example, we might want to know if training method A is faster than training method B.  We divide a number of dogs into two groups and compare results of those two methods.  The type of training is the variable being manipulated.  We call this the independent variable (IV).  The goal of experimentation is to isolate the independent variable, to ensure that no other factor is interfering or confounding the results.

Revisiting our dog-training example, let’s say that group A tested on a Monday and group B tested on Tuesday.  If Monday was sunny and Tuesday was stormy, any claim that treatment A was better is highly suspect.  Stormy weather could have agitated the dogs in group B.  The independent variable was not adequately isolated.  The study would not have internal validity.

The following itemizes Campbell’s Classic Threats to Internal Validity and provides examples.  One step we can take toward understanding research is to understand how these threaten validity.

Our thunderstorm example above is a history threat.  Dogs in group B had a shared history during the experiment that differed from dogs in group A.  Training methods varied.  However, so did weather.  No one can say for sure which training method was faster because the weather interfered.  History threats can be subtle.  Another example would be if one group receives an orientation while the other does not.  Orientation can prime one group, giving them a head start.  It would also be a history threat.

Maturation threat reflects internal changes.  An obvious example might be age.  Behaviour can change as puppies mature.  Maturation can also mean the maturation of knowledge.  Students handling dogs during experiments will have gained knowledge throughout the term. It would not be wise to test group A with new students and group B at the end of term.  Increased knowledge by the end of term can mean that students guess the hypothesis or influence results.

Subjects rarely get the same test results when re-tested.  Practice leads to improvement, even without treatment of any kind.  Suppose we take a group of anxious dogs and test their heart rate.  Heart rates can drop simply because the dog habituates and becomes more comfortable.  A second round of testing should show habituation.  It is not enough to ask if a dog improved, we need to know if the dog improved more so than dogs that did not receive any treatment.  Otherwise, we have a testing threat.

Measuring results is not without potential pitfalls.  Instrumentation threats involve data collection problems.  Equipment can fail or be unreliable.  Scales used to score results need to be set correctly.  Assume we want to know if dogs become anxious at the dog park.  Imagine if the measurement options are:  highly anxious; moderately anxious; mildly anxious and fully relaxed.  Answers obviously will be weighted toward the “anxious” side of the scale.  Unless a dog is fully relaxed, it is by default labelled as anxious. Had moderately relaxed and slightly relaxed been offered as choices, an entirely different picture may have emerged.

Random selection between groups is important.  This process helps balance the characteristics between groups.  When groups are not random by design or chance, this is a selection threat.  Assume that wrandom balancinge want to know which training technique obtains a faster recall.  Group A dogs are mostly short hounds and toy breeds.  Group B has mostly large dogs with a smattering of Border Collies and Whippets.  Under those conditions, we could not claim that group B training produced faster recalls.  To avoid accidental selection threats, random selection and balancing offers an even comparison between groups.  Researcher choice is not random.

Mortality should be listed in an experiment.  It is the dropout rate.  When large numbers drop out of an experiment, it’s a red flag.  According to the text, “Often it means that the treatment is frightening, painful, or distressing.  If the dropout rate is very high, it can mean that the treatment is sufficiently obnoxious that typical subjects would choose to leave, and the ones who remain could be unusual in some respect.”  Assume we are testing a protocol to help reactive dogs.  Many drop out.  Those who remain seem to improve.  The obvious question is whether those who left were distressed or deteriorated so much so they did not return.  That is critical information.

The seventh threat comes with a big word:  Statistical Regression.  Extreme test results are unreliable.  Think back to grade school I.Q. tests.  Scoring low could mean you had the flu.  If an experiment uses subjects with extreme characteristics, we can expect some of that to level out on its own.  Testing a new anxiety treatment on highly anxious dogs can appear to work.  That result looks similar to statistical regression.  As with a testing threat, it is not enough to ask if an animal improved.  We need to ensure that improvement happened because of the treatment.

Finally, we come to selection interaction threats.  It’s the one-two punch of threats.  It happens when a selection threat combines with another threat.  Returning to our experiment that asks which dog training method is faster, suppose we non-randomly select dogs from two training schools.  Immediately, that creates a selection threat.  Now suppose school A has a trick team.  Students at this school are motivated to join the team.  The second training school does not offer tricks sessions.  That creates a history threat.  Trick dogs would have a wide array of skills to draw on – to guess the right answer instead of learning it via the training method tested.  Selection threat combines in this case with a history threat to create one hot mess.

classic threats to validity copy

Campbell’s Classic Threats are the tip of the iceberg in terms of red flags.  It can make it seem no research can hold up to its standard.  Following a defined process for evaluating research is a far sight better than pointing to number of subjects and chanting “the n value is too low.”  It may not be possible to control for every bump in the road.  Experimental Psychology states, “Control as many variables as possible.  If a variable can be held constant in an experiment, it makes sense to do so even when any impact of that variable on the results may be doubtful.”

Knowing the threats to internal validity are only useful if you start using them to read studies more carefully.  It might be tempting to annihilate an experiment you dislike.  Perhaps a more interesting exercise would be review an experiment you love and have shared.  Challenge your bias.  Look at the design and the various threats to internal validity.  Did you find any?

(Part 2, 3 and more….about those n values, non-experimental research and more.)

 

 

Shock Collars are so NOT like T.E.N.S.

I had a more practical blog lined up.  Humor me, as we look at one more expression.  This one keeps coming across my news feed and it’s interesting.  Some trainers claim that, “Shock collars are like T.E.N.S. machines.”

I have used a T.E.N.S. machine many times under the guidance of various therapists.  For those unfamiliar with this treatment, mild electric current flows to pads secured to the patient’s skin.  It causes muscles to contract.  Dr. Ho’s Pain Therapy System seen on infomercials is a T.E.N.S. machine.

Here is one of the machines that I use on a regular basis.  At the bottom are two dials for “intensity.”  There are two intensity dials because the machine regulates the left and right pads separately.

tens

Comfort levels change between individuals.  They also change from moment to moment for the same person.  Intensity levels vary from one area of the body to another, hence the two dials.  There is no “consistent” setting.

If you asked a patient using a T.E.N.S. “Are you okay?” the answer should be “Yes.”  Discomfort results in a reduction in intensity.  If asked, “Do you want me to turn it off?” the answer should be, “No.”  Stimulation should be neutral or pleasant.

With shock collars, it is this underlying premise that is fundamentally different.  Bark collars shock dogs to suppress barking.  Barking reduces because the dog does not like the shock.  If the shock were neutral, nothing would change.  If it were pleasurable like a T.E.N.S. machine, barking would increase.  Barking would increase because the dog would be learning that barking leads to massages.

The same goes for electronic training collars used as negative reinforcement.  Negative reinforcement is like the game “Uncle.”  Children pinch one another.  They keep pinching until the other child says, “Uncle.”  The behaviour of saying uncle leads to cessation of pinching or relief.  Similarly, dogs turn the shock off by obeying a command.  Reinforcement is the cessation of the electronic stimulation – relief.  Dogs that respond quickly can “beat the buzzer”, avoiding shock altogether.

“Pleasant” shock, under the level of aversiveness wouldn’t be effective here either.  Ask a dog, “Do you want the electrical current to stop?”  The answer needs to be, “yes” or the collar will not work as designed.

Both may involve electrical current but the intensity is on a gradient.  Many things are on gradients.  Music is nice, unless it is too loud.  Massage feels good, unless Olga the Horrible is hurting you.  (My apologies to anyone named Olga.  Olga was the name of the massage therapist who hurt me.)  Light helps us see unless it is glaring.  Flowers smell pretty unless it is an overdose of noxious perfume.  Cool water makes a refreshing swim.  Cold water is icy and painful.  Food is usually fabulous, unless you have eaten excessively and feel nauseated.

No one thing fits neatly into a naughty or nice category.  Dogs decide what they find pleasant, neutral and aversive.  We infer how the dog feels by observing their change in behaviour.

I would have gladly paid Olga the Horrible to stop the massage.  Massage therapist Mike was different.  He had magic hands.  I would pay money for longer massages.  Olga’s massages were aversive.  Brad’s were appetitive.  I was not screaming and thrashing in pain with Olga.  I just wanted it to stop and it changed my behaviour.  Contrary to popular belief, it’s not the dog’s attitude that will tell you if the training is aversive.  It is the dog’s responses.

There is a second key difference between these two devices.  Shock collars are training.  With T.E.N.S., the goal is long-term if not permanent pain elimination.  It is not a teaching tool.

Olga may have been brutal, but her intent was to offer long-term relief.  Magic Hands Mike offered the same goal under threshold.  Suzy who does scalp massages at the hair salon….she just gives nice feeling massages.  Training cannot be compared to these scenarios.

In training, the trainer creates the plan with the goal of creating a change in behaviour.  We determine which behaviour we want to teach.  Therapies for pain relief have no skills development.  Olga never taught me to dance a jig in return for pain relief.  She did not use my discomfort as a tool.

I never went back to Olga.  I had the choice to leave.  More importantly, I had a choice to never return.  I could refuse to participate.  Our dogs do not have that choice during training because repetition is part of the gig.  Once the aversive ceases, the aversive is back in play for more training.  We can’t see all the differences unless we look at the specifics of how each of these work.

Olga vs Mike

If you are ready to jump in and say, “You don’t need batteries to use aversives,” then you won’t get any argument from me.  There are many forms of aversives in dog training.  Some are easier to swallow than others.  You do not need batteries to use aversives.

But, let me broaden the statement.  Using aversives in dog training is not the same as using a T.E.N.S. machine.  It’s not even close.  It does not matter if the aversive is added to the dog, the dog is added to an aversive scenario or whether we use a dog’s discomfort for our training purposes.  Using the aversive is trainer’s choice.  If the dog is put into a position where they want to leave, they have been put between a rock and a hard place.  It’s not free will.  The trainer has free will.

Training paradigms are not the same as T.E.N.S. machines.  In dog training, the choices to use an aversive are ours and ours alone.

Two Tips to Undo Pushy Tricks You Wish You Had Not Taught

My dog Karma has a fun trick.  If I hold out my hands and say, “Hup!” she jumps up into my arms and I catch her.  After demonstrating this trick, I often do another variation.  I extend my arms and say, “I caught a fish this big.”

My gestures are the same, but my words are different.  Karma does not jump.  People quickly see that her trick necessitates control.  I do not want her leaping into some poor unsuspecting person’s face as they gesticulate wildly.

Most families aren’t teaching their dogs to jump up into their arms.  Most do teach obnoxious tricks such as speak and shake a paw.  Cute in a young puppy, they become irritating when not controlled.  When dogs use their paws like battering rams, it’s a trick people regret.  It’s all fun and games until Grandma is bleeding.

Few people know how to finish behaviour – to place them under stimulus control.  This means that the dog should do behaviour ONLY if asked.

If you have already created a monster, it’s not too late to fix it.

Begin by reviewing the trick in question.  In the video below, I have used shake a paw as our example.  I personally do not like being accosted by a dog’s paw.  Karma needs to offer her right paw, and she needs to do so gently.  Fix these types of problems at this stage of the training.

Next, add the command.  In training, we often say cue instead of command because the word command can come across as bit too “dictator”.  Essentially, we are talking one and the same.  Think very carefully, about what your cue should be.  For Karma’s paw shake, I want her to respond to the word, “right.”

Finally, start drilling for stimulus control.  Present a random selection of cues to the dog that are similar to the one you have chosen.  Mix these with the actual cue.  In the example, sometimes I offer Karma my hand, but fail to say the word, “right.”

Here is big trick number one.  The dog has TWO opportunities to earn reinforcement.  It is a lot like red and green light.

Stimulus Control red light green light
“Right” = shake a paw.
No “right” cue = no paw.

Both of these are correct.  Reinforce both.  If we fail to acknowledge, mark and pay the self-control, the “red light”, there is no incentive for the dog to hold back.  Cookies are eventually earned as long as the dog keeps swatting their paw.

If we do reinforce the dog for holding back, they can earn double the number of cookies.  That is some serious incentive and motivation.  Pay all right responses.

As for the second big tip – extinction sucks.  Extinction is when we stop giving treats for a behaviour with a history of being paid.  This results in a frustrated dog.  The problem typically becomes worse before it gets better.  That is called an extinction burst.  The dog, frustrated at the lack of reinforcement tries harder.

Extinction bursts are not a pleasant way for dogs to learn.  Families with pets can also become frustrated at the escalation of problem behaviour.  Standing still, holding out your arm for pummeling is not pleasant for anyone.

Reduce extinction bursts by phasing in the red light portion of the exercise.  Do not offer your arm directly to the dog.  Try holding it off to the side at first.  The dog may not recognize it as a sign for shake a paw.  This means they might ignore it.  You can get in some quick and dirty reinforcements for ignoring your outstretched hand.

Gradually, bring your hand closer.  There will likely be a few incorrect responses.  With a strong reinforcement history on both red light and green light scenarios, extinction bursts become extinction hiccoughs.

The following video details Karma’s progression through the steps.  You’ll see her pausing and sorting out the “rules” of the game.

As silly as a trick may be, finishing one little trick to completion builds dog training skills.  If you can build stimulus control for shake a paw, you can apply this skill toward many behaviours your dog ought to know.

Which sort of skills might benefit from stimulus control?  You decide.

Five Days from Fear to Fun – Classical Counterconditioning.

I decided to spend some of our holiday time working on a whistle recall.  This is when a dog learns to come to the sound of a whistle.  Pamela Dennison has a number of resources on how to teach this skill for anyone who might be interested.

Unlike other whims, I remembered to grab my camera.  When I blew the whistle for the first time, Karma tucked her tail and ran.

I probably should have been a bit more thoughtful in my introduction of the whistle.  However, when you have confident dogs you get accustomed to taking liberties.  Sometimes, Karma bites you in the butt.

Before anyone sends me hate mail, we didn’t plan for this to happen.  We adjusted immediately.  Fear can unexpectedly happen.  I decided to share that one incident because frankly it happens to owners all the time.  It’s the clicker that scares a dog, the dropped cooking pan, the ratting of aluminum foil, fireworks or the whirl of a new kitchen appliance.  Sometimes our dogs get scared.

I thought it would be interesting to put together a time lapse of Karma’s responses as they changed over the course of five days.  It would show the change in her body language and a real time account of what we actually did.

We used classical counterconditioning.  This means that each time the whistle sounded, Karma received a really amazing goodie, mainly turkey.  There were no conditions on her behaviour.  I did reduce the volume and duration of the whistle until she grew more comfortable.  I made sure she was some distance away from me during the first few repetitions.  This made the process easier on her.

The sound of the whistle was initially aversive to her.  Aversive means that it’s something that the dog will seek to escape, avoid or postpone.  At first, you can see that Karma clearly is looking to escape from the sound of the whistle.  By pairing the sound of the whistle with goodies, her emotional response changes over time.

Just because something is aversive for a dog today, it does not mean that it cannot be changed.  Things that used to be aversive can become appetitive and vice versa.  It might have been easier to shelf the whistle recall idea entirely.  Perhaps for some dogs that is an option.  However, as Karma goes to more and more events, I know that eventually someone is going to blow on a whistle.  I do not want her to be startled and frightened if there is something I can do today.

Some people seem to think that classical counterconditioning is hard or doesn’t work. They say it takes a lot of time and effort.  While there are some basic rules to keep in mind, by following the rules, busy people – like myself – really aren’t doing that much work at all.

People fail to realize that long breaks between sessions are beneficial – perfect for the busy dog owner.  In its simplest form, you feed the presence of the trigger.  In this case whistle equals goodies.  You do need to be mindful of things that can block or overshadow the conditioning.  Otherwise, it’s really that simple.  Trigger equals treat.

One thing we did was hide a treat somewhere in the house while Karma was out in the yard.  Later, when she was back inside, I’d blow the whistle and surprise her.  This was done because I was going out of my way to ensure that the whistle predicted goodies.  Not “hand in pocket” or “open fridge door” or “standing in the kitchen.”  It really has to be the trigger that equals the food.  The cleaner you work, the faster the association will happen.

The results in the following video involved the following:

  • Five days of classical counterconditioning
  • Six reps per day approximately (only 2 on the 24th…was busy … it was Christmas eve.)
  • Ten seconds of work per repetition.


Total Training Time
Less than FIVE MINUTES.

I will probably re-visit whistles a few more times.  It pays to finish the job by generalizing the conditioning.  We could work in a variety of locations or work with different types of whistles.  Then we’ll be ready to switch back to our initial plan of a whistle recall.

Yes, I do realize that some dogs have traumatic experience in their past.  Not all problems will go away in five days.  There are dogs with global fears and there are dogs with a history of trauma and abuse.

For the most part, many dogs are just normal dogs that occasionally get scared of one thing or another.  We are the ones who are our dog’s worst enemy. We over think what needs to be done.

We become embroiled in minutia and complexities that are not relevant.  We worry that feeding a fearful dog will reinforce fear.  It doesn’t.  We wait for “good” behaviour instead of just feeding the trigger.  I clearly fed a dog that was afraid and I fed a dog that was not necessarily behaving.  Yet, the fearful response disappeared.  Sometimes it pays to let go of intuition and just trust the science.  Feed the appearance of a well defined trigger.  It works.

Additional resources:

Awesome Dogs Shareables Counterconditioning Collection

Reactive Dogs on Facebook

Fearful Dogs on Facebook

CARE