This came up in another dog training forum I frequent (reddit.com/r/dogtraining). Thoughts?

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/101

Hidden Aversives: Are You Punishing Unconsciousl y?

By Karen Pryor on 01/01/2005

It's a new year. Time for good resolutions, right?
Let's resolve to stop punishing our dogs by accident.
"But I'm a positive trainer, I don't punish!" you say. Well, I think we sometimes do, and don't realize it.

I'm not talking about reprimand. That's a social act. A puppy gets too rough and Mama dog growls. A canine nose gets a bit too near the cheese and crackers on the coffee table, and you speak warningly. That's communication, and it's legal, in my opinion (unless it becomes ALL you do, and replaces actual teaching—and I do know pet owners and parents who lean that way).

I'm also not talking about naturally occurring aversives (an aversive is any event that one might find unpleasant.) Here's Kay Laurence on that topic: "Dogs get plenty of 'aversives' in every day life. My Gordon Setters regularly run into the door in misjudging the gap, stub their toes, fall off the bed, go the wrong side of a tree, etc. Hey, that's life. But it's not good teaching."

Jumping up

What I am talking about is aversives that even "positive" trainers use deliberately, to affect behavior. Here's a popular one. A trainer asked me, "Karen, how about when the dog jumps up? Are you saying it is not proper clicker training (+R) to turn your back (take away attention) and then click him for four on the floor? This is an aversive, right? I only want to be 100% + trainer and I use this aversive technique. Please elaborate."

Punishers, like reinforcers, are defined by the receiver, not the giver.
I have a video clip of a trainer doing just that. She's working with a big yellow shelter dog that jumps up a lot. Twice, the dog offers a sit, and she clicks and treats. The third time, the dog sits, but the trainer waits a bit longer, and the dog jumps up on her. She folds her arms and turns her back. As she does that, the dog cringes backward to the floor, as if it had been struck.

Was that "punishment"? To the trainer, no; she just briefly removed her attention and what's so bad about that? To the cowering dog, yes: that really hurt.

Punishers, like reinforcers, are defined by the receiver, not the giver. I am sure the trainer thought she was just communicating, not punishing. But in a dog's world, licking faces is a puppy's way of making adults be nice to them; so dogs jump to get near our faces. Turning your back is, therefore, negative punishment: removing something the dog very much wants. The dog's behavior of cringing tells us, from the dog's point of view, this was painful.

Now this delightful clicker training experience, in which the dog WAS learning how to be successful, has become a mix of good and bad. Learning, even with food involved, is no longer such a good thing. The trainer herself is no longer an unmixed blessing either. That's what the introduction of punishment does, whether you want it to or not: it makes the learner insecure. At ClickerExpo, Jesus Rosales-Ruiz and his students have been showing us new research from the University of North Texas that suggests it doesn't take much punishment, and it doesn't take long, for that unpredictable mix of good and bad to taint the dog's enthusiasm for attending to you, and for learning in general, for a very, very long time.

"Guiding" with the leash

Here's another popular punishment. At ClickerExpo I see it all the time. The dog is on leash, quietly standing or sitting next to its owner. The owner gets up and starts to walk away. These owners typically don't look at the dog, they don't speak to the dog, they just start off, and as they do so, they jerk the leash. That's how they tell the dog, "Come with me." Even if the dog is already moving with them, bang! That little leash pop. Why?!

In Orlando I finally got annoyed enough with this to make a ClickerExpo demonstration around it. I picked someone with a large, pleasant young dog, who was doing this leash jerk faithfully every time she sat down or stood up or moved. We got a chair for her to get in and out of. I told her when to move, and I clicked her for giving the dog a verbal cue before moving. I tried to foil that well-honed habitual yank by putting the leash in her "wrong" hand.

It was hard for her; she really thought she had to give that leash pop. It was easy for the dog. When I finally stopped the popping by taking the leash off altogether, the dog, almost prancing, eagerly glued itself to the owner's side while she stood, sat, stood, and walked. "Whew! What a relief," said the dog's happy face. Everyone laughed. Obviously, the dog had learned very well how to pace itself to the owner's moves, and was glad to do so. The yanks were completely gratuitous punishment.

Teaching aversives as requirements

Someone, I could see, had put a good deal of effort into making that owner a consistent punisher. "Probably you've been scolded for NOT popping the leash every time," I ventured, and indeed heads nodded all over the room.

So, aversives are used on the owners, to make them use aversives on the dog. And does it do any harm? Oh yes indeed. In the course of one morning at ClickerExpo, these well-behaved dogs might receive dozens of unexpected aversives. Pop pop pop. They get a yank while lying down quietly (surely a good thing to be doing?) or while standing still next to their owners (another good thing) or while walking with them as they change direction or stop at the elevator door or start down a hall. There is nothing they can do to avoid the pop; even skillfully anticipating their owners' every move does not bring relief. No wonder they wear facial expressions of patient resignation, like most horses.

Major vs. minor?

The question is NOT how major or minor the aversive is. The question is, why use it when you don't have to! I quote Kay Laurence again (©2003 Learning About Dogs, reprinted here with permission): "If I am teaching a dog, I avoid every atom of punishment or removal of something good to get the behaviour. It is not a question of how aversive, it is the thought that aversive is a method to get a behaviour. The actions are an indication of the thought process that aversives are part of the teaching process. I will say, 'Let's just find another way.'"

We all think we're "positive" trainers. But training with reinforcement involves more than just being nice, and more than using reinforcers. It involves creating a climate of security in which it is safe to learn new things, and safe to rely on what you've already learned. In this climate an animal can learn to control itself, rather than being controlled by you. In this climate, rather than just reacting to the environment like an untutored shelter dog, barking at every noise, plunging towards every attraction, jumping on everyone and everything, mouthing and smelling and grabbing—an animal becomes confident and calm. In this climate, having confidence that your cues are meaningful and will lead toward pleasant goals, the dog is trusting and—this is very unscientific—the dog is happy.

A happy New Year for dogs

So, in this New Year, let's resolve:

1. Whenever an aversive seems like the "answer" to a "problem," find another way.

2. Give up the leash pop. Period. Don't use it as a tool, as a cue, as a correction, or as a habit. Speak to the dog, before you move. Then teach the dog that going with you, whenever and wherever you go, is a clickable behavior. It won't take five minutes. And your dog will be so pleased."

I had to laugh at the title as I see so many "all positive" trainers employing things like spray bottles and rattle cans.

I also had a bit of a giggle over the fact that a leash pop/cue when moving from a stop actually makes them more of a "punishment-based" trainer than Koehler in that situation.

Don't mind me. I generally have a good laugh at whatever Pryor writes.

 Quote: John Vanek

Here's Kay Laurence on that topic: "Dogs get plenty of 'aversives' in every day life. My Gordon Setters regularly run into the door in misjudging the gap, stub their toes, fall off the bed, go the wrong side of a tree, etc. Hey, that's life. But it's not good teaching."

I disagree. It's the most natural and effective way for a dog to learn. Minimize discomfort? Yes. Try to completely eliminate it. Nope!

I'm a firm believer in positive training but over the almost 10 years I've used it I also believe that there may have to be some negative consequence to some behaviors. With some dogs that can be as simple as a loss of reward. With some it can mean physical correction.
I've titled dogs old school with corrections only and have titled one dog in particular to high level titles with no physical correction whatsoever.
I've come to the conclusion that 90% markers with 10% corrections involved is best FOR ME.
I think that Michael Ellis has the best explanations of the need for both.
Neither method teaches leadership over the dog. That's a whole different ball of wax!

The third time, the dog sits, but the trainer waits a bit longer, and the dog jumps up on her. She folds her arms and turns her back. As she does that, the dog cringes backward to the floor, as if it had been struck.

So are they working with a dog that jumps up or a dog that's mentally unstable, a bite hazard, and so terrified of it's own shadow that it would interpret avoidance as being beaten?

I'm really confused about what kind of normal, stable dog would have this kind of reaction because someone turned away from him. I've personally never seen it.

I've seen it. Normal, stable dog does not describe many shelter animals. Especially while they're getting settled in some will be hypersensitive to movement.

The one command that my dog knows 100% perfect and never fails at is "OUT", which means stop chasing that sheep/cow, stop herding, get out of this pen, cease, back off. He knows if he doesn't "OUT" something will fly from my hand -- a manure fork, a stock stick, whatever is handy. I haven't done this "aversive" very many times, maybe twice on a 3 yr old dog.

Sometimes an aversive is good to really make your point, to be clear.
Obviously, this is not for everyday manners and training.

I understand that this is not a positive only forum, but I thought the article was interesting to make people think about the "hidden" punishments we give our dogs, often those being Negative Punishment. These are important to be aware of, no simply to consider yourself "100% positive" as many of the clickertraining.com regulars would hope for, but rather simply to be more aware of your training style, and what you might be unconsciously training your do.

@Samantha,

I have seen several dogs that would consider their owners dis-attention to be punishment, which is why a "time-out" works well for many dogs as a disincentive.

John. it is interesting, if not thought provoking. Posts here usually invite comments, so

In point of fact, I think non verbal, attitudinal cues are very effective in training a dog. But then I want the attitude cue to convey some thing to the dog, such as approval, disgust, disapproval, even anger. Posturing not physical correction, acting really.

Some times attitude is pure acting because every now and then the acting has to try to obscure the hilarity of the moment.

I was going to post a comment earlier, based on having foster dog experience, that had to do with the training at a shelter but I resisted the temptation. Anyway, it is always a good thing to share information with people, so good on ya.

I've never seen a shelter dog cringe like someone had reached down and hit it just because someone turned away. I HAVE seen a dog react that badly if someone made erratic, 'scary' movements while moving around the dog. A simple, calm, turn? I'd have to say a dog that reacts that strongly to a calm movement shouldn't be adopted out and is so unhealthy, mentally, that it's kinder to put him down. What happens when a child makes an erratic movement he not only perceives as 'scary' but a threat and then bites the child in the child in the face? The dog is thrown into such high stress before it's put down. Not fair, not right, not worth it.