# Negative Reinforcement



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Can someone please explain this to me??? I'm finding it very difficult to find out how it applies in dog training. I do understand Skinners experiment where rats in a box with a loud noise which would cease when the rat pressed a lever, and that this is negative reinforcement.But how does this apply (if at all) in dog training? can anyone give me an example???


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Umm one example could be pinching a dogs ear until it does the required action 
There is another example using recall that I cant remember what is done right now.
I don't think it has any practical use in modern dog training as I'm sure you agree which is why we dont see much on it
I will go and get my 'the culture clash' book in a moment and see if it has any examples in there.
I know the book has good explanations of + -punishment and -+ reinforcement but you seem to understand that just want examples 
It took me ages to understand each of the 4 types but one day it clicked


----------



## Doolally (Oct 12, 2010)

Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative stimulus, so pain, shock, heat, bright light etc.
Most examples i've seen in books have been about choke chain training - so dog pulls or lags behind, trainer gives a tug on the lead/collar and the dog works to get close to the trainer to remove the correction.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Any time the dog/animal learns to stop a behaviour in order to earn relief from an aversive, that's negative reinforcement (R-).

Its so confusing in real life because it interplays with positive punishment (P+).

So for example (not a recommendation just illustrative) lets say someone is teaching recall with a shock collar  So the behaviour that is to be punished (reduced) is not coming back/running away.
The first zap delivered when the dog doesn't come back is P+ to reduce the unwanted behaviour and the dog doesn't know how to avoid it yet.
Subsequent zaps are negative reinforcement as the dog is learning how to avoid the shock. 
This is why most collars use a tone. The warning tone tells the dog that the shock is coming so as to give him the op to avoid it. 
Avoiding is learned through negative reinoforcement.

Any time the dog gains relief from an aversive that is as a result of negative reinforcement.
The reactive dog that lunges, barks and snarls at the approaching stranger (dog or human) has learned this behaviour because they are 'rewarded' with relief from the contact or close proximity with the scary stranger through negative reinforcement.

You putting up your umbrella is negative reinforcement (avoid the rain), the kid cleaning his room to avoid him mum nagging is negative reinforcement and so on.

Using physical moulding in training basic positions (again an example only) also uses negative reinforcement.
E.g. pressure on the bum causes the dog to sit. The dog learns to sit (lower his back end) to avoid the pressure on his back end.

Anything you can teach with positive reinforcement you can pretty much use negative reinforcement to teach also.
Negative reinforcement gets over one of the downsides of using the punishment quadrants because it does teach an alternative behaviour. Punishment just stops behaviour but the reason the animal is carrying out the beahviour, in the case of R-, is so as to avoid an aversive 

Where animals learn to 'turn on' nice things by carrying out a specific behaviour with R+; with R- the animal learns to 'turn off' nasty things by carrying out a specific behaviour.

Negative reinforcement of course applies to teaching in lots of ways that may be less than desireable. But negative reinforcement, like all of the operant consequences, are effective on behaviour outside of teaching situations so may shape behaviour whether you are ready with leash and treats and collars etc. 

Hope that helps  I love learning theory discussions so ask any questions if needed


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

My very noise sensitive dog has taught himself to open the living room door because he hates certain noises on the TV (cheering, clapping, whistles) and this allows him to bolt from the room to escape the unpleasant noise. Has he learned this through negative reinforcement, then?


I feel a little light coming on!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> My very noise sensitive dog has taught himself to open the living room door because he hates certain noises on the TV (cheering, clapping, whistles) and this allows him to bolt from the room to escape the unpleasant noise. Has he learned this through negative reinforcement, then?
> 
> I feel a little light coming on!


Yes, even though he has taught it to himself. He hates the noise and his way of escaping it is to open the door and get out of the room.

It is a barbaric way to train a dog, in my opinion.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Sound aversives are also negative reinforcement. I've seen VS use some of these but am personally undecided to whether they are good for the dog. Obviously, it isn't hurting them like an ear pinch, but still...


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes negative reinforcement can be used barbarically (sp?). It involves the use of aversives so is potentially very damaging.

BUT there are kind applications of this, the main ones being BAT (Behavioural Adjustment Training) and to a lesser extent CAT (Constructional Aggression Treatment). Although I was tempted when first released I don't really use CAT anymore but love the applications of BAT>
If carried out properly the dog is kept below threshold and learning is very very quick.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Sound aversives are also negative reinforcement. I've seen VS use some of these but am personally undecided to whether they are good for the dog. Obviously, it isn't hurting them like an ear pinch, but still...


I think that was in her older programmes and she does not use that sort of thing any more, certainly not in her US series. I remember she had a dog who kept opening the fridge and helping himself when everyone was out and she put an alarm on it. I only saw this recently and thought it was a stupid idea, would make a dog afraid of any loud noise. I think nowadays she would be more inclined to put a child proof lock on it.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Sound aversives are also negative reinforcement. I've seen VS use some of these but am personally undecided to whether they are good for the dog. Obviously, it isn't hurting them like an ear pinch, but still...


An aversive is an aversive is an aversive.

It doesn't matter that its not physical pain, the application of an aversive is associated with the same emotional/psychological fall out.

Aversives vary in the amount of damage done and that is largely down to the individuals sensitivity to degrees of aversive application.

In effect physical injury is generally much easier to treat than emotional/psychological trauma.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> I remember she had a dog who kept opening the fridge and helping himself when everyone was out and she put an alarm on it.


Isn't this positive punishment? The noise is deterring the dog and acting like a punishment. I don't see how this can be NR



> Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior.





> Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior


.

Source


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

The first applications of an aversive are P+. There is a relationship between P+ and R-, just as there is between R+ and P-.

The animal learns to avoid the aversive by offering the behaviour of 'not opening the fridge'. Any time avoiding is involved its R-.

Just as when using R+ for example to teach sit, you are punishing (P-) other responses.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Agggh! Just when I thought the little light may be brightening up, it goes out!

Can you explain that agin, Tripod?

-my connection is pants and I don't think I'll be able to stay much longer


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

OK lets use the alarm on the fridge.

The aversive, a sound, is applied when the door is opened.

First day the alarm is fitted dog doesn't know whats coming so does his usual door opening trick.
 alarm sounds, dog flees. 

Door closes, alarm stops.


Now to know if this has been truly punished we need to look and see if the dog tries again. If that is the case he should be less likely to repeat the behaviour.

But him offering another not-opening-the-door-behaviour is maintained by R-We are increasing a behaviour and the dog is avoiding an aversive = R-

Does the dog try again? Odds are he does.

He opens the door, alarm sound, dog flees.

Next time however, he walks sheepishly by the fridge in a big arc. This alternative behaviour is maintained by R-
He is doing this to avoid the aversive.

The opening behaviour is decreased in frequency (P+) and the avoidance walk is increased in frequency by R-.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> Isn't this positive punishment? The noise is deterring the dog and acting like a punishment. I don't see how this can be NR
> 
> .
> 
> Source


You're right. I was only stating that as an example of what VS does not do any more. Noise aversives are almost as bad as any other form of shock treatment to my mind, could have a lasting effect and escalate to a fear of noises.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> Now to know if this has been truly punished we need to look and see if the dog tries again. If that is the case he should be less likely to repeat the behaviour.
> 
> But him offering another not-opening-the-door-behaviour is maintained by R-We are increasing a behaviour and the dog is avoiding an aversive = R-
> 
> ...


Hold on, this seems to contradict the previous explanations. If the dog was being taught to shut the door to turn off the alarm, then thatt would clearly be R-. The alarmed fridge seems to be P+ ie something unpleasant happens when an undesirable behaviour occurs. The action of fleeing the kitchen, or shutting the door again to avoid the alarm would be learnt by R-.

The example of the "Sit!" where pressure is used so the dog takes the sit position to avoid discomfort? The dog doesn't stop walking about, just on the off chance someone's going to push it's bottom down.

From what I can see, the R- isn't very effective because it can confuse the cueing; hence my incompletely proofed pup stopped sitting on "Sit!" when the R- push was used in the training hall by hurrying trainers. As for the choke chain stopping pulling, it just doesn't, the dog seems to become inured to it, or even delibarately causing it as that's how it's used to getting into that lovely park.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

An explaination I found, which made sense, was of a guy going to work by car.

He starts off at 8 o'clock and is caught in traffic (which I htink is the "aversive"). He then decides to start off at 7.30 and misses the traffic (much more pleasant). He has then learned to avoid a negitive experience by doing something (leaving early) making that behaviour much more likely.

This makes sense to me, but is difficult to translate into dog behaviour.

The alarm on the door to me seems just like positive punishment. The dog is punished by a horrible sound so is less likely to try to open the door again. It is not doing anything active to stop the aversive -surely not doing something is not an active response -which I thought was necessary for it to be negative reinforcement? Or is it? 

Surely, if the alarm were a constant noise with the door open and could only be stopped by the dog actively closing the door, that would be be teachin by negative reinforcement?

I'm finding this really helpful as it's making me think about it in different ways. Thanks guys 

BTW Re: acronyms P+ P- R+ etc, Can someone clarlfy for me what they all are? Sorry to be so dim, but this is all new to me. Thanks


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> BTW Re: acronyms P+ P- R+ etc, Can someone clarlfy for me what they all are? Sorry to be so dim, but this is all new to me


I think the terminology is not clear without explanation to :

```
Positive     Negative

Punishment      P+           P-

Reinforcement   R+           R-
```
A punisher is something that reduces recurrence of a behaviour
A reinforcer is something that increases recurrence of a behaviour

Positive is adding something to environment
Negative is withdrawing something.

So for instance, if a dog surrenders a fetch toy it gets R+'d by praise & another throw. If it skulks off avoiding giving it up, it gets P-'d by withdrawal of attention and no play, rather than chased as it would love. When people recommend R+, they actually generally advocate R+ combined with P-, for instance a dog that moves off a stay is lead back and command repeated (aka "follow through"). If it stays then it's rewarded; the trouble is that the P word is poor choice to use because it will be misunderstood by most people.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Thanks, Rob. Yes, I realise that the use of the word "punishment" is a bit loaded and can be misunderstood. A bit like the term "Alpha" 

I'm currently reading "How Dogs Learn" by Burch and Bailley. It's easier to understand when you can discuss the concepts too, so thanks for your input.

I was discussing this with a friend the other day and we were laughing that shepherds have been training sheepdogs for centuaries and haven't read any books!!

I've just re read the thread and now get the teaching dogs to sit/walk to heel using negative reinforcemnt. Duh!!


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I was discussing this with a friend the other day and we were laughing that shepherds have been training sheepdogs for centuaries and haven't read any books!!


But there are books! It's actually quite normal to have WSD's go off to a specialist trainer, or be bought trained to a basic standard. When I was in my early teens, our 2nd Border Collie pup and me, went off to have a chat with one such trainer they knew when visiting relations in Wales. He was very much retirement age and of "old school" but basically showed me a calm patient style of teaching walking, which reduced opportunity for pulling and praise the good walking, which worked pretty well and was R+/P- but without the theory or fancy equipment like small pieces of hot dog, cheese or chicken. What was noticeable reflecting now, was the lack of military style stern firmness & bluster, but the gentle patience. Bearing in mind Barbera Woodhouse, "Siiiiii-TTTTT!", choke chains and helicoptering was what was shown on TV, the time was very different from what I expected (and dreaded not being keen on the visit what so ever).

I quite enjoy Andy Nickless's DVD showing the process, he's basically using vocal feedback and a training stick as an emphasiser. When a dog's not on the end of a chain, then there's not much alternative but to use verbal praise & displeasure.

It is rather similar to some of Dunbar's recent talk about verbal reinforcing & punishing, rather than push button (Click or Shock) type training, which presumably is practiced in the US.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Hold on, this seems to contradict the previous explanations. If the dog was being taught to shut the door to turn off the alarm, then thatt would clearly be R-. The alarmed fridge seems to be P+ ie something unpleasant happens when an undesirable behaviour occurs. The action of fleeing the kitchen, or shutting the door again to avoid the alarm would be learnt by R-.
> 
> The example of the "Sit!" where pressure is used so the dog takes the sit position to avoid discomfort? The dog doesn't stop walking about, just on the off chance someone's going to push it's bottom down.
> 
> From what I can see, the R- isn't very effective because it can confuse the cueing; hence my incompletely proofed pup stopped sitting on "Sit!" when the R- push was used in the training hall by hurrying trainers. As for the choke chain stopping pulling, it just doesn't, the dog seems to become inured to it, or even delibarately causing it as that's how it's used to getting into that lovely park.


Yes Rob but R- teaches an alternative behaviour - thats how we know it is R-. If behaivour just stopped (ie punished) then its P+.

But it could work your way too. If the alarm was designed to stop when the dog closed the door then that would be another application of R-.
I didn't specify that in my description, just that the alarm starts and presumably sounds for pre-determined length of time.

I could go another way and discuss my fridge. If its open too long it sounds an alarm (aversive). The door is closed to stop the alarm (relief from averisve). That is more similar to your scenario.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Animals have been learning in natural situations for ever and I'm pretty sure Mother Nature is not a big reader either 

Books are just another way of spreading these ideas. 

Learning theory is not that complicated its just the terms are a pain in the a** but you are prob applying all of the quadrants to various organisms in your life without ever needing to know the lingo behind it.

Think of positive and negative in maths terms --> position means plus or add; negative means minus or take away

Punish is to decrease in frequency
Reinforce is to increase in frequency

You won't know which, regardless of what you intend, until you look back and analyse the situation. Has a behaviour increased or decreased in frequency?

Both 'sides' of the operant quadrant work together.

You can't have R+ without P- and you can't have P+ without R- so thats why there is confusion because there is an increase in one behaviour (hopefully the desired behaviour  ) and a decrease in other behaviours.

By rewarding sit (R+) you are punishing other responses (P-)
By punishing pulling (P+) you are reinforcing other responses e.g. not pulling (R-)

Its only in theory that they are isolated - in practice they never are


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> Yes Rob but R- teaches an alternative behaviour - thats how we know it is R-. If behaivour just stopped (ie punished) then its P+


That's why I mentioned "fleeing" after opening it as (R- taught), but I don't see how "not opening the fridge" was not simply P+'d. Yes, reducing one behaviour increases the probability of alternative behaviours, but that's not teaching or reinforcing a specific response.

The link shows actually that a P+, may also by R- teach accidentally an unwanted behaviour. If we go to the shock collar boundary fence, the dog might learn to bolt away.

Similarly with P- we increase the probability of the successful wanted behaviour, which can then be actively reinforced.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes fleeing is a behaviour but is unlikely to be a permanent behavioural response. Remember, we have to look back and see which part of the quadrant changed behaviour.

All four can have a relationship with one another but the two sides can't work without eachother.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

What is this "quadrant" you speak of?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> ...how [does neg-R apply] in dog training.
> I do understand Skinners experiment where rats in a box with a loud noise which would cease when the rat
> pressed a lever, and that this is negative reinforcement.


think of it as math: 
POSITIVE = ADD something 
NEGATIVE = DEDUCT something

REINFORCEMENT = something that increases a behavior.
REINFORCER = things the dog will work to *earn*: stuff the dog likes.

PUNISHMENT = something that decreases a behavior. 
PUNISHER = things the dog will work to *avoid*: stuff the dog dislikes.

in behavioral science, i want to do one of 4 things with any behavior: 
* get it on cue [stimulus control] so the subject does it when i ask 
* extinguish it permanently [nuisance barking, lunge & bark at strange dogs...] 
* increase it - have it happen more often 
* decrease it - have it happen less often. 
it's a set of equations, in a sense.

to get MORE sitting, what can i do? *what can i add?* rewards; give a reward for each sit.

or i could ADD punishment: *punish the dog for anything Not sitting, when i want a sit - * but it's confusing, 
gives no clear indications of what i want, & makes the dog dislike the training process & avoid me. *bad choice.*

what could i SUBTRACT to get more sitting? *rewards - * as long as the pup sits on the mat, a food-tube is offered 
to lick a nice stinky fish-&-cream-cheese blend; when the pup stands or moves off the mat, *the tube is gone.* 
that would be negative punishment - they stop sitting? i *deduct a desirable thing.*

what else could i SUBTRACT to get more sitting? *a punisher - * if the dog stands & i tighten the prong-collar 
& lift the dog's head uncomfortably & wait, most dogs will sit - anatomically, their head rises for their butt to sink; 
WHEN the dog sits, i *relax the prong-collar - * removing the punisher of pressure or pain, & allowing the dog 
to stop struggling to swallow or breathe, as well as letting their head & neck relax in a more apropos posture.

*but notice before i could *deduct* the prong-collar pressure & hyperextension, i had to *Add It* - * 
so the prong was a positive-punisher before it was relaxed in use as a negative-reinforcer. 
this is often true of neg-R: it is just the other side of the coin of positive-punishment.

*negative punishment* does not have the same taint - i can remove a nice-thing without damaging the dog's 
experience of training; if the dog jumps-up for attention, simply by ignoring the dog or leaving the room i remove 
the one thing the dog wanted so much: *the chance to get my attention.*

reward-based trainers try to stick to positive-reinforcement & now & then, negative-punishment - 
add a nice thing for behaviors we want; take-away a nice thing for behaviors we do not want. 
they prefer to manage the dog to make right-answers inevitable or easy, & avoid setting the dog up to fail.

aversive-based trainers use punishers to teach dogs NOT to do something: a choke-, prong- or shock-collar, 
a sharp verbal correction, etc; they often set the dog up to fail so that they can *correct* AKA punish, 
which can involve sting-operations: *tell the dog to do something undesirable, then punish.* 
Ex: pat one's chest to lure the dog to jump-up, then stomp their toes or knee their chest to painfully punish.

Balanced trainers claim that dogs need both punishment & rewards to learn effectively; 
this is clearly untrue, as captive wildlife in zoos & aquaria or breeding facilities are never punished 
physically - hitting a gorilla or aurochs would inevitably lead to aggression in future; yet they learn very well.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> What is this "quadrant" you speak of?


people like to think of the menu as 4 types, 2 additions & 2 subtractions:

pos-P & neg-R tend to go together // pos-R & neg-P tend to go together.

this ignores the other option: *extinction - * remove or prevent the rewards, & let the behavior die; 
when the rewards are gone, the behavior ceases. *extinction* is what wives do when they forget to thank 
their hubby for taking the trash out without being rewarded,  or parents forget to praise their children for 
cleaning up & putting away their toys, or hanging up jackets & schoolbags... *ignoring good behavior kills it.*

EX - 
many puppy-owners *ignore their pup* when s/he is peaceful, happily occupied & quiet - _*bad human.*_ 
now we've extinguished quiet chewing on one's own toy on the dog-bed, in exchange for scratching our shins. :blush2: oops...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> people like to think of the menu as 4 types, 2 additions & 2 subtractions:
> 
> pos-P & neg-R tend to go together // pos-R & neg-P tend to go together.
> 
> ...


Does that work the same way with bad behaviour, Terry? Like if you ignore bad behaviour, will that too become extinct? I get a bit confused - it's my age:blink:


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

I really must save this thread somehow when I'm not so tired as this is the sort of thing that is going to call a halt to my studies if I cant get my head around it :blink:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> Does that work the same way with bad behaviour, Terry?
> Like if you ignore bad behaviour, will that too become extinct? I get a bit confused - it's my age :blink:


yes - but it can be very wearying for the trainer, :lol: Barking in & of itself can be highly rewarding for some dogs, 
so ignoring a terrierrrist into extinction would be not only unlikely [we cannot get rid of the intrinsic reward], 
but also _*maddening*_ :mad2: ...unless U are deaf or wear noise-cancelling head-phones.

a combination of *ignore the UNwanted behavior* [barking] & *redirect to a desired behavior - *
bark once or twice to let me know someone's here, then come sit by me for a treat or petting & praise - 
generally works better, if the unwanted-behavior is intrinsically rewarding.

we can also extinguish jumping-up by utterly ignoring the leaping dog, but rewarding the sitting dog with attention; 
*however* all visitors & passersby on the street, etc, also have to NOT pet, coo over, etc, the leaping dog... 
which is a tall-order; *random reinforcement* just like gambling, is incredibly powerful at maintaining behavior -- 
we do it over & over, hoping that THIS time, we get the payoff: the lottery is a great example.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sorry to butt in but I keep thinking I have this clear then I'm not so sure ....:blink:

When my dog Toby gets over excited & starts barking at the chickens I take him & put him inside the house, on his own, away from us & our other dog - is this an example of neg-P?

If when he gets excited but sits when I tell him instead of barking at the chickens he gets a treat & a fuss - is this then pos-R?

If when Toby barked a shock collar he was wearing (I would never do this but just for an example!) activated this would be a pos-P initially then a neg-R for further occurrences?


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes, yes and yes


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tripod said:


> Yes, yes and yes


Excellent - it has finally sunk in!!!!!! :thumbup:


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

Excellent thread guys - thanks to all the contributors!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> If when Toby barked a shock collar he was wearing (I would never do this but just for an example!)
> activated, this would be a pos-P initially, then a neg-R for further occurrences?


it would be neg-R if he *did not bark* after the initial event - 
but would be paired, as usual, if he barked once, zap, & shut-up: the zap is the pos-P *added punisher*, 
the cessation of shock is the neg-R *deducted punisher*. So both are active, if he barks.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> it would be neg-R if he *did not bark* after the initial event -
> but would be paired, as usual, if he barked once, zap, & shut-up: the zap is the pos-P *added punisher*,
> the cessation of shock is the neg-R *deducted punisher*. So both are active, if he barks.


Thought so, the penny has finally dropped now! :blink:

Why did it take me so long to get this?!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> Why did it take me so long to get this?!


i found it impossible to grip until i dumped the whole positive = happy, negative = bad, 
and just stuck to negative-numbers or positive-numbers: remove or add. :thumbup: *then* i finally grokked it!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

One thing to keep in mind is that, even though there are four constituents to operant conditioning, they come in pairs: positive reinforcement/negative punishment & negative reinforcement/positive punishment. 

We are positively reinforcing, by delivering a treat/praise to a dog, when we ask it to "SIT" by a door that they desperately want to get out, but we are also negatively punishing them by asking them to do an incompatable behaviour- which is immediately rewarded however, and thus greater frequencies will allow the behaviour to become the desired behaviour. 

Similarly, we are positively punishing a dog for not performing a "SIT" by choking/use ear pinches until they do. Thus, negative reinforcement is in play here, as the dog wants to avoid the positive punishment and will SIT on command.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> think of it as math:
> POSITIVE = ADD something
> NEGATIVE = DEDUCT something
> 
> ...


Best explaination I have had so far! Thanks LforL!!
:thumbup:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Due to certain interest groups being unwilling to follow a logical process, accept rational arguments and assimulate threads like this to learn, I've produced a simple mathematical proof of tripod's point which clarified the discussion of Learning Theory.

A rushed sketch Proof whilst seemingly very obvious, if you can find flaws in the presentation or subtle issues with it, please pm me so we can address the problem

*Simple Proof of tripod's point on simultaneous working of reward as both reinforcer & punisher as defined by Learning Theory ie R+ & P-*

Let r be the mathematical probability of a candidate reinforced behaviour.
Let a be the mathematical probability of alternative behaviours.

We begin by observing that self evidently :

1 - a = r

Now from the definition of R+, when a behaviour is R+'ed we know that :

r < r', where r' is the new probabilty of the positively-reinforced behaviour after R+ by effective reward, as reinforcement has occured.

Because, 1 - a' = r' must also be true, by definition of the terms

a > a`

QED:

The probability of alternate behaviour a` has diminished, therefore the reward that R+'d also acted simultaneously to diminish the alternate behaviours as if they had been P-'d.

Note:
That means sufficient reinforcement would lead to extinction due to lost fluency and practice of the alternate behaviours. Especially as some alternates would not be the targetted undesirable behaviour but benign uncued behaviour or slow responses to the cue.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

It's rare that this much misinformation about Operant Conditioning (OC) is allowed to stand without it being corrected. About the only thing that's been posted by a few "experts" that's correct is the quadrant showing the four sides of the OC "box" and a mention of extinction.

To go over it once more and add a few very basic, but necessary concepts.

1.	If something is added to the situation, it's abbreviated with a + sign and/or called positive. 
2.	If something is removed from the situation, it's abbreviated with a  sign and/or called negative. 
3.	If something tends to make a behavior repeat (another way to say this is that it increases the frequency of it occurring) it's called reinforcement. 
4.	If something tends to make a behavior not repeat (or that it reduces the frequency of it occurring) it's called punishment. 
5.	Putting those concepts together gives use +R, -R, +P and P. 
6.	All five of these are only part of OC if they come AFTER the behavior. If they come before the act it's not part of OC. 
7.	One cannot judge the stimuli that are added or removed from a human standpoint. They can ONLY be judged by the outcome on the behavior. The dog is the ONLY arbiter as to whether something is reinforcement or punishment. 
8.	Extinction is ignoring something and having that behavior fade away. It may be a form of punishment. 
9. Each incident of the application or removal of something is regarded as an individual segment of OC. 
10.	The organism is not punished or reinforced. OC looks only at the effect on the behavior. It's the behavior that is said to be punished or reinforced.



babycham2002 said:


> Umm one example could be pinching a dogs ear until it does the required action


Pinching a dog's ear is not an example of R because it's ADDED to the situation, making it a +. RELEASING the ear pinch (REMOVING the pain) when the dog open his mouth s due to the pain is the R.



babycham2002 said:


> I don't think it has any practical use in modern dog training as I'm sure you agree which is why we dont see much on it


-R is used quite frequently.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Doolally said:


> Negative reinforcement is the removal of a *negative stimulus, *so pain, shock, heat, bright light etc.


Tossing in the second "negative" (that I've put into bold) is sure to confuse some people. I'd suggest that the wording of "something the dog will work to avoid" will be clearer. But some of the stimuli may not be of this nature. E.g. if the dog is cold, heat will be welcome. One judges whether something is R or P by its effect on the behavior.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> Any time the dog/animal learns to stop a behaviour in order to earn relief from an aversive, that's negative reinforcement (R-).


The language here is ... let's say awkward. Once can say that each individual application of a dog stopping something because an aversive has been removed is R. Or that the dog has been trained to stop doing something with R. but it's not quite right to say it this way.



tripod said:


> Its so confusing in real life because it interplays with positive punishment (P+).


It can but it's not necessary that it does.



tripod said:


> So for example (not a recommendation just illustrative) lets say someone is teaching recall with a shock collar So the behaviour that is to be punished (reduced) is not coming back/running away.
> The first zap delivered when the dog doesn't come back is P+ to reduce the unwanted behaviour and the dog doesn't know how to avoid it yet.
> Subsequent zaps are negative reinforcement as the dog is learning how to avoid the shock.


This last part is not correct. Each application of the shock is another example of +P. It's ADDED to the situation making it + and it tends to make the behavior of the dog, not to obey the recall command not repeat, making it P. So it's +P. It does not become R because the dog learns how to avoid the shock. One judges which segment of OC a stimulus falls under by looking at that individual incident, not how the behavior ONE THE WHOLE is affected.



tripod said:


> This is why most collars use a tone. The warning tone tells the dog that the shock is coming so as to give him the op to avoid it.


Actually few Ecollars use a tone. Some have them as a separate feature and a very few models within a very few brands offer the warning tone. Most do not. Many think that it's the equivalent of giving a double command (repeating a command).



tripod said:


> Avoiding is learned through negative reinoforcement.


In your example, learning occurs through positive punishment. IF the Ecollar button is held down (giving the dog continuous stim) and, when the dog turns to come back (or is guided back with a leash), THE ACT OF RELEASING THE BUTTON is R. The discomfort is removed (making it − ) and the act of turning towards the handler is reinforced (meaning that it will tend to increase) THAT is R. Each individual act is judged by itself.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Sound aversives are also negative reinforcement. I've seen VS use some of these but am personally undecided to whether they are good for the dog. Obviously, it isn't hurting them like an ear pinch, but still...


Mental discomfort may be more "painful" to a dog than physical pain. The dog is the only arbiter as to whether something is punishing or reinforcing. What one dog dislikes another may like.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I think that was in her older programmes and she does not use that sort of thing any more, certainly not in her US series. I remember she had a dog who kept opening the fridge and helping himself when everyone was out and she put an alarm on it. I only saw this recently and thought it was a stupid idea, would make a dog afraid of any loud noise. I think nowadays she would be more inclined to put a child proof lock on it.


If a dog is noise sensitive then it does not like most loud noises. If a dog is not noise sensitive then doing this won't make much difference in the behavior. In the first case the dog would stop opening the fridge door due to +P. The noise is added, giving the + and the behavior would tend not to repeat, giving the P.

In the second case it would be neither P nor R because it would not affect the behavior.

Thinking that this will make a dog _"afraid of any loud noise"_ is anthropomorphism and has no application.

Putting the child lock on the door is management. It always breaks down because it relies on the human to remember to put it on each time the fridge door is closed and we're imperfect.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> An aversive is an aversive is an aversive.
> 
> It doesn't matter that its not physical pain, the application of an aversive is associated with the same emotional/psychological fall out.
> 
> ...


While you have made a few errors on the OC side, you certainly understand this concept very well.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> The first applications of an aversive are P+.


Unless the aversive become neutral or reinforcing ALL applications of it are aversive.



tripod said:


> There is a relationship between P+ and R-, just as there is between R+ and P-.


The relationship is that the first must exist in order for it to be removed.



tripod said:


> The animal learns to avoid the aversive by offering the behaviour of 'not opening the fridge'. Any time avoiding is involved its R-.


Sorry, not correct. One judges each individual application or removal by itself. In order for R to be at work something must be removed. One can't say that something is R because the behavior is removed. That's the effect of the stimulus but it's the application or the removal (in this case) of the stimulus that is under discussion in OC.



tripod said:


> Just as when using R+ for example to teach sit, you are punishing (P-) other responses.


Not so. You are tending to make those behaviors less likely to occur but they are not being punished, they are being replaced. You're mixing the common English term of punishment into a discussion of OC. That never works well. The uses of the terms are not the same.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> OK lets use the alarm on the fridge.
> 
> The aversive, a sound, is applied when the door is opened.
> 
> ...


This is +P.



tripod said:


> Door closes, alarm stops.


THIS PART is the R.



tripod said:


> Now to know if this has been truly punished we need to look and see if the dog tries again. If that is the case he should be less likely to repeat the behaviour.
> 
> But him offering another not-opening-the-door-behaviour is maintained by R-We are increasing a behaviour and the dog is avoiding an aversive = R-


_"Avoiding an aversive"_ is not R. It's THE REMOVAL of the aversive that is the R. There's a significant difference in what you've said and discussing it under the heading of OC.



tripod said:


> Does the dog try again? Odds are he does. He opens the door, alarm sound, dog flees.


Another instance of +P. When the alarm stops when the door closes R is in effect.



tripod said:


> Next time however, he walks sheepishly by the fridge in a big arc. This alternative behaviour is maintained by R-


BOTH +P and R have resulted in the _"alternative behavior" of [passing] by the fridge._



tripod said:


> He is doing this to avoid the aversive.


Both, the +P of the noise and the R of it shutting off have had a training effect. If the noise continued (say the door didn't close) it might keep the dog away due to its aversive nature. But the dog might become desensitized to it and learn to ignore it. Then it would have lost its training effect.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Hold on, this seems to contradict the previous explanations. If the dog was being taught to shut the door to turn off the alarm, then thatt would clearly be R-. The alarmed fridge seems to be P+ ie something unpleasant happens when an undesirable behaviour occurs. The action of fleeing the kitchen, or shutting the door again to avoid the alarm would be learnt by R-.


This is correct.



tripod said:


> The example of the "Sit!" where pressure is used so the dog takes the sit position to avoid discomfort? The dog doesn't stop walking about, just on the off chance someone's going to push it's bottom down.


One of the problems here is that you're assuming that the pressure on the dog's butt causes discomfort. It may not. It may be neutral. It the dog finds it uncomfortable, it's +P, the standing is less likely to occur and the pushing is added to the situation. The dog isn't sitting to avoid it, rather he may simply be forced into the position. Some dogs find such pressure pleasurable, therefore it's not going to be punishing. If the dog finds it neutral it's going to be neither P nor R. In that case the dog may simply be pressed (forced, or guided if you prefer) into the sit position.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Operant Conditioning (OC) is allowed to stand without it being corrected


Here we go again, why not be honest and retract your many errors first? All Lou says is irrelevant really, just blathering and obfuscation.

To judge a situation and understand what it is happening, you *must* define the behaviours, and then look at what is withdrawn or added. It's much much simpler than Lou makes out, whether it has a P+, P- or even R+ label is not very relevant.

What matters is what you are doing, giving a treat, or play as reward, or using fear of shock or intimidation to coerce.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> The alarm on the door to me seems just like positive punishment. The dog is punished by a horrible sound so is less likely to try to open the door again.


This is correct.



Old Shep said:


> It is not doing anything active to stop the aversive


Not until it moves away from the fridge and the noise. Then when the door closes the alarm stops. THE REMOVAL of the noise is the R in this situation.



Old Shep said:


> BTW Re: acronyms P+ P- R+ etc, Can someone clarlfy for me what they all are? Sorry to be so dim, but this is all new to me. Thanks


Few pet owners need this information. Trainers sometimes use the term when talking to one another. But if the terms are to be used they should be used correctly.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> So for instance, if a dog surrenders a fetch toy it gets R+'d by praise & another throw. If it skulks off avoiding giving it up, it gets P-'d by withdrawal of attention and no play, rather than chased as it would love.


Here's an example of a human placing his own interpretation on what's going on. Here RobD thinks that the dog is punished (−P) by the _"withdrawal of attention and no play"_ WHEN IN FACT *this dog is REWARDED *(+R) by taking the toy off and playing with it himself.

Judging something by a human construct rather than how the dog thinks of it is one of the pitfalls when discussing OC and in training dogs in general.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> Yes Rob but R- teaches an alternative behaviour - thats how we know it is R-. If behaivour just stopped (ie punished) then its P+.


When a behavior has been stopped by +P, an _"alternate behavior"_ (NOT opening the fridge door in the example that has been used) has been learned. One can't say that -R teaches an alternative behavior but +P does not. They both do.



tripod said:


> But it could work your way too. If the alarm was designed to stop when the dog closed the door then that would be another application of R-.
> I didn't specify that in my description, just that the alarm starts and presumably sounds for pre-determined length of time.


If this occurs, it's STILL +P. It will probably lose much of it's power if this were to occur. Part of the reason it's punishing is that the environment goes from relatively quiet to relatively noisy.



tripod said:


> I could go another way and discuss my fridge. If its open too long it sounds an alarm (aversive). The door is closed to stop the alarm (relief from averisve). That is more similar to your scenario.


For many people such alarms are merely signals. They're neither aversive nor reinforcing. Again the human construct interferes.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

tripod said:


> You can't have R+ without P- and you can't have P+ without R- so thats why there is confusion because there is an increase in one behaviour (hopefully the desired behaviour  ) and a decrease in other behaviours.
> 
> By rewarding sit (R+) you are punishing other responses (P-)
> By punishing pulling (P+) you are reinforcing other responses e.g. not pulling (R-)


This is incorrect. The problem is that you're mixing the concepts of OC with the common language. Rewarding a sit (+R) DOES NOT PUNISH ANY OTHER BEHAVIOR. It will result in other behavior not occurring (a dog that's sitting is a dog that's not running around) but this is not part of OC. The running around is NOT punished. Diminishment is NOT punishment.

OC requires that something be added to the situation or removed from it that results in a behavior being reinforced or punished. Just because something does not occur any longer does not mean that it's been punished.



tripod said:


> Its only in theory that they are isolated - in practice they never are


While this is true in practice, obviously a dog that's sitting is no longer running around, it's inappropriate in a discussion of OC to say that the running around has been punished. If one was to put a leash on the dog and allow the dog to hit the end of it and he found that to be aversive THEN you could say that the behavior was punished (in this case with +P).


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Yes, reducing one behaviour increases the probability of alternative behaviours, but that's not teaching or reinforcing a specific response. The link shows actually that a P+, may also by R- teach accidentally an unwanted behaviour. If we go to the shock collar boundary fence, the dog might learn to bolt away.


I was wondering when we'd get to Ecollars and their brethren. lol

Invisible Fences (IF) also work by +P and R. When the dog approaches the fence an alarm is sounded (on most of them) and if he continues in the same direction he's punished by the application of a stim. (+P). When he retreats from the fence the stim stops and the moving away is reinforced (−R). This response must be trained before the dog is allowed to roam free behind the IF. (ignoring the problem of the dog chasing something through the fence or other animals coming in  because it's not appropriate here).


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> REINFORCEMENT = something that increases a behavior.
> * REINFORCER = things the dog will work to earn: stuff the dog likes. *
> 
> PUNISHMENT = something that decreases a behavior.
> * PUNISHER = things the dog will work to avoid: stuff the dog dislikes. *


These definitions are very close but they leave out something that is vital to the discussion of OC. The parts that I've placed in bold leave out some details. In the first case, a REINFORCER must not only be something that _"the dog likes"_ it must be something that he *will actively work to get. * In the second case, a PUNISHER must not only be something that _"the dog dislikes"_ it must be something that he * will actively avoid or move away from. *

It must affect the behavior or it's not reinforcing or punishing. A dog may feel hot from laying in the sun but until he become TOO HOT it's not punishing. A dog may like his kibble but unless he'll eat it, (maybe he's sated or there are hot dogs present) it's not going to be reinforcing.



leashedForLife said:


> in behavioral science, i want to do one of 4 things with any behavior:
> * get it on cue [stimulus control] so the subject does it when i ask
> * extinguish it permanently [nuisance barking, lunge & bark at strange dogs...]
> * increase it - have it happen more often
> ...


*

Now you're adding value judgments which have no place in OC. OC is completely neutral. It places no such value on one phase or another. They are all equal. It's only when humans start making such statements that these discussions go down this road. In fact, if punishment is applied properly it's NOT confusing, dogs DO NOT DISLIKE  the training process and WILL NOT avoid the trainer. Some people only discuss methods/tools they don't like when they are used improperly and only discuss methods/tools they like when they're used improperly. Fact is ANY method/tool that's used improperly can have these poor results.



leashedForLife said:



reward-based trainers try to stick to positive-reinforcement & now & then, negative-punishment - 
add a nice thing for behaviors we want; take-away a nice thing for behaviors we do not want. 
they prefer to manage the dog to make right-answers inevitable or easy, & avoid setting the dog up to fail.

aversive-based trainers use punishers to teach dogs NOT to do something: a choke-, prong- or shock-collar, 
a sharp verbal correction, etc; they often set the dog up to fail so that they can correct AKA punish, 
which can involve sting-operations: tell the dog to do something undesirable, then punish. 
Ex: pat one's chest to lure the dog to jump-up, then stomp their toes or knee their chest to painfully punish.

Click to expand...

Why you decide to turn this into another argument about your methods v. others is a mystery. So far this was a pleasant discussion about a technical part of dog training.

All this shows is that you don't know how to properly apply methods that use +P. Many of us do. It's not nearly as hard as you'd like people to believe. Millions have done it and millions more will.



leashedForLife said:



Balanced trainers claim that dogs need both punishment & rewards to learn effectively; this is clearly untrue, as captive wildlife in zoos & aquaria or breeding facilities are never punished physically

Click to expand...

AGAIN, you conveniently forget dogs (and all animals for that matter) are BEST TRAINED with a balance of punishment and rewards. AND AGAIN you only mention "physical" punishment as the only type of punishment that can be used.



leashedForLife said:



- hitting a gorilla or aurochs would inevitably lead to aggression in future

Click to expand...

I think that aurochs died off several hundred years ago. But this statement is simply an assumption on your part. And actually such strikes ARE used in the training of gorillas quite often.



leashedForLife said:



yet they learn very well.

Click to expand...

Your use of the term "very well" is up for discussion. Actually trainers of zoo animals find that they don't get very much reliability. Go to one of these shows in the zoo and you'll see commands being repeated and repeated and repeated, animals flat out refusing to perform, or simply walking off! Trainers of these animals simply distract the audience onto another animal that feels like cooperating.

The mention of such animals is always entertaining. They're safe from dangerous situations that our dogs are exposed to regularly. There's no busy streets or sweet syrupy antifreeze on the ground in the gorilla enclosure.

ALL animals are trained with a balance of reinforcement and punishment, as the terms exist in OC (AND THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) It's impossible to use one with the other.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> this ignores the other option: *extinction - * remove or prevent the rewards, & let the behavior die;
> when the rewards are gone, the behavior ceases.


Extinction works sometimes with some dogs for some behaviors. The problem is, if the behavior is self−rewarding, it's all but impossible for it to die by itself.



leashedForLife said:


> *extinction* is what wives do when they forget to thank their hubby for taking the trash out without being rewarded,  or parents forget to praise their children for cleaning up & putting away their toys, or hanging up jackets & schoolbags... *ignoring good behavior kills it.*


As with "bad" behavior, extinction of good behavior may not stop if it's self rewarding. If hubby thinks that taking the trash out is a good thing, there's something really stinky in it, he'll do it no matter whether wifey rewards it or not. The act has its own reward. Similarly if children are neat by nature, _"putting away their toys, etc."_ will be done for its own sake.



leashedForLife said:


> EX -
> many puppy-owners *ignore their pup* when s/he is peaceful, happily occupied & quiet - _*bad human.*_
> now we've extinguished quiet chewing on one's own toy on the dog-bed, in exchange for scratching our shins. oops...


Praising a dog for "doing nothing" can create a problem where a behavior was not a problem before. The issue is not knowing what the dog is thinking about when it's _"peaceful, happily occupied & quiet."_ If you pick the moment that the dog is thinking about chasing the cat, you'll be reinforcing that behavior and not even realize it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> When my dog Toby gets over excited & starts barking at the chickens I take him & put him inside the house, on his own, away from us & our other dog - is this an example of neg-P?


No it's an example of management. It stops the barking but the dog does not learn anything, therefore ... It stops or diminishes the behavior but as soon as the dog is exposed to the chickens he'll bark at them again.



Cleo38 said:


> If when he gets excited but sits when I tell him instead of barking at the chickens he gets a treat & a fuss - is this then pos-R?


The sit is positively reinforced. While the barking at the chickens is stopped or diminished, it's not punished. In the long run the dog may stop barking at the chickens because he's been trained that the barking brings a sit command but it's not appropriate in a discussion of OC to say that the barking has been punished.



Cleo38 said:


> If when Toby barked a shock collar he was wearing (I would never do this but just for an example!) activated this would be a pos-P initially then a neg-R for further occurrences?


No. Each shock the dog receive is +P. When the dog stops barking, the shock stops and you have R.



tripod said:


> Yes, yes and yes


Sorry but the correct answers are No, No and No.



Cleo38 said:


> Excellent - it has finally sunk in!!!!!! :thumbup:


Youve been given misinformation.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that, even though there are four constituents to operant conditioning, they come in pairs: positive reinforcement/negative punishment & negative reinforcement/positive punishment.


Yep, this is so.



Rottiefan said:


> We are positively reinforcing, by delivering a treat/praise to a dog, when we ask it to "SIT" by a door that they desperately want to get out, but we are also negatively punishing them by asking them to do an incompatable behaviour- which is immediately rewarded however, and thus greater frequencies will allow the behaviour to become the desired behaviour.


Nononono. While having a dog sit by a door diminishes or reduces the frequency of running out it DOES NOT PUNISH IT, under the terms used in OC. Diminishing something is NOT the same as punishing it.



Rottiefan said:


> Similarly, we are positively punishing a dog for not performing a "SIT" by choking/use ear pinches until they do. Thus, negative reinforcement is in play here, as the dog wants to avoid the positive punishment and will SIT on command.


See above. NOT doing something (here not choking/pinching the ear) is NOT part of OC. Look again. Something must be *actively added *to the environment or something that is present must be *actively removed. *


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Due to certain interest being unwilling to follow a logical process and read threads like this, I've produced a simple proof of tripod's point which clarified the discussion of Learning Theory.


Thanks for refreshing this thread RobD. There is a great deal of misinformation in it.



RobD-BCactive said:


> A Simple Proof that R+ a behaviour, simultaneously diminishes P- alternate behaviours. I only spent about 2 minutes writing this, and whilst it seems very obvious, if you can find a flaw in the logic, please pm me so we can address the issue.


The entire _"proof"_ is flawed because it completely ignores the definitions of the terms used in OC. Diminishing or reducing a behavior is not the same as punishing it, no matter how many times you (or others) say it. In OC once *actively introduces * or *actively removes * a stimulus from the situation that affects the behavior by increasing or decreasing its frequency.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Simple Proof of tripod's the simultaneous nature of the Learning Theory R+, P-
> 
> Let r be the mathematical probability of a candidate reinforced behaviour.
> Let p be the mathematical probability of punished alternative behaviours.


This last sentence is the flaw. Reinforcing one behavior does not _punish _ (under the technical definitions of OC  and that's what's being discussed here) any other behavior.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> LC
> I'd suggest that the wording of "something the dog will work to avoid" will be clearer.


I've just been thinking Lou, these 4 things below, are they all learned negative reinforcement (= reward) behaviours?

1) So, I take my socks off to lounge around the house, my feet feel better that way.

2) I & everyone I know wriggle a bit when we sit down, I call it getting comfortable.

3) At some point in pre history someone _probably_ put an animal skin on rock seat in a cave, 'I' would feel 'more' comfortable sitting on an animal skin than a rock.

4) I use a microwave, its quicker, less work and _more comfortable_than standining around preparing food to coook on a conventional cooker.

5) Are many of these video avoidence behaviours negatively learned reinforced (= reward) behaviours?

YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained. Dogs Learned Responses To Aversive Stimuli‬‏

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> You can't have R+ without P- and you can't have P+ without R- so thats why there is confusion because there is an increase in one behaviour (hopefully the desired behaviour  ) and a decrease in other behaviours.
> 
> By rewarding sit (R+) you are punishing other responses (P-)
> By punishing pulling (P+) you are reinforcing other responses e.g. not pulling (R-)
> ...


According to Operant conditioning - Reinforcement, punishment, and extinction - Wikipedia



Wikipedia said:


> Reinforcement is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with greater frequency.
> Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with less frequency.
> Extinction is the lack of any consequence following a behavior. When a behavior is inconsequential (i.e., producing neither favorable nor unfavorable consequences) it will occur with less frequency. When a previously reinforced behavior is no longer reinforced with either positive or negative reinforcement, it leads to a decline in the response.
> ..
> ...


Lou actually (unusually) has made a useful theoretical correction, though it's rather moot in practice.

The other responses to the Sit, like avoiding the handler are only P-'d if something is removed, perhaps the opportunity to walk away (handler clasps the leash).

The reason it is moot, is that whether extinction diminishes alternate behaviour, refinforcement of desired behaviour, or negative-punishment the effect is the same. It is zero sum.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> This last part is not correct. Each application of the shock is another example of +P. It's ADDED to the situation making it + and it tends to make the behavior of the dog, not to obey the recall command not repeat, making it P. So it's +P. It does not become -R because the dog learns how to avoid the shock. One judges which segment of OC a stimulus falls under by looking at that individual incident, not how the behavior ONE THE WHOLE is affected.
> 
> .


Thank you Lou, I stand corrected on that point. Although I knew what I meant, I did not express it clearly or indeed accurately.

However, I will not respond to any of your posts with snips from here there and everywhere as, as usual IMO you are attempting to goad others into arguments that go round and round rooted in ego or personal vendetta and do nothing to progress anyones understanding or indeed help progress the field of dog training, dog welfare or indeed the enjoyment that I once took in participating in this forum.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Yep, this is so.
> ...
> Nononono. While having a dog sit by a door diminishes or reduces the frequency of running out it DOES NOT PUNISH IT, under the terms used in OC. Diminishing something is NOT the same as punishing it.
> ...
> See above. NOT doing something (here not choking/pinching the ear) is NOT part of OC. Look again. Something must be *actively added *to the environment or something that is present must be *actively removed. *


Yes, I see that I lazily misapplied OC terms in these instances. This is the effect of terms being put through the social mill, I suppose.

Lou, I think you have some good knowledge to share but for God's sake, try and fit it into one post. I must have read the same point at least 10 times in your posts, when one would suffice. I don't mind sharing knowledge, but the constant quoting is not the best way to get your point across on here, IMO.


----------

