RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

"Aversives": A little something for the newer trainer.

9K views 40 replies 20 participants last post by  DarrinGreene 
#1 ·
In psychology, aversives are unpleasant stimuli that induce changes in behavior through punishment; by applying an aversive immediately following a behavior, the likelihood of the behavior occurring in the future is reduced. That is mostly true in dog training, but a significant exception is forcing, during which a behavior is made more likely to reoccur through the application of an aversive stimulus. Aversives can vary from being slightly unpleasant or irritating (such as a disliked color) to physically damaging (like a 2x4!). It is not the level of unpleasantness, but rather the effectiveness the unpleasant event has on changing behavior that defines the aversive. Aversive tools apply ‘unpleasant stimuli’.

The above description includes the word ‘punishment’. But that isn't specifically accurate in all dog training applications. I’m not going to launch into an Operant Conditioning discussion (yet). But what we’re really talking about here are aversive tools. Ear pinch, heeling sticks, e-collars, et al. They may punish, correct, or merely compel. But they do so by being used as implements that apply unpleasant stimuli (pressure/force).

I thought this might be a worthy discussion, what with hunting season coming up and all! I don't know about you, but I'm sharpening my dog up for hunting! :)

Evan
 
See less See more
#6 ·
Good questions so far. The balance we seek should be determined by a couple important measurements. First, with the understanding that we use pressure (and therefore aversives) to change behavior. But we need to keep in mind that pressure isn't the first response to misbehavior. But even after we apply pressure to change a behavior we need to be consistent about praise/reward when the dog complies. Read your dog in the moment for his attitude and how he demonstrates an understanding of what you have required of him.
Let's say for instance a dog pops on a blind, this statement tends me to believe that if you use force (collar stimuli) to drive the dog out of the pop that the popping is likely to occur again because you used aversive stimulus?
Thanks for asking. This is the kind of question I was hoping to bring out. Here's why that idea isn't specifically so.
In psychology, aversives are unpleasant stimuli that induce changes in behavior through punishment; by applying an aversive immediately following a behavior, the likelihood of the behavior occurring in the future is reduced. That is mostly true in dog training, but a significant exception is forcing, during which a behavior is made more likely to reoccur through the application of an aversive stimulus.
So, when you de-pop ("Back"/nick - "Back") you are reducing the likelihood of future pops by making going, and continuing to go, more likely through forcing. It's not one dimensional. Again, by forcing the to go you achieve two goals together; to make it less likely that he will pop again because you have enforced the "Go" standard. So, what you've made more likely to happen in the future is that he will go, and not pop.
Or is the timing of the collar burn critical in that if you apply the burn after the dog has turned "back" towards the dead bird that the aversive stimulus would tend to have the dog repeat the turn and positive advancement to the blind in a future setup?
Another good question. If you create that perception in your dog with this correction you have to strongly consider that your conditioning process was incorrect or incomplete. This is why I CC to specific commands in drills that isolate each function.

You're certainly right that timing is important, so you want to correct for popping as closely as you can to the occurrence. If I see his nose come past his ear as he turns to pop, I will try to correct in the midst of the pop. What I won't do is blow a 'sit' whistle and condone the pop - thinking he'll understand that he's been corrected for it. You will just have enforced 'sit', not 'go'. Am I making this clear?

Evan
 
#3 ·
That is mostly true in dog training, but a significant exception is forcing, during which a behavior is made more likely to reoccur through the application of an aversive stimulus.
Let's say for instance a dog pops on a blind, this statement tends me to believe that if you use force (collar stimuli) to drive the dog out of the pop that the popping is likely to occur again because you used aversive stimulus?

Or is the timing of the collar burn critical in that if you apply the burn after the dog has turned "back" towards the dead bird that the aversive stimulus would tend to have the dog repeat the turn and positive advancement to the blind in a future setup?
 
#5 · (Edited)
Aversive "training" or "conditioning" has both benefits and draw backs with the potential for an unintentional outcome or side effect. Positive reinforcement may take more time (repetition) and be less dramatic in results though you are less likely to see a down side to the positive reinforcement especially if it is randomized. From your treat training to teach a new behavior you are using positive reinforcement.

Each dog is different and regrettably too many of us have all our dogs fitting into our rigid program and time line. Please understand that the success rate of the good professionals and amateurs is that are flexible with a clear understanding of getting the basics in the dog before advancing onto the next step. Many clients who are paying the monthly training bills to the pro and many amateurs who trains their own dogs share a common short coming, they are impatient.

Yes, the aversive training is effective and as the original post suggested the level is on a continuum and needs to be so depending on the dog and the handlers understanding of the what dog has been taught and knows. What must always be for most in the trainers mind is what is the downside of the stimulus correction beyond the immediate aberrant behavior being worked on or trained out of the dog. So as Jerry Patopea would say think two steps ahead of your dog.

The aversive training if done judiciously will see have the dog respectful of you and working as a team player.
 
#27 ·
Aversive "training" or "conditioning" has both benefits and draw backs with the potential for an unintentional outcome or side effect. Positive reinforcement may take more time (repetition) and be less dramatic in results though you are less likely to see a down side to the positive reinforcement especially if it is randomized. From your treat training to teach a new behavior you are using positive reinforcement.

Each dog is different and regrettably too many of us have all our dogs fitting into our rigid program and time line. Please understand that the success rate of the good professionals and amateurs is that are flexible with a clear understanding of getting the basics in the dog before advancing onto the next step. Many clients who are paying the monthly training bills to the pro and many amateurs who trains their own dogs share a common short coming, they are impatient.

Yes, the aversive training is effective and as the original post suggested the level is on a continuum and needs to be so depending on the dog and the handlers understanding of the what dog has been taught and knows. What must always be for most in the trainers mind is what is the downside of the stimulus correction beyond the immediate aberrant behavior being worked on or trained out of the dog. So as Jerry Patopea would say think two steps ahead of your dog.

The aversive training if done judiciously will see have the dog respectful of you and working as a team player.
I bolded the section of this post from Ironwood which I think is very important! I use the collar but have trouble understanding how a dog say on a channel mark knows he has done wrong b/c you burned him for getting on land instead of staying in the channel. Some would advocate using IP and some direct pressure if he does not keep the course. I have issues with either until the dog is taught and even then can someone explain how this teaching will work to help the dog understand to keep the course!

This statement from Paul is something to consider as well.

Knowledge is good but worthless without wisdom.

/Paul
JMO
 
#8 ·
Thanks Chad. Like any pursuit, retriever training has its own jargon. Sometimes a newer trainer may assume to understand commonly used terms, but they really don't...at least not yet. More and more, "aversive" shows up in training conversations, and it's good to have a handle on it so you can get more out of the discussion.

Evan
 
#10 ·
Thanks for the insight.

Evan
 
#11 ·
I don’t chime in on many of these discussions but I wanted to expand on the examples of aversive stimuli lest someone object to it’s use.
Yelling “NO” or Ahhh, “Lunging at” or “towering over” a dog, Jerking on a lead, Jerking on a collar, Twisting an ear, Striking the dog, Getting in the dogs face and blowing the whistle (seen this one before) would all be aversive.
I particularly like this statement “It is not the level of unpleasantness, but rather the effectiveness...”. I believe we can all agree that the “best” aversive stimuli you can use, is the one that can be the most effective with the least intensity.
 
#14 ·
ok, so lets say you were to adversive in the water and caused confidence problems. What do you do.
Do you mean forcing and/or correcting in water? Trainers do that often with no ill effects, but that's because the dog was prepared properly for it through conditioning to the particular aversive used. The problems arise either when such conditioning has not happened, or when the aversive was improperly used.

How to repair the damage is individual to each case.

Evan
 
#16 ·
Let's see if we can find the central issue. What training have you done with him so far?

Evan
 
#18 · (Edited)
Obedience. FF, FTP ,TT Discaplined casting on land swim bw (twice) pattern blinds, with diversions, cheating singles.
I thank Ive done it all, but burnt him up on water and havnt been able to get the confidence back in training.
He ran 5-6 coold blinds last year when hunting in a stick pond with no problems. Went to OK and he would go out to deep water and when the cripples would dive under he would also. He fetched one under water.
Awsome hunting dog, He can sleep on the tail gate and when I shot a dove and it falls in the pond he will mark it.
Its just in training when he gets nervous.
Ive quit the collar mostly in the water.
I think the first epasode when i burnt him up caused the problem. Trying to fix it now.

Oh and yes I do train with an experinced group and a member of 2 clubs.
I have my ideas, just looking for more.
Thanks,
Brad
 
#23 ·
True statement.

And I believe that wisdom can be acquired only with time and experience; it cannot be acquired from others.

Knowledge, on the other hand, CAN be acquired from others in many forms.

So does this mean that since we cannot impart WISDOM on others that we should not try to impart KNOWLEDGE? Seems like this would make most all training advice given here, or anywhere else, worthless. :?

JS
 
#20 ·
Thanks Brad. I'd like to help as much as I can. Under the circumstances you would be better served to find a competent pro to coach you through this than to rely on a back & forth here. My email is rushcreekpress@aol.com if you care to get in touch anytime. But try to find a good pro if you can, or an amateur who trains at a high level, and has many years experience.

Evan
 
#22 ·
Brad,

You're ahead of many folks who sadly never seem to take that into consideration. It's all on the dog far too often. You'll be fine.

Evan
 
#29 · (Edited)
In psychology, aversives are unpleasant stimuli that induce changes in behavior through punishment; by applying an aversive immediately following a behavior, the likelihood of the behavior occurring in the future is reduced. That is mostly true in dog training, but a significant exception is forcing, during which a behavior is made more likely to reoccur through the application of an aversive stimulus. Aversives can vary from being slightly unpleasant or irritating (such as a disliked color) to physically damaging (like a 2x4!). It is not the level of unpleasantness, but rather the effectiveness the unpleasant event has on changing behavior that defines the aversive. Aversive tools apply ‘unpleasant stimuli’.

The above description includes the word ‘punishment’. But that isn't specifically accurate in all dog training applications. I’m not going to launch into an Operant Conditioning discussion (yet). But what we’re really talking about here are aversive tools. Ear pinch, heeling sticks, e-collars, et al. They may punish, correct, or merely compel. But they do so by being used as implements that apply unpleasant stimuli (pressure/force).

I thought this might be a worthy discussion, what with hunting season coming up and all! I don't know about you, but I'm sharpening my dog up for hunting! :)

Evan
It's a very worthy discussion Evan, especially when it isn't accurately described in the very first post.

"Forcing" is far from the exception to the rule in terms of negative re-enforcement strategies used in retriever training. We use both punishment and negative re-enforcement every single time we train. Every single time. Even if we're using steak!

Here's what I mean, starting with aversives. When a dog is standing and we command sit, followed by pinch collar pressure, we are punishing the previous behavior (standing) and re-enforcing the new behavior (sitting). If we command here, followed with the e-collar, we are punishing whatever else he was doing (sniffing dog poo) and re-enforcing here. On heel with a pinch collar or a stick we are punishing him being out of position and re-enforcing him being in position.

This is actually true in positive re-enforcement training. If a dog is standing and we command sit, we withhold the reward, creating frustration (a form of punishment), until he sits, relieving the frustration (negative re-enforcement) and earning the reward (positive re-enforcement).

I could go through all of the other examples as well but it isn't necessary. Hopefully people get the idea, supporting my assertion that we are ALWAYS discouraging a behavior and encouraging a behavior. Regardless of the re-enforcement strategy, for behavior to change we have to discourage the previous behavior and encourage the new (desired) one. Logic says so.

The only question then becomes, how strong the aversive treatment happens to be. Even standing there withholding a treat the dog desperately wants is very frustrating and stressful for the dog. It is, in fact punishment. We're teasing him and no one likes to be teased. I have asked a +r trainer, "Did you like it when your brother ran around with your favorite toy saying "nanny nanny poo poo" when you wanted to play with it?" No, you didn't and you probably chased him, then ran to Mommy to try and get the toy. That may or may not have worked but eventually, you found a way to get that toy back, didn't you? Maybe you ignored him and he got bored with your lack of reaction. In the future then, you immediately ignored him and got your toy back more quickly. He's trained you to ignore him when he picks up a toy of yours now, hasn't he? He give a signal (picking up the toy) and you respond appropriately (ignoring him). This example is no different than a dog running through various behaviors trying to get a reward. You're teasing them, they're frustrated and trying to figure our how to relieve that frustration. This is an aversive experience for the dog, whether these trainers want to admit it or not.

I have seen "positive only" trainers stand on a leash many times to keep a dog from moving away. They will tell you this isn't punishment, to which I have replied more than once, "OK then put the collar on and I'll tie you to a post". Same concept as the above, only a bit more aversive to the dog.

We go from there all the way to using a heeling stick! It's all a matter of semantics but there is ALWAYS an aversive of some form used in training, period, end of story. The only question is what level of aversive treatment you're willing to inflict on the dog to get what you want.

Bottom line, training is training. In order to "change" behavior one has to be discouraged and the other encouraged. You ALWAYS use an aversive to effect that change and some form of reward to re-enforce desirable behavior. It's just a matter of degrees.

Defining aversives in terms of what we believe to be socially acceptable causes a lot of misconceptions among the general public and I believe is a terrible idea.

If we want to talk about learning theory then let's talk about it in full.
 
#31 · (Edited)
If we want to talk about learning theory then let's talk about it in full.
I am not a positive extremist, but I am a heck of a lot more positive than I used to be. One of my favorite trainers and a significant mentor to me was a horse trainer named Ray Hunt. Ray was a superb positive trainer of horses. Ray used to say frequently: "I'm here for the horse - to help him get a better deal".

I try to follow that philosophy.

A fairly typical method in operant conditioning is to simply observe the animal and when you see a behavior you want, you mark it with a sound. Then you reward it as quickly as you can. The term used is "capturing" a behavior."

When the trainer "captures" a behavior with a marker and reinforces that behavior with reward, where is the aversive?
 
#36 ·
Anytime you take control away from a dog, or inflict your will as opposed to the dogs will on a dog, that is inversion. Frankly this is why much of young puppy training with clickers and treats work so well as we basically let the dog do whatever he wants and inprint what what want him to do with a reward. Whenever you can make something the dogs idea of what he wants to do you will see success. This principle applies as they get older as well however we can't just let the dog do whatever he wants all the time. Therefore discipline and correction come into play. The key is knowing what to do and have the wisdom to do it properly. That is why these threads get tiresome to some, myself included. I can talk for hours on the principles of training, positive/negative aspects, methods and outcomes and then hand a person a dog on a leash with a heeling stick and they stand there lost. This is why every seminar includes field work with real people and real dogs in real situations. My experience is people learn through action vs lecture best.


/Paul
 
#37 ·
Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out the original question/comment. Are aversives (or whatever you want to call them) useful in training? Or was the question about examples of aversives?
 
#39 ·
It was just a commentary about a common term. Post #34 is a more condensed description.

Yes, aversives a are very useful commonly used.

Evan
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top