Originally posted by kiersten bartel: How about this: I would ask those who "do not use positive punishment" and only use "positive reinforcement", if they have ever stood on a dog's leash and ignored said dog when this dog craved attention? And only gave attention to said dog when dog was quiet and not jumping?
This is positive punishment. Positive because dog jumps up and is restricted in its movement. Punishment because you are not giving what the dog desires. It is not ONLY positive reinforcement because you gave food when the dog was quiet.
In the example you gave, ignoring the dog would be an example of negative punishment. You are taking away your attention, the behaviour of jumping will decrease. Giving food for the not jumping is positive reinforcement that increases the behaviour of sitting for attention.
The term "punishment" has nothing to do with "not giving the dog what it wants." Taken from the book "Excel-erated Learning" by Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D.:
"Reinforcement, whether positive or negative, causes the behaviour to be more likely. Punishment, whether positive or negative, causes the behaviour to be less likely." Page 29
Originally posted by VanCamp Robert: Kiersten, it isn't all four at once.
LOL. I guess I should take some English lessons ... I meant in the entire training session. But, hey, may have a very creative dog who figures out how to jump and not jump at the same time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
There is also a third piece that is neither reinforcement nor punishment. The term used is extinction. It involved the removal of the reinforcer. It is not considered punishment because the act on it's own does not immediatly create a negative effect on the behavior. In reality when extinction is applied the behavior will actually increase for a period of time. Followed by a decrease in the behavior to zero or near zero.
The use of extinction is the best method of eliminating a behavior. It has longer lasting effects and does not require the punisher to be present to be effective. The problem in applying it to dogs, or most other higher level organisms, is that it is often hard to identify and remove the reinforcer. In addition some behaviors are "self reinforcing" so that the reinforcer is internal and not reinforced by an outside source.
If you can't be a Good Example,then You'll just have to Serve as a Horrible Warning. Catherine Aird.
Originally posted by UltrazGSD: He is presenting the stimulus and THEN the behaviour is occuring. By the very definition this cannot be positive reinforcment. Positive reinforcement occurs as/just after the behaviour and increases the odds of it happening again. It does not occur BEFORE a behaviour.
No... it occurs at the same time... not one before the other... in fact.. if one has to occur first, the motion begins, then the tap occurs reinforcing the movement.
Quote:
Originally posted by UltrazGSD: It can be positive punishment. The stim could be seen as a negative that is taken away when the behaviour is performed. You stated that it can't be punishment because he is not decreasing any behaviour. He certainly IS decreasing a behaviour. There is a decrease in "standing there" and an increase in doing the send out.
OK.... it is obvious that two people could sit and play this game all day long...
is it a punisher or a reinforcer?? I could just as easily say that giving food for a correct behavior was actually a punisher to an unwanted behavior...
a punisher is anything that lessens the likelihood of a bahavior reocurring, right? so the earlier example is punishing the dog for standing around?? don't think so....
and as I said, it is not avoidance training... perhaps I cannot explain it clearly enough on the net, but I saw it.. perhaps I would need to show you in person..
Ultra GSD is correct with the definition of positive reinforcement.
And no, the stim that Bart gives is not positive reinforcement because it motivates the execution of the behavior.
The stim/nick is given the same time the command is given and is meant to be applied before the behavior starts. I think if it's going to fall into any 1 of the 4 quadrants then it would be negative reinforcement. I'm pretty sure if the command was not followed through after the nick then more stimulation would be applied to motivate the dog to act and execution of the behavior resulting in no stim would be the "reinforcement" in negative reinforcement.
It might be none of the above. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
One thing for sure is that the stim is classically conditioned to the command! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
yes, the nick is paired with the command.. but in the dog's mind, the command is paired with the action... so what is the difference?
all that matters at the end of the day is what the dog thinks, not what any of us think.
In fact, if you set the dog up with contextual clues, and only applied the nick, he would perform the desired behavior.. so is the command a conditioned punisher also?
If the model works forward, it has to work backwards also.
Actually if the dog changes his behavior after the command and nick are applied then "yes" I would say the command takes on properties of a conditioned punisher. It doesn't matter how the dog responds to the command, he will always get the nick, the nick contributes in creating the instant response to the command. Combine that with the positive reinforcement that the dog gets for the behavior and you get a much more absolute response.
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic.jpg)
.jpg)
